Talk:Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals/Archive 1

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'): I'm not sure what combination is the best. A few other ideas 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)
 * 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)
 * 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?

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.


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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?
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 nonmetals metalloids -- 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * ✅ 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)

YBG (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ta, . 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)
 * :) Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 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.

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)


 * 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)


 * 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,  ...#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)
 * 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
 * ✅ - Iron, cobalt, and nickel: Gadolinium & dysprosium are also mentioned, but not at the beginning.
 * ✅ - Boron, antimony: Seems to be primarily about strong acids, these elements are only mentioned in passing toward the end.
 * ✅ - Hydrogen: Begins with element name as a fragment isolated from the first sentence.
 * ✅ - Helium: Begins with element name as a fragment isolated from the first sentence.
 * ✅ - 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)

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: (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 n in place of 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)

Looking at the big picture
Here's a list of things I'd like to see fixed:


 * (below) — Lede pic: Add borders on metalloid cells (a la User talk:YBG )
 * I've left a message for to see if he can do this. YBG (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — Metalloid pic Change it; tellurium looks like a quintessential metal
 * Tricky, given metalloids look like metals. Did you have anything in mind?
 * I didn't have anything in particular in mind. Now that I've looked at them, they all look pretty metallic.  The silicon picture looks least metallic; it looks a bit like non-metallic obsidian to me.  The gallium pic, although it is silvery, seems less metallic because of the crystal structure.  (YBG)
 * Hmm. If they all look pretty metallic then showcasing the least metallic would be dubious; gallium's a metal rather than a metalloid. See list of metalloid lists. Sandbh (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, I suppose my idea was rather trying to overemphasize the between-category differences rather than within-category similiarities.


 * — Comparative properties: Intro paragraph seems a bit too self-referential for my taste.
 * Had a go at this one
 * I've tweaked it a bit, too. What do you think? (YBG)
 * No, that one doesn't work. First para isn't directly related to the section title; second para still too self-referential. I like the version before this one with the intro before the tables and the conclusion and caveat after. I like having some text after the tables. Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) 1st paragraph -- I tried swapping the paragraphs and that didn't seem to work either.
 * (b) self-referential -- yea, but I noticed that after I fiddled with the stuff, the self-referentiality didn't seem to bother me as much
 * (c) conclusion after tables -- IMHO it seems clumsy for the Phys+Chem summary to appear in the Chem section, but it certainly doesn't require a separate section.
 * It would be real nice if we could combine the two tables into one large table with a half-dozen collapsing sections. This would work well if similar properties were grouped together.  I'm looking through MOS:COLLAPSE, and Help:Collapsing and WP:NavFrame to see if I can figure out a nice way to implement this. YBG (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After we've got the groups organized, I'll investigate our options for collapsing. YBG (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the collapsing sub-tables. Can't quite get the column widths to exactly match when the tables are collapsed, but they are pretty close. Now that it is all one big section, that eliminated my objection to having the summary at the end and so I made it so.  Please comment on this and others marked Partly done -- I don't want to mark them as done without some input from others. YBG (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A superb edit, thank you YBG. I changed the chemical property group headings to distributive (meaning "Of, belonging to, or arising from, distribution."), native ("Belonging to, or connected with, a person or thing by nature or natural constitution, in contrast to what is acquired or superadded; esp. of qualities which are inherent or innate in the person or thing.") and combinative (an alloy, strictly speaking isn't a compound; combinative = "Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of combination; cumulative.") Meanings from OED. 'Distributive' is not quite ideal but the best I have for now. The segmented boxes in the metalloid column are clever. They show metalloids are their own show, with a slight nod to the metals, appropriately enough. The accompanying paragraphs work better now. Re the column widths, I presume this has something to do with using percentages rather than fixed widths. Not sure I see any advantage in using percentage column widths. Sandbh (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) — Other ideas for property group names: "Innate" or "Elemental" and "In combination".  Can't come up with an alternative for "Distributive"
 * (2) ✅ — What about labeling the metalloid colorbars with the fractions I've added as comments?
 * (3) — What would you think of changing the headers?  (b) would work particularly well with labeled colorbars
 * (a) Physical(Chemical) properties / of metals / of metalloids / of nonmetals
 * (b) Physical(Chemical) / Properties of metals / Properties of metalloids / Properties of nonmetals
 * (4) ❌ — I've done some experimenting trying to resolve the column widths. It is not related to using percentages in the colorbar tables.
 * (5) ❌ — I think it would be nicer if the whitespace between the sub-tables were narrower YBG (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With slight variations, I've implemented (1) through (3) YBG (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added progress marks to the above items. YBG (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — Comparative properties: Allow the tables to be sorted by the color of the metalloid column
 * This may be less desirable with the groupings YBG (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not appear possible to do this with the collapsing subtables. YBG (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Physical properties: Is the order given the best order?
 * Did you mean the order of the individual rows or the organising principle (easy to harder to determine)?
 * I was thinking of the organizing principle. Ease of determination doesn't help you know where to look for something, and doesn't necessarily group related properties together.  (YBG)
 * Here are what seems to me to be logical groupings (YBG (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC))
 * (3 items) Form; Appearance; Reflectivity
 * (2 items) Conductivity: Electrical conductivity; Liquid electrical conductivity
 * (3 items) Thermal conductivity; Temp coef of resistance; Thermal conductivity;
 * (4 items) Electrons: PT block; Outer s+p electrons; Electronic structure; Electron behaviour
 * (2 items) Deformability: When solid; Poisson's ratio
 * (2 items) Melting behaviour; Enthalpy of fusion
 * (3 items) Density; Packing; Atomic radius; Allotropy
 * Brilliant! Listed in the following order(?): Form; Density; Deformability; Thermal; Melting; Electrical; Electrons. Still listed by loose order of ease of determination of each lede property. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Any chance of combining groups to avoid so many with just 2 or 3 properties? What would be a good header to use for each group? YBG (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Groups could be: Form-density-deformability; and thermal-melting; and electrical-electrons. Let me think about headers. Sandbh (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Descriptive, thermal, electron-related? Sandbh (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, it's done that way ... I think there could be some more tweaks. YBG (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Current version: descriptive, thermal, electric works for me. Sandbh (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Chemical properties: Is the order given the best order?
 * Here are what seems to me to be logical groupings (YBG (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC))
 * General behaviour; Ion formation; Bonds; Oxidation No; Ionization energy; Electronegativity
 * Occurrence: In general; In human body
 * Chemical compounds: With metals; Carbon compounds; Hydrides; Oxides; Sulfates; Halides
 * That's good too. Since you have to find stuff before you can assess behaviour, I'd go occurrence, general behaviour, compounds. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any comments on the format I've implemented? YBG (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about something along these lines this morning, and wondering what colour to use for shading. Also whether to left align or centre the headers. Looks good in other words. Sandbh (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, for mine. Sandbh (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Unique or notable properties: Wordsmithing (a la above)


 * ✅ — Unique or notable properties: What order should the bullets appear in?
 * Atomic number, I reckon
 * Sounds OK, but the items with multiple elements could prove tricky. (YBG)
 * All are in atomic number order. Bullets with multiple elements are based on the atomic number of the first listed element. YBG (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — End matter: What navbox(es) should be included?

I've marked some of these ; if you disagree, change back to. YBG (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a few comments above YBG (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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)


 * A weak case could be made for our collapsing tables being in compliance with MOS:COLLAPSE based on "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text" -- in so far as the metalloid colorbars consolidate information. But it is a bit of a reach and probably wouldn't hold up any serious opposition.  What about having the tables uncollapsed by default?  Does that make any difference?
 * In the end, no matter the MOS:COLLAPSE verdict, the inability to make the column widths match inclines me to give up on collapsing tables. I agree that we should keep the subgroupings in order to make the information more digestible.  But I disagree with you about the analytical paragraphs; I think they still provide value, and I like them at the end -- provided we don't redivide it into Physical and Chemical subsections. YBG (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made several edits in relatively quick succession:
 * 1 (diff) default tables to uncollapsed
 * 2 (diff) two tables without any collapsing
 * 3 (diff) one big table
 * I'm really disappointed to see the collapsing tables gone, it was a really nice way of providing an overview. Sigh. YBG (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is quite good (your work, not the final outcome, necessarily). Let me think about this for a little while. Sandbh (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a new mini-table at the top that includes the metalloid colorbars for all of the groups of properties and wikilinks to each group in the main table, which now has "(top)" links so you can get back to the mini-table. I also moved the two summary paragraphs up to the top where they provide a nice narative that corresponds to the colorbars displayed in the mini-table and also fills up what would otherwise be a big blob of whitespace.  The first paragraph still needs some copyediting and I'm pondering whether to add a caption to the right of mini-table advising the reader to use the wikilinks to navigate into the mini-table. YBG (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I pulled out my copy of Tufte's The visual display of quantitative information from storage and will have a look for more ideas. We may stifled by the limitations of wiki pipe code etc, but worth a look. My time is a bit limited as I'm also helping R8R Gtrs getting astatine FAC ready, so I could be a while-ish. Sandbh (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See here for an extract of Tufte. I like the supertable at p. 179. The only one in the book but. Note minimal use of vertical rules. 7±2 rule observed within groupings of results. Sub headings not uses when row subject matter obvious. Hanging paragraph format used when a descriptive measure takes up more than one line. No duplication of heading titles. Our table is a little more complicated since we have two levels of sub-headings---physical v chemical, and subheadings within those two, rather than no more than one sub-heading in Tufte's table. Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Another read thru
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:
 * Lede section
 * ✅ - Sentence #1 says "according to their shared properties" but section 1 titled "Common properties"; maybe they should be parallel?
 * I'll change it to 'shared', since the 'some' properties described in each category of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals are not common (as in typical) within that category but they certainly are shared by the 'some' elements. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. YBG (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Sentence #2 "as is" seems a bit obtuse in "lustrous appearance (as is, or beneath any surface patina)"
 * I changed this into something plainer. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Pic still needs to have the outline added
 * Restored this item -- I think S&BH deleted it by mistake YBG (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Common properties - Metals
 * ✅ - "as is" -- same comment as above
 * Hmm. I think this one is OK so as to avoid duplicating the same sentence in the lede. A bit of variety in wording is a good thing, as I see it. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed this to "appear lustrous (beneath any patina)". Not 100% sure this is best, so leaving it Partly done. YBG (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't think of anything better, so I'm changing it to done YBG (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Common properties - Nonmetals
 * ✅ - paragraph #3 (Some nonmetals ...) seems clumsy, esp. allotropy part.
 * Here's what it says now (YBG (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)):
 * Some nonmetals (C, black P, S and I) are brittle solids at room temperature however these are also known in malleable, pliable or ductile forms; some other nonmetals are either highly reactive (O, F, white P, Cl) or relatively unreactive (N, black P) or noble.
 * This is an outcome of the structure of that section into features shared by all, most or some nonmetals. The mention of non-brittle allotropes is to address the text-book error that metals are the only ductile/malleable elements. Sandbh (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to say anything about reactivity? What else is there besides "highly reactive", "relatively unreactive" and "noble"?  Doesn't that pretty much cover almost everything?  Well, I suppose there is "relatively reactive".  So are we just saying that almost all non-metals are something besides "relatively reactive"?  Or maybe I'm missing something.
 * I propose that we skip the information about reactivity and just say this:
 * Some nonmetals (C, black P, S and I) are brittle solids at room temperature (although each of these also have malleable, pliable or ductile allotropes).
 * YBG (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Implemented the idea above; changing to Partly done to give others a chance to BRD. YBG (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In view of the deafening silence, I'm changing this to done. YBG (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Comparison
 * ✅ - Some rewording of the distribution (geobiochemistry) section might better justify its placement in the chemistry section


 * Anomalies - Metals
 * - Iron &c. -- Is the first sentence accurate, i.e., are there no other elements strongly attracted to magnets?
 * That is the case as I understand it. The iron metals are so common in modern society that there is a perception that (nearly all) metals are magnetic. I'll be adding citations to items such as this. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I just wanted to check since before I listed all elements at the beginning, the exclusive claim had only applied to the STP list.YBG (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(Original list) YBG (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another read through
(spelled correctly this time)

Another reading yielded a bunch of minor changes and the following items to think about:

Top



 * — Lede pic: Add borders on metalloid cells (a la User talk:YBG ) YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of properties



 * — Comparison § lede: One sentence has citation needed. YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Comparison - mini table: Change top row label 'Total properties' to 'Properties compared' or 'Metalloid properties'? YBG (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided to change it to 'Properties compared:', which is nicely ambiguous, referring not only to the number (36) immediately to the right, but also to the row labels below (Physical ... Chemical ...). At the same time, I changed the column labels to  (a) Metalloids resemble metals, (b) Metalloids relatively distinctive, and (c) Metalloids resemble nonmetals. (They had previously been (a) Resemble metals, (b) Distinctively metalloidal, and (c) Resemble nonmetals). Leaving this 'Partly done' for the present; I'll change ti to 'done' in a few days unless I have second thoughts or someone objects. YBG (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the headers to (a) Resemble metals (b) Relatively distinctive (c) Resemble nonmetals. YBG (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Comparison - mini table - abbr: The mini-table uses abbr to provide some numbers with tooltips showing (a) the properties included in a group and (b) the properties where metalloids are like metals or nonmetals. This usage conflicts with the following, quoted here from template:abbr/doc:
 * Ought to delete the abbr, but should this information be shown some other way in the minitable? YBG (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I read WP:ACCESS and am not quite sure what the accessibility problems for using abbr to mark up material other than abbreviations or acronyms. While "2" is certainly not an acronym or abbreviation, it isn't too much of a stretch to think of it as an abbreviated form of the list "Form, Colour" which is the intent behind using 2, which is rendered 2. For me, the tooltips provide an easy way of scanning the minitable and seeing (a) which properties are included in each group and (b) quickly seeing which metalloid properties are are not distinctive but rather resemble metals or nonmetals. I may ask a blind friend or two to have a look at the article and tell me what they think. YBG (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two things to consider here (a) how much benefit does this hovertext provide?, and (b) how much of an accessibility issue is this?
 * re (a), I'm inclined to think the benefit is relatively low, especially since hyperlinks allow you to go back and forth between the mini-table and the main table.
 * re (b), We've got much bigger accessibility issues here -- this section uses color extensively in a way that screen readers would not render, and besides, I think the mini-table as a whole would be relatively incomprehensible to anyone using a screen reader. And besides, the information provided in the hovertext (the property lists) is relatively low benefit.
 * So, all in all, I don't think it is all that much of an issue one way or the other. All else being equal, I'd be inclined to follow the explicit hovertext guideline. and delete it. YBG (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, all in all, I don't think it is all that much of an issue one way or the other. All else being equal, I'd be inclined to follow the explicit hovertext guideline. and delete it. YBG (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Comparison table: (see below) YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✔️ — Physical - Packing: How should nonmetals be described? Relatively open? Very open? Something else? YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Physical - Allotropy: Need to think on this again, not sure the antecedent of 'a few' and 'some' is clear. YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe change the 2nd bullet as follows:
 * Currently: a few (e.g. ...) are more X than others
 * Option 1: a few (e.g. ...) are more X than other forms
 * Option 2: a few allotropes (e.g. ...) are more X than others
 * Option 3: a few allotropes (e.g. ...) are more X than other forms
 * YBG (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the current and the above options, the 'a few' (or 'some') refers to 'a few of these allotropes' (or 'some of these allotropes', and (I presume) the comparison 'more X than' is comparing the oddball allotropes to their brother allotropes, e.g., grey tin is more metalloidal than white tin.
 * So, here are some more ideas
 * Option 4: a few allotropes are abnormally X (e.g. ...)
 * Option 5: a few have abnormally X forms (e.g. ...)
 * YBG (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just modified it to
 * Option 6: a few have abnormally X forms, e.g., ...
 * I like this because the subject of both bullets are the elements, not the allotropes (around half (of the metals) form allotropes; a few (of the metals) have abnormally X forms). There's more room for improvement: (a) maybe change 'abnormally' to 'unusually' or another synonym; (b) maybe change 'forms' to 'allotropes'. YBG (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm remembering why we didn't have the elements as the subject of the 2nd bullet: With 'forms' plural, it implies that multiple abnormal allotropes per element; with 'form' singular, it implies only one abnormal allotrope per element. But 'one or more abnormally X forms' is wordy and clumsy. Sigh. However, I think that even though Option 6 isn't exactly right grammatically when some have only one abnormal form, I still think it works and is better than the alternatives. But I'm still thinking. YBG (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Option 7: OK, I've tweaked it again:
 * Metals: * around half form allotropes * a few have atypically metalloidal/nonmetallic forms, e.g. Sn(grey), Bi(thin-film)
 * Metalloids: * all or nearly all form allotropes * some have atypically nonmetallic forms, e.g. B(red), As(yellow)
 * Nonmetals: * over half form allotropes * some have atypically metalloidal/metallic forms, e.g. C(graphite), P(black), Se(grey), I(crystalline)
 * Changes: (a) abnormally→atypically; (b) or→/; (c) allotrope+Symbol → Symbol(allotrope) (graphite now parallel). YBG (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm satisfied with this now. YBG (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Physical - order: I think it would read smoother if electronics were reordered (PT block, Outer s&p, bands, behaviour, conductivity, liquid) and thermodynamics came afterwards. YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion copied to next section YBG (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Chemical - order: I think it would read smoother if the groups were elemental → combined-form → environmental; this smaller-to-larger order seems to overcome the idea that 'you have to find it before you describe it' previously mentioned. YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done. YBG (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Chemical - Electronegativity: Can the metalloid description be shorter by combining Allen and Pauling scales? YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Chemical - Combined form: Can some of the overly-long descriptions be shortened, esp., metalic halides? YBG (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Chemical - Halides: should metalloids be colored like nonmetals? The differences seem small. YBG (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anomalous properties



 * — General - refs: Many of these anomalies are not referenced. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to be addressed, eventually. 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — General - bullets • : (Hg,Si,He,C) A couple alternatives were tried unsuccessfully; I still think we can do better. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Latest version with no bullets is hopefully better. 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying separate bullets on separate lines, different from what was tried before. Comments? YBG (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous idea, tried on C, was like this, but with the 2nd and 3rd point indented. Another idea would be to indent the 2nd and 3rd, but have them begin in a way that refers to the point above -- e.g., in this case 'In its diamond form, Carbon ...'; in other cases, the wording might be more like 'It is also ...' or the like. YBG (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As per my previous comment. Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, it is very nice. I'm thinking of seeing what the header lines look like with a ';' prefix instead of explicit bolding. YBG (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried semicolons and didn't like what I saw -- it increased the space between the header and the detail. The current form using explicit bolding and &lt;br&gt; makes for more space between items and less between the header and the body. I can't think of any improvements YBG (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just tried yet another tweak. YBG (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — General: Some points seem more about compounds rather than elements. Do we want to include these? YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The properties of the elements are as much about their physical properties as it is about their chemical properties e.g. the general rule that metals have basic oxides and nonmetals have acidic oxides. Sandbh (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Na/Pt/Au: The blurb mentions other alkali metals and Ba also. Should these be listed included in the header? YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sandbh (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Mn: In order to understand how remarkable 58 is, it would help to know how many atoms are normally in a unit cell. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe this has been addressed. Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — Au: Likewise (but less so), it might help to know equivalent numbers for more normal malleable metals. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Pb: More details? Is the lead thin? YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Describing it as lead foil seems more than adequate. YBG (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — U: Should the quote be italicized? In quote marks? Is it a direct quotation? YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Direct quotation. Not sure what WP:MOS says. I though it was such a potentially tipping point in world history kind of quote that it warranted italics. But I'll go with MOS. Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, it should be in quote marks with no italics. I've done some copyediting. Much as the history provides interesting background, I'm not sure it is really adding that much to the anomalies of uranium. YBG (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Italics have been replaced by quote marks, per WP:MOS. Nevertheless, per WP:MOS, portions of the quotation can be emphasized with italics provided (emphasis added) is appended after the close quote. Incidentally, I think the quotation and other background material work better now that it is in a note. It keeps the body text emphasizing the anomalies of U. YBG (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When my question over at the village pump gets answered, I'll try adding some emphasis to the quotation. YBG (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My question, subsequently archived at, generated some discussion, but I never received a definite answer to the question I was asking. I went ahead and used the format I thought best. YBG (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Pu: I changed 'otherwise metals' to 'all other metals'; can someone verify that I haven't exagerated things? YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't. Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — B/Sb: Should compare &  to sulfuric acid to help understand how big the 2004 discovery was. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) done YBG (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — B/Sb: Do we add a date for the Sb-based acid? If not, maybe remove the date for the B-based one. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The date isn't important -- it was discovered beforehand. It doesn't compete with the others because it is a mixture. YBG (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — Si/Sb: I don't think this article needs the details of how the explosive allotropes are prepared. YBG (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This detail gives context to the composition of explosive Sb. Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think it rather more detail than is necessary, but now that the explosive Si and explosive Sb are separated, the paragraphs are a more manageable size. YBG (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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
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) 


 * ✅ — Lede pic: Add borders on metalloid cells (a la User talk:YBG ) YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now marked as done; the revised pic with the borders on the metalloids is now showing. YBG (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — Comparison § lede: One sentence has citation needed. YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * to be done → half done / closed: Close from this list; adequate "to-do" list in the article's cn's
 * — Comparison table: (see below) YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * to be done → half done / closed: Close from this list; adequate "to-do" list below in
 * ✅ — Comparison table - Crystal structure: Resolve discrepancies between the infoboxes and the comparison table.
 * ✅ — Comparison table - Crystal structure: Resolve discrepancies between the infoboxes and the comparison table.
 * ✅ — Comparison table - Crystal structure: Resolve discrepancies between the infoboxes and the comparison table.


 * Right then. The info boxes seem to use customised crystal structure names so that's part of the problem. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first list (Be; Zn, Cd; In; U, Np) interchanges commas and semicolons for no apparent reason and it is ambiguous what is implied by the list.
 * Fixed
 * Be/Zn/Cd hcp in template, ambiguous in table
 * Fixed
 * Ir tetragonal in template, ambiguous in table
 * Presume you were referring to In. Fixed
 * U/Np orthorhombic in template, ambiguous in table
 * Fixed
 * Sm rhombohedral in template, not trigonal in table
 * Changed to rhombohedral
 * As/Sb trigonal in template, rhombohedral in table
 * Template is wrong; uses inconsistent name
 * Si/Ge diamond cubic in template, cubic in table
 * Template appears to use a customised name
 * P simple triclinic in template, orthorhombic in table
 * Template is wrong; incorrectly lists low temperature form rather than room temp form
 * F base centered cubic in template, cubic in table
 * Template is misleading as it lists below freezing point form rather than freezing point form
 * YBG (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Allotropy: For metals I've used "i.e." rather than "e.g." since, as far as I know, Sn and Bi are the only metals capable of forming predominately less than metallic allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Allotropy: For metals I've used "i.e." rather than "e.g." since, as far as I know, Sn and Bi are the only metals capable of forming predominately less than metallic allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in seeing some of my thoughts that lead me to the version you reverted, read the stuff hidden in the previous section. I'm still not 100% content with the ambiguity ('some' here means 'some of these allotropes', whereas everywhere else in this table when we say 'some' we mean 'some of these elements', i.e., 'some metals/metalloids/nonmetals'.  But I for the present I'm content with the reversion.
 * Regarding ie under metals, I think the added information that Sn and Bi are the only metals with less-than-fully-metallic allotropes is an important detail that merits more than just the ie/eg distinction -- maybe an addition to the note. YBG (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many apologies for my continual backing-and-forthing on this. I still am not 100% satisfied (e.g., the adverb 'uniquely' doesn't communicate very well in this context), but overall I think what we've landed on is fine. I think I'm ready to throw in the towel on this one for now. YBG (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ACK! So I changed 'uniquely' to 'one' and rephrased it a bit. 06:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Partly done' → 'Done'. YBG (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Physical - order: I think it would read smoother if electronics were reordered (PT block, Outer s&p, bands, behaviour, conductivity, liquid) and thermodynamics came afterwards. YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Physical - order: I think it would read smoother if electronics were reordered (PT block, Outer s&p, bands, behaviour, conductivity, liquid) and thermodynamics came afterwards. YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At the moment, electronic properties are more or less ordered in terms of ease of determination. And thermal comes before electronic, since the propensity of metals to conduct heat is more obvious than their propensity to conduct electricity. Presentation and structure takes a similar approach, more or less listing properties in order of ease of determination. I'm fine with a better rationale for ordering properties as long as it is applied consistently. Did you have an alternative rationale in mind? Sandbh (talk) originally 01:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not thinking of a general ordering principle. What got me thinking was looking at behavior and seeing that it mentioned both electrical and thermal conductivity.  This lead me to think of having behaviour-conductivity-liquid at the end of electronics, to be immediately followed by thermodynamics, which begins with thermal conductivity.  Then I looked at the rest of electronics, and it seemed that the order given (Block-Outer-Bands) seemed good, following a general-to-specific ordering. Also, I just now notice that the general-to-specific ordering here and the smaller-to-larger one in the chemical properties (elemental→combined→environmental) that I just implemented seem to work together well; both are generally consistent with a cause-then-effect ordering. But I made my suggestion for physical properties based only on what seems smoothest locally without looking at the global picture that includes all three sections of physical properties. Incidentally, I don't think it would be good to use cause-then-effect to reorder all of the physical properties.  No matter what ordering principal is used, I think it best to make sure that the entire comparison table start with properties like color that are immediately observable by the layman without instruments. YBG (talk) originally 07:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've thought this through and can give a reasonable narrative for the order as a whole.
 * Physical properties are arranged to start with the more general visible characteristics such as form and structure and procede to the more specific measureable characteristics.
 * We start with the most obvious (form, allotropy) and most visible (colour, reflectivity). Note that I have put allotropy near the top; after all, who would confuse diamonds, graphite and anthrocite? We then continue from macroscopic generalities (density, deformability, Poisson's ratio) to the microscopic specifics (crystal structure, packing, atomic radius).
 * Having arrived at the microscopic level, we describe the general causes related to PT structure (block, s/p, bands) and then procede to the more specific electronic effects (behaviour, electrical conductivity, as liquid) and thermodynamic effects (thermal conductivity, resistance, melting, enthalpy), following a general-to-specific and cause-to-effect within each group.
 * Chemical properties naturally follow physical since they are more specific in that they describe function (what elements do) as opposed to form (what they are and how they appear). Within chemical, we proceed from the general/microscopic/cause to the specific/macroscopic/effect, thus, elemental chemistry determines combined form chemistry which in turn determines environmental chemistry.
 * Within elemental chemistry, we again proceed from generalities and causes (overall behavior, ion formation) to more and more specific effects (bonds, oxidation number, ionization energy, electronegativity)
 * Within combined form chemistry, we proceed from left-to-right in the periodic table (with metals, with carbon, hydrides, oxides, sulfates, halides), which could be argued as starting with the more general in that there are more metals than everything else combined.
 * Within environmental chemistry, we again proceed from the more general macroscopic (composition of, form on earth) to the more specific (mammals, humans)
 * All in all, I think this proposed order is not only esthetically pleasing but also thematically consistent. The overall ordering principal is general-to-specific, which usually corresponds to cause-then-effect. At some points, general-to-specific is the same as macroscopic-to-microscopic, but at other points, it is microscopic-to-macroscopic. But overall, general-to-specific is the driver. YBG (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and make it so. Sandbh (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is so. Sit back and enjoy. YBG (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Chemical - Electronegativity: Can the metalloid description be shorter by combining Allen and Pauling scales? YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is OK as is, I reckon. Pauling's is important, as the originator of the concept of electronegativity. The Mann citation is valuable on account of its precision. Sandbh (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * partly done → done YBG (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Chemical - Combined form: Can some of the overly-long descriptions be shortened, esp., metalic halides? YBG (talk) originally 06:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * not sure → partly done: I have compressed the metalic hydride description by omitting some of the details of group 1 & 2 hydrides, and metalic halides by moving some of the detail into a note. Seems about as brief as possible, leaving partly done for a few days in hopes of input from others. 05:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * partly done → done YBG (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ — Chemical - Halides: should metalloids be colored like nonmetals? The differences seem small. YBG (talk) originally 04:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1st & 3rd bullets are identical: "covalent, volatile" and "usually dissolve in organic solvents"
 * 2nd bullet says of metalloids "some partly reversibly hydrolysed", but of nonmetals "most irreversibly hydrolysed by water"
 * As I said above, the difference seems small. Should the colors be the same or different? YBG (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you weigh in on this? Do you think the difference is enough to justify retaining the difference in colors or sufficiently minimal that we could color the metalloids like nonmetals? YBG (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I've edited the dot point re hydrolysis to make the distinction much clearer. I'll need to adjust the citations, which I'll do after I finish double checking the citations for the physical properties, as well as the wording to capture some more nuances, but in terms of wording it's fine it'll do for now; feel free to fine tune. Sandbh (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure → Rejected. I'd still like to do some more editing to make the dot points more balanced. YBG (talk)
 * LOL! Sandbh (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried rewording it so that there are multiple parallel short bullets (each 1 line on my monitor) followed by a longish bullet with the exceptions. It was all very tentative -- I'm fairly sure I didn't capture all the nuances correctly -- so I added it immediately after the existing one for comparison and then immediately reverted it. You can see it here. YBG (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure → Rejected. I'd still like to do some more editing to make the dot points more balanced. YBG (talk)
 * LOL! Sandbh (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I tried rewording it so that there are multiple parallel short bullets (each 1 line on my monitor) followed by a longish bullet with the exceptions. It was all very tentative -- I'm fairly sure I didn't capture all the nuances correctly -- so I added it immediately after the existing one for comparison and then immediately reverted it. You can see it here. YBG (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)




 * — General - refs: Many of these anomalies are not referenced. YBG (talk) originally 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to be addressed, eventually. originally 05:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added cn to the 16 bullets without end-of-paragraph refs. 14 have no refs at all, but two, the very first (Na/K/Rb/Cs/Ba/Pt/Au) and the very last (iodine), have refs earlier in the paragraph. This could be rectified by moving the ref to the end of the paragraph – if the source supports this.
 * In the remaining 11 bullets with end-of-paragraph refs, I assume the ref(s) cover all mentioned facts; most have multiple refs within the bullet, or are relatively short or single-focused, so this seems a reasonable assumption, but without checking the sources, I can't actually verify this.
 * YBG (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * to be done → half done / closed: Close from this list; adequate "to-do" list in the article's cn's
 * ✅ — Anomalies - pics: Add mini-PT's to illustrate each anomaly. If it's too much, let's discuss and consider reverting the change and moving this from done to rejected. YBG (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Au: Equivalent numbers for more normal malleable metals would help show how remarkable gold is. YBG (talk) originally 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * not sure → partly done: Added thickness of alfoil by copying from aluminum foil; unfortunately, I couldn't find a reference for the thickness. Leaving partly done in hopes of finding a reference. YBG (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * partly done → done. cn included above in "General - refs" YBG (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * not sure → partly done: Added thickness of alfoil by copying from aluminum foil; unfortunately, I couldn't find a reference for the thickness. Leaving partly done in hopes of finding a reference. YBG (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * partly done → done. cn included above in "General - refs" YBG (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)