User:R8R/Response to Sandbh's 2017 recategorization proposal

The current scheme
The current scheme is based mostly on well-defined terms like "alkali metal" and "transition metal." This scheme is only weak with groups 13--17. The current scheme tries to use this region of the PT to distinguish metals from nonmetals, and since we have nonmetals, why not break into two. Can this be improved and should it be?

Why do we even need to improve it?
First of all, it remains unclear why we use allotropy for the divide between nonmetals. We don't do this elsewhere (fcc metals?). Second, this categorization doesn't seem so good because we don't have an article for diatomic nonmetals, suggesting the term itself isn't all too notable. We have an article for the platinum group metals; if we used this in our system, I would perhaps ask, "Why?" as well, but at least the term would be notable enough. Third, there was a third but I forgot it. To follow

The suggested scheme
The suggested scheme proposes the following changes: we rename our lime category "corrosive nonmetals" and exclude hydrogen and nitrogen from it to add them to the green category, which we rename "intermediate nonmetals," and we rename metalloids to something that says both "metalloid" and "weak nonmetal."

I will describe and discuss the suggested advantages of this scheme over the current one, then describe the disadvantages brought up before me and perhaps fit my own advantageous and disadvantageous comments.

Individual points
The following content is based on the main discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements. As I am writing this down trying to thoroughly describe my reasoning, I find myself more and more skeptical. That wasn't my original attitude, but perhaps a closer look changes this? Let's see when I am done.

The current plan is that I keep reading the discussion, continue to make notes, and then compile this into one discussion, which is going to be less critical than the text currently below.

Names
The old scheme was "metalloid--polyatomic nonmetals--diatomic nonmetals." The new one is "weak nonmetal (metalloid)--intermediate nonmetal--corrosive nonmetal."

Names are a very big deal. The first thing the reader sees is the names. Then they may think of some patterns of why this set is called this and that set is called that, but names is what they begin with.

Is the suggested scheme an improvement? Well, overcoming allotropy is good by any definition. "Corrosive nonmetals" is quite self-descriptive, even more so than the common terms like "transition metals" (what kind of transition are we even talking about?), which is very good.

However, "intermediate nonmetals" is very weak. If I recall correctly, the main problem why we wanted to get rid of the original "metalloid--other nonmetal--halogen" scheme was because the word "other" relies on other categories (other than what?). We're coming back to the same problem (intermediate between what and what?). This is not good.

(That said, I never liked the current scheme, either.)

I will discuss the name "weak nonmetal (metalloid)" separately.

0
"I had to apply some violence and abstraction of detail to the alternative scheme in order to keep it simple" -- let's keep this in mind

The reactive metal--not-so-reactive metal--not-so-reactive nonmetal--reactive nonmetal pattern
"Overall, I find the combination of:


 * symmetry (as in the four complimentary metal-nonmetal categories)† and asymmetry (many metals/few nonmetals);
 * the natural fit of the intermediate nonmetals between the weak nonmetals and the corrosive nonmetals;
 * the thread that links the nonmetals in this category (i.e. the intermediate nonmetals); and
 * the balanced 5-6-6-6 distribution of the nonmetals across their four categories

to be especially pleasing."

I will perhaps refer to this later as well, but here's a very very very important note. I generally understand that personal motivation, there is merit in it, and if Sandbh was to write a book suggesting this scheme, I would consider it a decent idea. However, we are (for the purposes of our discussion) Wikipedia, and the standards for here differ from standards for a book.

First of all, and this perhaps is the second main disadvantage of the suggested scheme, is that it is not represented in sources as is. Having said that, I'll note we will perhaps have this problem with any suggested scheme. There are attempts to minimize problems: the current scheme relies on easily verifiable properties (that are, however, rarely, if ever, are used as the main classification principle). The suggested scheme tries to catch the general idea of a metallicity--non-metallicity transition, which is poorly, if ever, realized in a precise form as we are trying to do.

Second but closely related, this (in part) was what helped me develop the comparison to an authored book: "Overall, I find the combination [...] to be especially pleasing." This is one man's opinion, one that I don't particularly share (perhaps I wouldn't even list my arguments if this scheme was extremely well-documented as suggested in literature, like "alkali metals," but it is not, and I will). First of all, four categories. It is not clear why we would have a parallel in first place: there are seventy or so metals, while there are hardly twenty nonmetals. Why would there be such parallel? But let's say that's fine and good. Consider that there is a transition series and subseries among metals (which takes two of these four categories), while all nonmetals are main-group elements. The split of most TMs and "noble metals" is somewhat questionable, so much that we don't even a separate category for these noble metals. How much is this analogy worth?

Third, "the natural fit of the intermediate nonmetals between the weak nonmetals and the corrosive nonmetals" is best described by the very meaning of the word "intermediate." I wouldn't bring this up, however, if there was an indeed unquestionable divide into corrosive nonmetals, metalloids, and those in-between elements, but let me remind you that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder; so much that we now group nitrogen with these corrosive nonmetals and we decided that was fine and good just a couple of years ago.

Fourth, "the thread that links the nonmetals in this category" does not have a counterpart among metals, and this makes me consider it a negative, rather than a positive, idea. (See again the talk re names that don't have value of their own and only rely on other names.)

Fifth, "the balanced 5-6-6-6 distribution of the nonmetals across their four categories" is okay, but it's a personal thing. Again, we have transition metals occupying almost a half of those metal cells.

YBG's criteria
"YBG suggested that any new categorisation scheme should be clear [...], unambiguous [...], and meaningful." I hold the opinion that "intermediate" is not very clear since the term "intermediate nonmetals" relies on other categories; without them, the term means nothing.

Changing name from "metalloids" into "weak nonmetals"
"This is a surprise, and I'm not yet convinced." This is what the section begins with and that was exactly my original thinking. I was looking for Sandbh's reply to see his main point and I found I disagree with it. "The name piques curiosity" -- this is where I will (again) point at the fact that we are an encyclopedia. I could see this in an authored book, but in encyclopedia, I want something as small as categorization to be clear rather than interesting. This is not a bad idea in general, it's just not right here.

Descriptive terms
"It's good thing to have simpler descriptive category names, is it not?" -- it is; I agree! (And then we have "intermediate nonmetals"?)

Other than that, I was unable to make any conclusions from the section even though it's probably easy.

Prerequisites
I didn't follow the original question or at least its relevance to the overall discussion; even though the reply seemed reasonable, I couldn't match the question and the answer (and then I pretend to analyze something!)

Polyatomic and diatomic
Fewer prerequisites are good. "Polyatomic, diatomic, and corrosive nonmetals" are all good in this respect.

Here's one point I've already extracted: "If you happen to have a wikipedia table in front of you with the proposed new colour categories you will at least be able to appreciate straight away the relevance of the intermediate label (just like the transition metals are transitional)." And if you don't? An example would be the silicon article, which would have been labeled "intermediate nonmetal" right in the beginning, in its infobox, but the other names will only wait in the end of the article in a collapsed infobox.

Overall, again, I like "corrosive nonmetals," but not at the expense of having to have "intermediate nonmetals" as well.

Grouping criteria
This section well improves the reasoning at having to have a complex name for those weak nonmetals.

I, however, googled "germanium metal nonmetal or metalloid." All links Google had for me told me germanium was a metalloid, and not a metal or a nonmetal. Well, except for one:, which begins with the phrase "Germanium is a rare, silver-colored semiconductor metal that is used in infrared technology, fiber optic cables, and solar cells." (However, it, too, acknowledges germanium is a metalloid.) I am feeling uneasy about calling germanium a nonmetal given this. In my schoolbooks, which had no "metalloids," germanium was counted among metals. Also, back in school, I was told the main character defining non-metallicity was the ability to form simple anions, which germanium is very weak at. Our germanide article says those of s-block metals are attacked by water.

Generally, the reason of how "metalloid" sounds more like "metal" than "nonmetal" is clear but I offer this idea for consideration (I don't feel I can insist, but I am actually considering it at the moment): many people will also think this is not quite the metal (I also think there must be a good reason for not calling these metalloids metals so they're not too similar) and we can't come up with a word not related to the word "metal" because even the word "nonmetal" is mostly "metal." Probably, however, this is not the impression you get on your first look, and you may link "metals" and "metalloids"... I don't know. Not very comfortable with calling germanium a nonmetal, though.

Not-misguiding words
I generally agree: neologisms are not very good.

Polyatomic and diatomic screams?
("The division was based on a structural distinction, unlike any of the other categories." Ooo, ooo! I raised that one!)

Re no screams: because how would you imagine a scream on an issue like this? A scream arises when you actively disagree with something, and it's hard to actively disagree with a common technically correct term. This didn't get much response not because this was so good (note we didn't get praise, either); it didn't because it was meh. Correct. Well, Wiki may have it their way, I guess. Why would I bother. Besides, we've completed most discussion in our Wiki space, where reader don't usually come.

Consider you're not familiar with Wiki. Where do you complain? How? The talk page? Of which article? Will anyone care? Do you even care that much given that the term is technically correct?

(Much of what I could say in response here is said here is already pointed out elsewhere.)

"I agree there is some overlap between the categories. For example, the line between carbon and, say, boron and silicon; and a little bit between iodine and, say, selenium or tellurium; or between selenium and, say, arsenic and antimony, or tellurium." -- let's note this phrase; perhaps this will come up later

I also think the Japanese could use a DePiep of their own ゜+.(. ´>艸<)*.☆

"metalloids" as "nonmetals"
The section goes well but ends with a strange thought.

"Germanium is sometimes classified as a metal and sometimes as a nonmetal; the same goes for antimony and polonium." and then "In summary, the proposed term 'weak nonmetal (metalloid)' captures the complexity of the situation with a high degree of consensus—much higher than we have now with 'metalloid'". Perhaps I got too used to the term "metalloid" or maybe it's natural, but I think of it not as "metal-like," but as of "the elements between metals and nonmetals, equally distant or close to both."

By the way, even if we assume metalloids are weak nonmetals, we don't write "alkali metals (strong metals)". This is redundancy.

meaning of "metalloid"
I will not refer to Mendeleev nor the discoverer, since we now know more. Right now, I don't have a chemistry book near me and the conversation about Ge's properties will have to wait until compilation of notes

Generally, I understand the reasoning but I will insist that here, in Wiki, we shouldn't do this. It is the spirit and core idea of Wikipedia to do what the most sources do (unless other sources clearly show the majority is wrong, which couldn't possibly be the case with abstract classification). By the way, that is exactly what we agreed to do with group 3, whatever IUPAC decides, to which I agreed because this is reasonable, even though I'm not a big fan of having a German Wiki-like table. We should do the same here for the exact same reason and stick tob" metalloid"

DS summarizes this well by saying, "But the main point is that "metalloids" is way more common in the literature than "weak nonmetals". " One core policy of Wikipedia is WP:V; in Wiki, we should stick to it.

I again note much of my criticism wouldn't even come up if we were writing a book of our own. But we're not, and it did.

interconnectedness + next one
Reasoning is a little inconsistent: if we follow tge sources in that nonmetals are plainly not metals because that's what we should do, then we should follow sources in not marking metalloids as weak nonmetals.

(reminds me about how I should check my consistency as well. TBD when compiling arguments)

Btw, speaking of recognizability. This os not what people expect. Also, I believe it won't catch up for this reason elsewhere outside Wikipedia.

Also, we have Te marked as a heavy metal in environmental chemistry even though it's righr to tge common dividing line. I don't thibk this justifies labeling all metalloids as nonmetals.

How chemists informally use the words
DS makes a good point. I agree with it. (If I got it right, that is.)

There is no definition of "metal" because we don't need one. We more or less understand what a metal is, and we understand that the more people you have, the more likely you have a sisagreement. We don't need a definition. We know what tge word means anyway and we allow a little fuzziness in this. There is no actual need to invent one. None needs one and none will xatch up.

Also, the fact that germanium is vaguely mentioned among nonmetals doesn't mean the authors think Ge is a nonmetal; in all likelihood, it's unlikely. Depending on context, Turkey may be mentioned as a European country, an Asian one, or a transcontinental one. Which one is it? (The answer: depends on context; the last description is most accurate for a general reference.) same here: germanium can be mentioned as a metal, a nonmetal, or a metalloid depending on context. The latter is most accurate.

Hydrogen deserves a separate discussion

In general, one may notice I don't do much discussion on chemistry of individual elements. Not because I have nothing to say; because I don't think that's what we should do. Again, this is good for an authored book; in Wiki, this generally goes against the spirit of WP:OR as I understand it. To comply with the spirit of WP:V, we should try to focus on lessening the amount of contradictions with sources and tgeir classifications. that is not to say we are doing this especially poorly here (probably poorly, yes, but if there was a good enough scheme, we wouldn't have the discussion); but we have to set our priorities.

Hydrogen
Skipping for now

Sampling the literature
Let's take a peek!

It's great that you got this. This is a good section and I don't feel my thinkinh here is one-sided.

So, basically, we got us a fifty-fifty and this sampling doesn't help make a decision. Too bad.

For the record, I, too, learned about the concept of metalloids from Wiki.

As a personal preference, I like the term exactly for the reason you provide: we show that there's more than the binary metal--nonmetal division from my chemistry schoolbooks.

What if we start from category definition (not from element properties)
This text reflects my thinking.

Leftover nonmetals categorising
"It could be an improvement in that at least one class (into corrosion) has a wiki article compared to zero for both of todays categories."

As mentioned above, I agree.

"The magic thread Sandbh points out (I'd call a magic chain) links the elements by pairs only. This breaks an other ground rule for good classification: class elements should all be strongly tied within the category, and badly tied to outside the category. The chain does not do this (no. 3 is not tied to no. 1)."

We haven't gotten to this so far, but this actually has merit. The only common thing is that they don't fall into the other pronounced groups; we can't even get a descriptive name for this. (looking forward to reading the reply)'

"Maybe this is happening: if sub-categorisation of the leftover nonmetals is that difficult, absent or sought after, there probably is no subcategorisation. Keep them one category?"

Well, I would argue yes. Or we should at least actually consider it. I've made some considerations, and it seems this makes some improvement over what we have now or are to have according to the proposal. However, it is not perfect, either. But we'll get to it later, shall we?

"Looking at all the elements that are not metals, there are three categories that almost populate themselves; noble gas; corrosive nonmetal; and weak nonmetal (metalloid). We know that the corrosive nonmetals are strong nonmetals and that the weak nonmetals (metalloids) are weak nonmetals. The remaining nonmetals are neither as strongly nonmetallic as the corrosive nonmetals nor as weakly nonmetallic as the weak nonmetals. They are in the nonmetal goldilocks zone—not too chemically hot, not too chemically weak. Effectively, they are intermediate nonmetals."

I am nowhere near convinced.

"Corrosive metals" is okay as a standalone term, sure. However, to make it good for a complete categorization, it must be good in a combination with the others (makes sense, right?). Which it isn't, since we have "intermediate nonmetals," which, as Sandbh correctly points out, is not even anything specific ("it is X"); it is only a combination of two negations ("not Y and not Z").

Here's an analogy in transition metals. "Platinum group metals" is okay as a standalone term, sure. However, to make it good for a complete categorization, it must be good in a combination with the others (makes sense, right?). Which it isn't, since we would have to have "other transition metals", which as may be pointed out, is not even anything specific among the TMs ("it is X"); it is only a negation ("TM that is not Y").

We don't have a "platinum group metals" category; if anyone asked why, the text above would be my explanation.

I have tried thinking outside the box: what other suggestions are available (to appear later)? Maybe we could we accept "intermediate nonmetals" (no, we couldn't)? I couldn't find a way to lure myself into the thinking this is okay. If our scheme has to have a category with no explicit special meaning in its name, I think we should say we've given it a fair try and try to keep on searching.

"But I don't think this matters since organising the groups according to their valence states is what revealed the deeper relationships among the elements in the first place, including the diagonal relationships and patterns which become particularly prominent in the p block." I think this is not too far from what DePiep was originally worried about. I have never heard of a talk of how the diagonal relationships bind more than two elements (so they say Be-Al is okay, but never have I heard of a three-element diagonal, like Be-Al-Ge. If I got it right, this is even admitted in the Sandbh's text: "you could read it as H → C; C → P; P → N; N → S; S → Se." I don't think of the TMs as "Sc -> Ti -> V -> ..."; I read it as {Sc, Ti, V, ...} -- a set, rather than a sequence, of elements. Ti and Au are in one group because they both have incomplete idealized d shells. Clear and sound. H and Se are in one group because you can go H → C; C → P; P → N; N → S; S → Se; really?

Threading intermediate nonmetals
"If it can go from S to Se, why not from Se to Te?" A question on my mind as well.

"The thread can be traced back as far as H → Li → Mg → Be → Al → B → Si → C → etc. It alternates between diagonal links (which are often forgotten) and vertical links, and since going onto Te will result in two vertical links, S is a natural place to stop." This is very weak as an argument. Why is this empirically derived chain is a rule? This is a real question. Why? for example, you can go "polonium -> antimony -> germanium" and it is only natural to continue the metalloid line to aluminum; see my skepticism about this?

the sources mention Se is a nonmetal, and Te is a metalloid. If only we could leave it there. The thing is that if sources are to be followed, then we must have in mind that "intermediate nonmetals" are "neither A nor B" and should be copied into our table only if like an actual majority of the tables did this explicitly, which, in its explicit form, is rare.

Fuzzy v sharp; diagonals
Save for the postscript, the logic here is fine and good.