User talk:YBG/Archive 6

A timely question
Question: Do they observe Thanksgiving Day in the UK? Answer: Yes, twice each year, once on January 26th and a second time on July 4th. YBG (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the YBG rules
Since you mentioned them at my talk page, I have to admit that I have not really been thinking about them when suggesting the schemes I'm currently suggesting for WP. This is mainly because the main argument I've been using for them is "well, the literature usually does this and doesn't care too much about the subtleties". If I was colouring something off-WP, then that is a different story. Double sharp (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. The literature. That is what we lost sight of in 2012-2013, particularly the primacy of secondary and tertiary sources. What I think would be very helpful is a literature search akin to Lists of metalloids that would list the category schemes, the number of categories, and the names and membership of each of category. I should probably devote some time to making a start of it. By the way, I have come to believe that because of our WP commitment to follow WP:PSTS, my rules have next to nothing to contribute to WP decision making. This is not pessimism, as some might say, just a recognition of where they might be helpful. YBG (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this about the "YBG rules for enwiki PT categorisation"? Then I'd like to follow & learn more. Is there a single +/- 1 discussion place ? -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They're at User:YBG. Well, probably not so relevant for what we're doing on WP anymore, given what YBG just said. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding how far the scientific view goes for WP
Sometimes I think it might be interesting if all of us drew and coloured a PT the way we'd personally prefer. And then just showed it, without critiquing each others' forms. I made one myself a while ago, based on the nicer PT poster of. No doubt, 's would look extremely different. I think that would serve as a good illustration for a point I've been making above: you can't argue on WP for the best scientific view because no one will agree what it is, neither in the literature, nor among us, and it will go in circles with no result. The only way we can make a change that will be agreed on is if the literature or some body with generally recognised authority moves unarguably in that direction. (Which is why, among other things, I am waiting for the IUPAC group 3 project before raising that again.) Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the new legend
Title.

Although I guess I should say that theoretically there might be a d block nonmetal, as predictions vary for Cn. However the latest line of theory seems to change every few years on it and therefore I decided to be conservative. Like DA I believe in 6d expansion. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can ask you something regarding how to better graphically display something I'm trying to show: I currently do not think it is wise to make statements like "element X is a metal". The properties we normally think of as indicating metallicity change with temperature and pressure (hence tin pest and metallic hydrogen), and that's not similar to absolute properties like atomic number, but rather to things like phases. So I'd want to make it clear somehow that it's not that Br is intrinsically a nonmetal any more than it's intrinsically a liquid; these are all "valid at STP" things. So I'd like to somehow make it clear in the presentation and legend – but I don't know if lightening the colour and saying "light colours indicate elements that are nonmetallic at STP" is the best way to clarify it to the average reader. Maybe you can help. ;) Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me have a look at User:Double sharp/Periodic Table and see what I come up with. YBG (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tweaked the legend, and the period labels also. YBG (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey that's really nice, thanks! I guess I just need to add the usual occurrence and state-of-matter-at-STP legends for it to be totally self-sufficient :) Thanks for your help! Double sharp (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tweaked it a bit more. YBG (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even nicer. ^_^ And I added the extra legends I wanted too! Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about H/C, He/Be etc.
You inspired me to a further rewrite Periodic table which discusses the H-He placement problems. I think I got closer to DUE and pruning to just what I could get from at least 2ARY sources. Your thoughts requested, of course.

He-Be has been cut out entirely, as have H-B and H-C. The reason is that I cannot find a single well-regarded chemistry textbook or poster actually using any of these as its default placement. For the specific article helium, He-Be is there in just a footnote (written by me also), though noted as surpassingly rare (I mentioned that He-Ne is near-universal). All based on my understanding of the Jimbo dictum, of course. Maybe not the right one, which is why your view would interest me. Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , the periodic table article did not mention H-B and H-C so there was nothing to cut out here.


 * There is quite a bit of scholarship in RS about He over Be. As higher level sources, these are more reliable than chemistry textbooks. This scholarship merits inclusion. Recall what Jimbo actually said: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article."


 * And consider the context for Jimbo dictum, which was an OP saying, "You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the WIKI SR [special relativity] article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2." Now, that's what I call fringe.


 * Not that it matters, since textbooks are less RS in this regard: find any textbook that shows the LSPT (I recall there are a few) and you'll find He over Be. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It used to mention H-C not long ago. At least before I cut it out.
 * I don't see how the main article on the periodic table could possibly count as ancillary. And indeed, He-Be is still discussed, in a footnote at helium. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Living POTUS &c
Roughly prioritized to-do list for my userspace draft (15:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Implemented (and documented) at User:YBG/Living officeholders YBG (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Implement fmt to allow alternate date formats
 * ✅ Improved parameter counter
 * ✅ Add check for subpage existance
 * ✅ Add /doc subpage
 * ✅ Implement as two alternatives: full-table template and table-row template
 * ✅ Implement /Row2 alternative with Drdpw's format, making a list of design differences
 * ✅ Implement /Row3 alternatives with vertical list only
 * ✅ Implement /Row4 alternatives with vertical list additionally
 * ✅ Implement /Row5 with starting/ending events in separate columns instead of separate rows
 * Implement ✔️us-p, ✔️usvp, ✔️aupm, ✔️nzpm, ukpm
 * Announce at Talk:Living presidents of the United States
 * Seek comments on alternatives

Notes to myself

 * ✅ I'm thinking of modifing the table in UO-OSU Scores to be a bit more concise and readable, one decade per line.
 * Completed here on Aug 20th, 2009 YBG (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also WSU/UW results on Sep. 2 YBG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Create Doug Baker (disambiguation). YBG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done YBG (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Add disambig page for $1, $2 and maybe others. YBG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to existing page Sep 11 03:47, 03:50 YBG (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Add refs to List of National Football League retired numbers per nfl.com. YBG (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done today. YBG (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ FL of Oregon symbols: Move 'Description' column to end, left-justify its prose text and top-align all cells, resulting in a visually appealing arrangement with generally triangular content areas and white space. YBG (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion made YBG (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fix TriMet's renamed Fareless Square YBG (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Others have already done this YBG (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Check recent edits of NFL Retired No', cf nfl.com YBG (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, adding / to facilitate future checks. YBG (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fix sorting on List of Interstate Highways as done in here YBG (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done YBG (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Add sort by number of associated routes YBG (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe sort by number of states served YBG (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done YBG (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fix per Talk:Index of U.S. counties YBG (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * done YBG (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about undoing this change at the request of one non-US reader. YBG (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Add to List of former US counties per MacArthur. YBG (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done here and here last week.  YBG (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * r Merger proposal for Cross Keys and Crossed keys. YBG (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC) √ 03:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Change N.W.F.P. and NWFP to KPK where not anachronistic. YBG (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Validate change to Rahul, check multiple meanings. YBG (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Fix sorting problem in List of elements YBG (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems OK on IE8 and IE9, but maybe not on other browsers YBG (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Weigh in on Talk:U.S._state YBG (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Done YBG (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Combine two tables in List of U.S. states by coastline YBG (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC) √ Done YBG (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Fix per Talk:List_of_Interstate_Highways YBG (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Fix per Talk:Christian YBG (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not YBG (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove #-links from these dab pages YBG (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ ETA (disambiguation) YBG (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fifth Quarter YBG (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ W2 YBG (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Is the correct style for non-reference notes used here YBG (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text between the note-mark and note-text had been eliminated, so I considered combining them together. But the note didn't seem to pertain to the section any more, or even to the article, so I eliminated it entirely. YBG (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened to the "Cite" button that I found so helpful for entering references? I referred to it here, but it seems to have disappeared. YBG (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure why, but I see it now. 04:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Restructure List of U.S. counties that share names with U.S. states as a table. YBG (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC) √ done YBG (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Figure out how to mark inaccurate translations; apply to List of U.S. state abbreviations, e.g.,
 * I tried to delete some here but most were promptly reverted. YBG (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now a part of wikidata YBG (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fix State abbreviation sorting by status YBG (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now included as a separate column in the table. YBG (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete or recently complete

 * Organize templates for National Anthems of Asia, the world, &c. YBG (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Modify Languages of to auto-remove '(s)' YBG (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reorganize Languages of Pakistan article YBG (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a template to color maps of the US by state? YBG (talk)
 * Add total to lead in US county name list YBG (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunt for info re VC rest areas on Federal Highway YBG (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.remembrancedriveway.org.au
 * http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM400B_Charles_Anderson_VC_Rest_Area_Federal_Hwy_NSW_Australia
 * http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7NNB_Kevin_Wheatley_Memorial_Rest_Area_NSW_Australia
 * http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7NR5_Albert_Chowne_VC_Rest_Area_Murrays_Flats_NSW_Australia
 * http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4E07_John_Mackey_VC_Rest_Area_Hume_Hwy_NSW_Australia
 * Respond re photos in WT:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 12 YBG (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Add County column on OR canal lists (A-L) & (M-Z) YBG (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done here and here this week.  YBG (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But this may not be the right thing to do as some are in multiple counties
 * Consider refactoring lists into Eastern & Western Oregon; alpha lists don't make much sense.
 * Dates might be helpful in Superseded scientific theories YBG (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reorganize Period articles YBG (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Combine   and  /doc  using #REDIRECT YBG (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Useful WP stuff
This is a collection of useful wikipedia forms.

Links
WP links are well described at Help:Link WP-related URL's are described in Help:URL
 * Article name : ... a WP article
 * {text} : ... a WP article with alternate text
 * Talk:Article name : ... a talk page
 * Article name : ... a section within an article
 * Category:Category name : ... a WP category, e.g., Category:Indian hill stations
 * User:{User} : ... User page, e.g., User:YBG
 * User Talk:{User} : User talk page, e.g., User Talk:XYZ
 * Special:Contributions/{User} : User contributions, e.g., Special:Contributions/YBG
 * : ... any URL, e.g.,
 * {text} : ... any URL with alternate text, e.g., google
 * : ... for a specific old version, e.g.,
 * : ... for changes made by a specific version, e.g.,
 * : ... for differences to the current version, e.g.,
 * : ... for differences made by a specific version, e.g.
 * Special:Diff/version-number : ... for differences introduced by a version, e.g., Special:Diff/650954321
 * Special:Diff/ver-1/ver-2 : ... for differences between two versions, e.g., Special:Diff/646776217/650954321
 * Special:Permalink/version-number : ... for a specific version, e.g., Special:Permalink/660364853
 * Help:Special: ... for a list of other special pages

Templates &c.

 * multiple image
 * WP:Extended image syntax

MOS

 * Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. MOS:LISTBULLET
 * Use straight quotes and apostrophes, not the curly typographic form. MOS:STRAIGHT 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tools

 * Template parameters
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Sidebar+periodic+table
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+military+conflict

Commas in numbers
(This is a draft; I'm not sure where to post it
 * On the MOS talk page -- but this avoids reaching a local consensus first
 * On the project talk pages -- but then India, Pakistan or both?

Should South Asian articles insert commas for thousands and millions (12,345,678) or for thousands, lakhs and crores (1,23,45,678)? MOS:COMMONALITY seems to lean to millions but MOS:TIES to lakhs/crores. MOS:TIES is quite explicit on the corresponding question about date formatting, but WP:NUMERAL doesn't seem to be as helpful. It seems to say that if commas are used for lakhs/crores, the first instance should include a parenthesized explanation commas for millions. This seems unhelpful, particularly for tables and infoboxes.

I am wondering if any South Asian projects (WP:Pakistan, WP:India, etc) have developed a project style that speaks to this. If not, I think it would be good to develop a consensus within these projects and then perhaps make the Manual of Style as explicit in this question as it is for dates.

Here are the relevant sections of from WP:MOS:


 * WP:Manual of Style (MOS:COMMONALITY)
 * 'tens of millions' is preferable to crore (Indian English).


 * WP:Manual of Style (MOS:TIES)
 * An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation.


 * WP:Manual of Style (WP:CONSISTENCY)
 * While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.


 * WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (MOS:TIES)
 * Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation.


 * WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (WP:NUMERAL)
 * Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may call for the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used in South Asian English. In those situations, link the first spelled-out instance of each quantity (e.g., which yields crore). (If no instances are spelled out, provide a note after the first instance directing the reader to the article about the numbering system.) Also, provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity, and provide conversions for subsequent instances if they do not overwhelm the content of the article. For example, write three crore (thirty million). Similarly, if you write 3,00,00,000, also write (30,000,000) or (30 000  000). (Note that the variety of English does not uniquely determine the method of numbering in an article. Other considerations, such as conventions used in mathematics, science and engineering, may also apply, and the choice and order of formats and conversions is a matter of editorial discretion and consensus.)


 * WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
 * Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or greater) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a comma every three digits (e.g. 12,200, 255,200, 8,274,527). A full stop (.) should not be used to separate thousands (e.g. 12.200, 255.200) to avoid confusion with the decimal point.
 * The style of delimiting numbers must be consistent throughout an article.

I plan to invite members of those projects to contribute to this discussion. YBG (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for categorization (the so-called "YBG rules")
These criteria were originally summarized as a part of the long discussion about categorizing nonmetals, but I believe they are just as easily applied to any categorization effort.

I first added these three points in April 2013 in a discussion later archived here:
 * 1. Clear. The criterion for division should be easily explained
 * 2. Unambiguous. It should be (relatively) obvious which category each element fits into
 * 3. Meaningful. The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing.
 * There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopedia article

In November 2013, Sandbh (in a discussion archived here) named these the 'YBG rules', but I think they were really just summarizing the thoughts of others.

Other criteria mentioned in that discussion, not previously summarized, include these:
 * 4. Referenced. Categories and their names are supported by reliable sources
 * 5. Specific. Catch-all, none-of-the-above terms like 'Other X' are avoided (unless properties are not sufficiently known)
 * 6. Unique. The categories are mutually exclusive (a bit stronger than Unambiguous)
 * 7. Complete. The categories are jointly exhaustive (a bit stronger than Specific)’

I am writing this here to have it for reference and perhaps application in other areas. YBG (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added links to original edits. YBG (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Grid example
{| class=wikitable
 * a0 || bgcolor=gray rowspan=7 | || a1 || bgcolor=gray rowspan=7 | || a2 || bgcolor=gray rowspan=7 | || a3
 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |
 * b0 || b1 || b2 || b3
 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |
 * b0 || b1 || b2 || b3
 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |
 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |








 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |
 * bgcolor=gray colspan=7 |








 * }

Poor man's interactivity
Instructions:
 * 1) You can try to answer the question without seeing any of the possible answers
 * 2) Click [show] to reveal the possible choices (like a multiple-choice test)
 * 3) Hover over the letter of your chosen answer to see if it is right and why or why not

YBG on what led up to his wikibreak
For details, please see (diff). Comments that do not directly apply to ANI are welcome here. Please note that I am only checking my pings weekly; if you wish, you may contact me directly by email YBG (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why metallicity has always given a problem
I thought this was too long for the project page, so I write you here. This is my try at explaining with as little jargon as possible


 * Physically, we kind of expect a metal to be a simple substance characterised by metallic bonding. What that means without jargon: the atoms all let go of their outer electrons and share them. So they let them freely move around, and that is why metals conduct heat and electricity. The metals themselves are pulled from all directions by the electron sea they have contributed to making, and end up jostled into a very closely-packed structure. That is why metals are so dense (and that helps, because that only thickens the electron sea!). And because even deforming the crystal doesn't stop this electron sea from holding the atoms together, metals tend to be malleable: you can bend them without breaking them. This electron sea is also responsible for why metals have their shiny lustre.
 * Chemically, however, we also expect a metal to be electropositive. What that means without jargon: a metal should be not too unhappy to give up its outer electrons. When you bond it to a nonmetal, it should let the nonmetal have more custody of its electron, because the metal wants it less.

This normally gives the same idea because the two ideas are correlated. Well, if an atom is willing to give up its outer electrons, then that's precisely what's needed for metallic bonding. If it's not so willing, then it will keep a hold on its electrons; they won't become a sea, they'll just be bonded tightly to one other atom. Ergo, electropositive elements form metallic structures; electronegative ones form nonmetallic covalent structures. And we can even go further and say that usually, metals prefer to lose electrons, and nonmetals prefer to gain them. So it seems irresistible to conflate them. As seems to be done here.

The problem is, they are not 100% correlated, particularly around the boundaries. Most obviously, noble gases are clearly nonmetals, but they don't want to lose or gain electrons; they would really rather just be left alone. But also, some "borderline" elements end up as metals despite poor electropositivity because they are large. I guess that makes it hard for them to fit in the expected covalent arrangements. But even as metals their bonding is pretty weak, their atoms are not closely-packed, they are brittle, etc. This is the not-that-great situation elements like antimony and polonium find themselves in; they form metallic structures thanks to their large atomic radius, even though they are less electropositive than nonmetal silicon. (Request to to check what I said. This is a situation basic texts tend to ignore. And I want to get it right. XD)

Add in a fresh cocktail of people not wanting to separate groups where there is a gradation of electropositivity (e.g. Se < Te < Po) and more specialised areas where atoms near the boundary pattern with the wrong crowd, and you have a recipe for the confusion between sources.

I admit that the criterion of metallic bonding is probably the best one if you just want to answer the question "is it a metal". It is the one I think of when writing for myself. And really I think it is close to a formalisation of the one people would think of when they see the elements (antimony is shiny like a metal in way that germanium and tellurium are not). And I would probably use it as an illustration even for WP as it is the only clearly definable one. But I would probably describe it as "elements whose simple substances form structures characterised by generally non-directional metallic bonding" or some obfuscation like that and make it clear that that is not quite what everyone means by "metal", though it is usually pretty close.

P.S. Looking at the pnictogen group, I think you can justifiably get around the problem with As. Yes, it has metallic bonding, but somehow it seems definitively more directional than that in Sb and Bi, what with the longer distances to some atoms than others. As doesn't have a liquid range at standard pressure, Sb and Bi do. This is a point made in the Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry volume on As, Sb, and Bi.

I admit that this makes me quite inclined to agree with DA: I cannot believe Og as a semiconductor. I see the calculation but I still can't believe it, because its atomic radius is more than that of Sn and Po! Although I see the supporting information gives for PBE (SR) calculation <0.01 eV for band gap of Og. So, maybe it is a metal after all! ;) Time to worry about Cn then. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. To just have some fun gawking at the elements and seeing why I think the metallic-bond definition fits intuition most soundly: Metallium. Also some more photos here and here. Then have fun spotting the fake metals. ;)
 * I note for those who want some fun that this provides some good ideas for personifying the elements. Element Girls was not enough! XD Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I had proposed a simple criterion long ago. Droog Andrey (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I like yours, but I feel the need to refer to something closer to what the texts give for WP. ;) I can probably make an excuse for the "metallic bonding" definition because most texts will speak of metallic bonding as something metals do (you know, something like this); this one, I am not so sure I can make an excuse for.
 * Though with yours I have a couple of questions. First, hydrogen presents a purely formal problem (it has only one neighbour; H–H is covalent bonding, H–He is bond absence). Could be fixed by tossing in lithium to break the tie (which is also a neighbour anyway). Second, what happens to copernicium? If recent calculations are correct and Cn is bounded by dispersion forces, and such was also for interactions of Cn with Au, then it seems plausible that the same thing would happen for Cn–Rg and Cn–Nh and we would end up with a noble liquid. I guess the keyword here is "if recent calculations are correct". Maybe I also would prefer to have something that only involved the element itself, but it may be asking too much. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The last word on Sb, from Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry: "Attempts to prepare modifications corresponding to yellow or orthorhombic arsenic do not seem to have been successful, but several amorphous forms of antimony have been made. "Yellow" and "black" antimony, from liquid stibine and oxygen at low temperatures, appear to contain some hydrogen, and "explosive antimony", made by the electrolysis of antimony trichloride in hydrochloric acid, always contains residual chlorine. Both these forms are more reactive chemically than rhombohedral antimony and are rapidly and exothermically transformed into the stable form, often as a result of slight heating or mechanical stress." So they are probably not even pure and not even stable.

Whereas black As is metastable.

Which makes me think that one could weasel one's way out of this by defining "a metal has a Fermi surface in every stable or metastable form at STP", using black arsenic and diamond to helpfully get rid of those annoying cases. Just define the warmer STP to avoid excluding tin. But maybe something will be found to mess this up too. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A good idea, really. Most of russian sources use 298,15 K and 1 bar as STP. Droog Andrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yay, thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

PT Quiz
Produced by https://flashcard.ethz.ch/ using parameters Periodic table and "Introduction"

---YBG (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * Behold hydrogen the metal! (Come to think of it, I'm not all that sure that the seventh row will have any nonmetals at all.) ^_^
 * I have to revisit the lede at User:Double sharp/Periodic table (redraft), I see. Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. I cannot figure out how your comment is related to the quiz I just posted. YBG (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because of Q3, where the software seems to have misinterpreted the article. It was written in the article that the PT has 7 rows, and generally has metals on the left and nonmetals on the right. But it seems the quiz has actually interpreted that sentence to mean that every row has metals on the left and nonmetals on the right. Which, thanks to row 1 (and probably row 7 too), is probably false. (Also, Q7 is subtly wrong too.)
 * I linked to my own redraft, since it also has a lede that might be useful to run this on to see if similar misinterpretations can happen. Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I needed it!! YBG (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)