Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 41

Bifold symmetry in the metal-nonmetal progression
I finally believe I've nailed this, not for posting to Wikipedia, but to go into a journal:

The category name related nonmetals is analogous to older references to the transition metals as related metals, for example:


 * Ebel IL 1938, "Atomic structure and the periodic table", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 15, no. 12, p. 575
 * Quagliano JV & Vallarino LM 1969, Chemistry, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 848
 * Luder WF 1970, "The atomic structure chart of the elements," Canadian Chemical Education, April, p. 13

This category name also refers to the fact the related nonmetals tend to form covalent bonds with metals. Here the word "related" is associated to "covalent", as follows: covalent→shared→related.

The related nonmetals are related by, among other things, the H-C-P-N-S-Se thread.

It's a pleasing coincidence that the transition metals line up with the related nonmetals.

I'm eschewing the term post-transition metal so as to not have to deal with the question of Al, or perhaps I should move it into the active metals category?

Praise be that all category names are relatively short.

The balanced 6-6-5-6 distribution of the nonmetals is pleasing.

-- Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I just corrected At ---> Ar for the noble gases, unless astatine is somehow a noble gas in this element scheme.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  10:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Electronegativity
This chart has blue and red bars spanning the lowest and highest electronegativity values for each of the eight classes of elements.

There seems to be two kinds of bifold symmetry:
 * The first is the y-axis symmetry for the noble metals and noble gases; and the frontier metals and metalloids.
 * The second is the x-axis symmetry for the transition metals and metalloids; and active metals and corrosive nonmetals.

Do I have this right? It wasn't something I was expecting. Sandbh (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) From the 2.2 baseline, the noble metals and metalloids seem to be inversions relative to each other, and then the frontier metals versus the noble gases, if we just go by ranges over electronegativity.

1. Comparing the noble metals with the metalloids:

The noble metals begin to show some surprising nonmetallic behaviour e.g. Au sometimes behaves as if it were a halogen, and both Au and Pt are known to form anions e.g. in CsAu, and the Ba platinides (Ba2Pt and BaPt).

The metalloids, while they are chemically weak nonmetals, show the most metallic character among the nonmetals. For example, on the analogy between B and metals, Greenwood (2001, p. 2057) commented that:

"The extent to which metallic elements mimic boron (in having fewer electrons than orbitals available for bonding) has been a fruitful cohering concept in the development of metalloborane chemistry…Indeed, metals have been referred to as 'honorary boron atoms' or even as 'flexiboron atoms. The converse of this relationship is clearly also valid…"

Sb and even Ge are sometimes referred to as metals.

2. For the frontier metals and the noble gases:

The heavier (period 6) frontier metals border on nobility:

"Because of the increase of nuclear charge across each of the transition series, the B metals are distinguished from the early A metals by their much weaker tendency to form ions or to form compounds with the non-metals…This feature is particularly marked in the final row of B metals, Au, Hg, Tl, Pb, Bi, and Po…where the nuclear charge has been built up across the lanthanide as well as the third transition series. In some respects these elements might almost be classed as super-B or C metals. (Phillips and Williams 1966, p. 459)"

The noble gases become more metallic going down the group, so much so that Rn begins to some cationic behaviour (cf At).


 * Phillips CSG and Williams RJP 1966, Inorganic chemistry, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford
 * Greenwood NN 2001, 'Main group element chemistry at the millennium', Journal of the Chemical Society, Dalton Transactions, issue 14, pp. 2055–66

Sandbh (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Group: n/a
In Periodic table (group names) (article Group (periodic table)), I have added footnote "n/a" because somewhere we better mention this PT habit. That blank group number looks strange to outsiders. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One these columns fill up, I wonder what nomenclature we'll use in the future. I just refer to them as "cerium and thorium", "praseodymium and protactinium", etc. for now. I'd maybe say they're an "inner group 3" and number them something like 3-I, 3-II, 3-III... 3-XIV (or some other convention), but I know many would disagree. They don't really form groups for now, but it is a question we might have to think about one day.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oxidation states diff
At the moment, we maintain the oxidation states in two places:
 * 1. (in the infoboxes)
 * 2. (in article Oxidation state#List)

Unfortunately, the /datacheck shows that the two listings are not similar. Some 18 elements differ re non-zero valences, some 32 differ wrt mentioning a 0 valence, and half a dozen differ wrt bolding i.e. main/nonmain valence. The remaining 118&minus;66 = ~52 elements are OK (= have same valence listing, though sources present may differ). I note that the List is meticulously maintained by, providing many to-the-point sources.

It would be good if we synchronise the lists. These are the pages:
 * Infoboxes: Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state
 * List of oxidation states: List of oxidation states of the elements
 * Compare & check (working page) List of oxidation states of the elements/datacheck, diff notes: datacheck/diff (maintained manually; eitlinks are in the /checkdata table).


 * -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We could use a refined or crispy definition wrt 'main' oxidation states. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * these edits added (0) valences to metals, all fine with me. May I suggest we change those values into linked 0 in ? Maybe a more specific link in there (Metal carbonyl)? I do not know about this, but I think a wikilink would be great for these specials. A ref maybe? -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But surely the well-known carbonyls are not the only oxidation-state-0 species of these metals? Double sharp (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was/is: adding this wikilink is good info, at no cost (for the reader). IMO we do not have to be complete; but any "There is more" solution possible? refs, #section links? (to me, layman, the (0) is intriguing so any link is great). -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Isotope content page has been nominated for discussion
Category:Isotope content page, which you was recently created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

It is a category I created today to organise our isotope articles (for example, mainspace page Plutonium-243 is redirect or content?). -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinions required at Template talk:Infobox isotope.
There's a dispute concerning the display of the name of elements/isotopes in Infobox isotope/Infobox element. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox isotope. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this inviatation (at last, I may say). Please revert your earlier, objected edit. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I will not restore incorrect grammar and syntax to the infobox, no. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First sentence
About these pages, their first sentence.

I propose to make the opening starting with this pattern:
 * "Technetium-99 (99Tc, Tc-99) is an isotope ..."

That is: list these three id's, in this format (brackets, bolding, punctuation). Linking to basic technetium can & should be done elsewhere in the sentence, good reading prevailing. (Though "... is an isotope of technetium" is a nice default candidate).
 * - "99Tc" uses the symbol, so is the international name id of the isotope, in formal form.
 * - "Tc-99" is international too (because it uses the symbol not the English name), and does not use superscript so is more internet-friendly. AFAIK, this notation is not ambiguous, it has no other meaning. But it cannot be used in chemical formulae, all right. (note: does this form need further research & justification?).
 * - Bolding the three parts is correct, since they all identify the isotope.


 * Todo: comment & research & make sure "Tc-99" is an accepted form.

Comments? -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Tc-99 and the like is accepted (see e.g. ), but should be reserved for prose. It is a bit more informal, but has the significant advantage of being being read in the same 'order' as you would its common name. No one goes around saying things like "Three atoms of ninety-nine technetium". &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC) (why not try AGF, headbomb ?) -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's accepted, though I find that the majority of recently published journal articles use isotope symbols (99Tc) rather than shortened names (Tc-99). Even the fully written out name (technetium-99) is more common in many sources than the shortened version (which is often completely absent). I would prefer to follow this seeming convention and use symbols – also for formality and ease of writing formulae. Not sure about internet-friendliness, we have several options to properly render superscripts. ComplexRational (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that we don't write only for technical audiences. Forms like Pu-238 is found in... are friendlier to non-technical audiences than 238Pu is found in.... See past FA reviews, like plutonium. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, either form are fine, as long as the article is consistent. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I conclude that writing "Tc-99", as an id-pattern, is OK in the first sentence (because it defines the isotope, unambiguously, and it is used in RL). Whether (en)wiki should use it in article body text (instead of other id's) I doubt but that is not the issue here. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here at T:MOS I asked for nicer reading forms. Do we agree that this format is preferable (use regular words to split bold blocks):
 * Technetium-99 (also 99Tc and Tc-99) is ...