User talk:Sandbh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you[edit]

not just for your work on metalloid, but also for providing very informative edit summaries. This does help other editors, and your attitude is exemplary. Using this occasion, I also wish you Happy New Year. Please dont' hesitate to ask if you need help. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, as has been your ongoing interest and support. Best for 2012. Sandbh (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Metalloid[edit]

Hello. Do you know what the "still less frequently appearing elements" you talked about in the box floating at the right in metalloid are? It could be useful to add those (and add sources where each element is listed as a metalloid). Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call. These elements, and their sources, are listed in the list of metalloid lists article. I'll see about adding a note to make this clearer. The 'applicable elements' section of the metalloids article, in the 'common metalloids' sub-section, also gives seven sources listing the common/recognized metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added them. (BTW, you forgot lead in the caption to the picture in list of metalloid lists. I added it under cluster 7.) Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I restored the periodic table showing only the first four clusters of metalloids; added a note about the 'still less frequently appearing elements'; and placed a simplified table of the distribution of elements classified as metalloids in the 'location and identification' section.
Including a more ornate table at the front of the article provides too much information and detracts from the flow of the article.
Better to start with the simple picture (= there is reasonable agreement in the literature as to which elements are commonly recognised as metalloids, noting a few disputed elements and hangers-on) and then fill in the details in the main body of the article.
The sample size of 194 is too small, in my view, to justify including elements with appearance frequencies of less than or equal to five per cent. I therefore stopped at cluster 4 (C, Al ~9 per cent) since Al appears often enough as a metalloid to warrant some references in the literature discussing or disputing such a status.
Showing N, Zn and Rn in the distribution table is tricky. The list of metalloids lists is just such a list (from which indicative appearance frequencies are evident) whereas nitrogen, zinc and radon did not appear in any such lists. They just happened to be mentioned in isolation, so I noted them as one-off examples only and ignored any subsequent references to them. That is why I have shaded them differently.
Thank you for adding pesky Pb to the list of metalloid lists caption. Sandbh (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I understand what you mean. (Z in list of metalloid lists means sample size, right? I'm too used to seeing it as atomic number!) Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Great catch, thanks. I've seen Z used to denote sample size in the chemical literature but agree it can be confusing. Have changed it to n, which seems to the norm. Sandbh (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I really like that metalloid article a lot! Have you considered a GAN? (After that, an FAC?) Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback. I have thought about GA etc status. Have not done anything about it yet due to lack of time/other priorities. I'd like to see if I can improve the language (more plain English, if possible) and sentence construction (some are too long); and to check the article structure. I have a little more time so I'll see how it goes. Sandbh (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have requested an A-class review. Do you have time to participate? Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather leave this to someone else at WP:ELEM. I don't know much about article standards past GA. You probably should post this A-class review at WT:ELEM, because A-class reviews aren't picked up by the article alerts. Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I gather A-class is much the same as GA class, the difference being in the reader experiences, as noted below. The editing suggestions for A-class are "Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help." The comments from R8R Gtrs and TCO are more focussed on style rather than content. They seem to be saying that an article on metalloids should focus on metalloids and their properties. I could restructure the article so that it includes a section on the common metalloids and their properties, but I would be concerned that this would duplicate what is already in the separate articles for each element. Don't know for sure, still thinking about this. Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I've rated the article as B+ (which is basically a marker meaning "ready for GA"). Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was chuffed to see this recently, in the midst of putting together the carbon properties entry, and was wondering how that had come about. Thank you. I am please to say there isn't that much left to do now, in terms of requesting another review. Sandbh (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just nominated metalloid for GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My view of the metalloid article[edit]

Sorry for the delay, but I can provide the detailed review only tomorrow or (if not then) only next Wednesday. In general, it (in my opinion) probably talks too much about defining in its (three section out of five). But you'll get the review later. Sorry again.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll await your review. Please note I made a few small changes. Nothing much---updated a link, edited some notes, and added an introduction to the Origin and usage section, as well as a couple of words about the current IUPAC position.
About defining, I was conscious of the general WikiProject article quality grading scheme. The reader experience for a GA article is: 'Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.'; A class is 'Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.' and FA class is 'Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.'
I think that as there is no agreed definition of a metalloid, and usage of the term is complicated, a complete, thorough and definitive article will (in my opinion) result in a fair amount of defining content.Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is people would want to learn what can be called "metalloids," but it looks like it is the accent in the article. Most readers (including me) would rather want to move accent to metalloids properties and maybe relationship with metals/non-metals. Ask for help, though. And no matter what, it's way better than before. Kudos.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just about to post some comments to Talk:Metalloid/A1 both in response to your review and that of TCO. TCO seems to have said the same thing, in part. It would be easy enough to include some content about the common metalloids but it seems to me that would be just duplicating what is already contained on the individual pages for each element. Sandbh (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The second A-class review hasn't received comments in three weeks. (The last time an A-class review was closed without substantial comments, five weeks had passed.) Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, maybe I should see if can find some non-project reviewers as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#GA reviews. Do you know how I could do that? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You could try WP:PR. Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

keep it up![edit]

Just wanted to give you some encouragement. Can be lonely. Keep it up, will be worth it...even just in trying another approach!  :)

TCO (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the encouragement. Have just posted the Si bio. The rest of the way ahead (in terms of addressing all of the feedback) looks good. Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
For all your great work with chemistry-related articles. Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Metalloid[edit]

The article Metalloid you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Metalloid for comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandbh, Thanks for the Chemistry Barnstar. It's my first one and its much appreciated. 06:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Hey there, I also passed origin and use of the term metalloid. There's still some stuff on the review page, but it now qualifies as a GA. StringTheory11 (tc) 03:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Astatine, a minor question[edit]

Remember when I found a 2010 paper saying that astatine(VII) has been claimed, but not confirmed and you said it was an author mistake? I was re-reading the talk and noticed that your example of author mistakes were of adifferent kind: you listed there a fair list of authors saying something they didn't know about (didn't know about aurides, etc.) but here, the authors did know about astatine(VII) claims, yet didn't believe in them. Here's the paper: link. It came when I was doing the ununseptium article, wanted to make more cool drawbacks to astatine and then to iodine, then suddenly realized that Uus is predicted to have the 7s orbitals too contracted (no chemical participation, even doesn't change molecule shape as a lone pair, like in At, I, etc. After I took a closer look, I noticed the same may be valid for radon hexafluoride, and thus octahedral shape). In this context, it doesn't seem unnatural that At may not have the OS synthesized yet. I realize relativistic diff between I and At is way less than between At and Uus, but At is also very unstable. I don't deny it most probably should exist, but doubt it if it has been shown to. I just appreciate your opinion, want to know it. Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am busy right now so I can only give you a quick, initial answer. You may be on to something. There is a 1960s book (Cooper, The periodic table?) which says that the 'inert' pair' effect in the halogens starts in chlorine. I remember being surprised at the time about that statement. I haven't looked further to see if that is in fact the case. But if it is, and the IP effect gets stronger going down group 17, then that may contribute to the difficulty of getting At in the +7 state. There are at least two other Russian sources that I know of that refer to At being known in the +7 state. I'll look these up and post the details here. As I recall, Greenwood & Earnshaw say +7 was 'conclusively' shown to exist; the big German text by Wiberg also refers to its existence; so does Gmelin. However, Cotton and Wilkinson 6th ed, still refer to the evidence as being inconclusive. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Appelman EH 1968, 'Astatine', in CA Hampel (ed.), The encyclopedia of the chemical elements, Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, pp. 33–34 (34): 'No evidence has been found for the existence of perastate—astatine in the +7 oxidation state.'
  • Cooper DG 1968, The periodic table, 4th ed., Butterworths, London, 'Sulphur and chlorine are considered to show inert pair behaviour...' (p. 15)
  • Huheey E 1972 (also 1983), Inorganic chemistry: principles of structure and reactivity, 1st ed. (3rd ed.), Harper & Row, New York, p. 579 (789): 'The apparent absence of At(VII) is surprising in view of the lower electronegativity and larger size of astatine. If perastatic acid does exist it is probably with coordination number 6: H5AtO4.'
  • Eberle SH 1985, 'Chemical behaviour and compounds of astatine', also in Kugler & Keller, pp. 192–93: 'Khalkin et al. [43] reported in 1970 the formation of AtVII as perastatate anion AtO4 upon treatment of 1 ml of an At solution in 1 M NaOH with 80 mg XeF2 at 100 ºC. The resulting astatine species cocrystallized with KIO4 and CsIO4, and showed the same paper electrophoretic behaviour as IO4, i.e., no migration at a field of 50 V • cm–1 [42]. The distribution coefficients between solution and crystals were 0.068±0.021 for KIO4 and 9.31±0.08 for CsIO4 and exhibited no dependency on the amount of the precipitate. These results have been confirmed by Dreyer et al. [41, 42], who showed further that the perastatate species is formed [in] neutral to alkaline solution either with XeF2 or more convenient with 0.01 M KIO4 [42]. The AtO4 is decomposed upon acidification to pH <1 and heating to 90º C within 5 to 10 min to AtO3 [42]. These authors were able to add more evidence for the perastatate ion by measuring the electrophoretic mobility in a capillary tube. The results are included in Table 10/2 and allow a clear differentiation of perastatate and astatate ion.'
  • Vasáros L & Berei K 1985, 'General properties of astatine', in Kugler & Keller (eds) 1985, Gmelin handbook of inorganic and organometallic chemistry, 8th ed., 'At, Astatine', system no. 8a, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 112: 'The perastatate ion, AtO4, was first prepared by Khalkin et al. by oxidizing At with XeF2 in a hot alkaline solution [35], in the same way that the formation of perbromate was carried out shortly before [92]. The AtO4 anion was identified and characterized by paper electrophoresis and by its coprecipitation with potassium and caesium metaperiodate [35]. Later, anodic oxidation [36] or oxidation with KIO4 in neutral or alkaline solutions were also utilized to prepare AtO4 [37 to 39]. Paper chromatography [35, 36, 38], paper electrophoresis [38], and free solution electrophoresis [39, 50] have been applied for the identification of the perastatate ion. AtO4, similarly to IO4, is stable only in neutral and alkaline solutions. The reduction of perastatate into astatine is completed in several minutes by heating in an acidic medium [38, 39].'
  • Meyers RA 1992, Encyclopedia of physical science and technology, vol. 7, Academic Press, San Diego, p. 613: 'Four oxidation states for astatine (–1, 0, +5 and +7) have been definitely established and there is some evidence for +1.'
  • Shriver DF, Atkins PW, Langford CH 1994, Inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 544: 'Because of this short half-life, astatine solutions are intensely radioactive and may be studied only in high dilution. Astatine appears to exist as the anion At–1 and as At(I) and At(V) oxoanions; no evidence for At(VII) has been obtained.'
  • Lidin RA 1996, Inorganic substances handbook, begell house, New York, p. 18, 'Known oxidation states...+VII (AtO4 )'
  • Greenwood NN & Earnshaw A 1998, Chemistry of the elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford, p. 886, 'The perastatate ion, AtO4, was first conclusively prepared by V. A. Khalkin's group in USSR in 1970 using solid XeF2 in hot NaOH solution at pH ~ 10. It is unstable in acid solutions, being completely decomposed to AtO3 within 5–10 minutes at pH 1 and 90 degrees C, for example.'
  • Cotton FA, Wilkinson G, Murillo CA & Bochmann M 1999, Advanced inorganic chemistry, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 552, '...there is inconclusive evidence for an oxoastatine (VII) species.' Note that Cotton et al. then go on to list estimated aqueous potentials (0.1 M H+) for At to At(0) to HAtO(?) to At03 to At(VII).
  • Wiberg N 2001, Inorganic chemistry, Academic Press, San Diego, p. 424, 'The oxidation state +7 of astatine (H5AtO6) is not very stable.'
  • Zuckerman JJ & Hagen AP 2009, Inorganic reactions and methods, The formation of bonds to halogens, vol. 3, part 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 191–92: 'Astatine(VII) in H5AtO6 or [AtO4] is formed by oxidation of At with XeF2 in base3 or by electrochemical oxidation4. Oxidation with [S2O8]2– or [OCl] may also produce At(VII)3.' [Ref 3 is Khalkin et al. Ref 4 is Nagy GA, Groz P, Khalikin VA, Tyung DK, Norseev YV, Reports Central Research Inst. Phys. (Budpaest), 18, 173 (1970); Chemical Abstracts 75, 14,412 (1971).]
  • Schweitzer GK & Pesterfield LL 2010, The aqueous chemistry of the elements, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 259; '...a very powerful oxidant yields H4AtO6 ( or perhaps AtO4 ).'
  • Turova N 2011, Inorganic chemistry in tables, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 10, '[AtO3] + IO4 (pH = 7, 100 degrees) > [AtO4] , coprecipitation with MIO4 (?); interesting book since it refers to 'Halogens, astatine', as if astatine is not a halogen.
    Sandbh (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Given these all (my intuition and your links, given not all fairly trust that it exists), I won't try to conclude the right one. I'll rather say sometime that literature mentions both as possibilities. Objections? Also, I tried to reach the author of the doc above (see link), but the mail he lists doesn't exist.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No objections. The trick will be to get the words right, noting that some of these references use strong language: 'results confirmed'; 'definitely established'; 'conclusively prepared' etc. I've added some more entries: 1968; 1972 (also 1983); 1992; 1994; 2009, as well as a note to Cotton et al. (1999). Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Metalloid[edit]

An old version of the metalloid article has been translated into Japanese! It's now a good article there. Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table[edit]

Thanks for helping with the article! I've been unexpectedly busy lately and haven't had time to address concerns, so it really helps. StringTheory11 (tc) 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ta. You helped with the metalloid article so it goes round. Almost all done with periodic table. Interesting topic once you get into it. Only things still to do are first systemization attempts (a few more pioneer bios); short PT; and open questions and controversies. Along the way I'd also like to look more closely at the inclusion of Admonah (as opposed to the Janet LST) and the reinclusion of the mention of Paul-Antoine Giguère's periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfecticization[edit]

I'd like to prefecticize your graph File:Electron affinities of the elements 2.png. Can you give the numbers (in text or email)? -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe they are in a regular WP page? -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Try out: Electron_affinity_(data_page)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I did. Lots of Z's are missing. -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The missing ones are very close to zero. See also the table in the main article, Electron_affinity#Electron_affinities_of_the_elements. Asterisk means ~0 or <0. Quick googling gave me this (poor itself, but has a good backup source, plus it includes the lanthanides). Seems to be consistent with the graph.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
DePiep, did you get my email? Sandbh (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, useful. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Building in svg. Some questions:

  • You did not continue the line from halogen to noble gas elements, but there is a line from noble gas element to next period alkali element. So: no line from chlorine to argon, but there is one from argon to potassium. The break is within a period. This is OK with me; I just want to check if this is intended.
    • I saw the approach of not including the line from halogen to noble gas elements in one of the books I looked up to see what I could find out about EA. I believe the intention was to show that EA values generally increased from the noble gases (when treated as group 0) to the halogens (group 17) in each period, when a period is represented as group 0 to group 17 rather than group 1 to group 18. It does not matter that much as long as periodicity can be shown; having said that I do understand why the 0--17 trend may be easier to grasp than the 1--18 trend. (And I can see that the accompanying text could be clearer on this point).
  • The elements you named (alkali metals and halogens): I will do the same, and not shorten them to their symbol? It can be changed if you prefer. There is space to be found.
    • Don't mind
  • Would it be helpful if I add period numbers below, in a bar that shows the range? (So, below elements 11–18 there would be a tinted bar, saying "period 3").
    • Don't mind; might be helpful Sandbh (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll just make a first version, you can point to changes. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Here it is: File:Electron affinity of the elements.svg. If you need anything just let me know. (For example, to make the text or explanation easier). -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

ADOMAH should return.[edit]

Compact Left Step Periodic Table is NONSENSE! The only reason for it is to fit Janet's LSPT on a page. It is step away from the quantum mechanics. Please, see my comment on Periodic Table Talk page.Drova (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:ShortPT10.png[edit]

Could you please re-add my corrections to File:Short_PT5.png to this picture, now that it's been changed in the article? Double sharp (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Or you could instead add the table of oxides and hydrides to the older picture. As it stands the picture in the article has some errors (No, Sg, Cn, 119, and 120). Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, is there a reason for the inclusion of 119 and 120? They haven't been discovered yet, which contradicts the caption at Periodic table ("updated with all elements discovered to 2012"). Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
All done thank you Double sharp Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But I think 119 and 120 should be included in the Janet picture (with no background), as it makes the table look nicer and the caption doesn't mention discovered elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, 102 should be No (not Nb) and 106 should be Sg (not Sb). Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
And Cn is colored wrongly, and 119 and 120 have wrong symbols also. It's good, however, it's just like I remember it, with oxide and volatile hydride formulas also, that's neat.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I coloured Cn the same as the colour in the standard PT shown earlier in the article. Is that not right? I left out 119 and 120 as per Double sharp's earlier comment. Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I was looking at the PT10 file, not the PT5 one, sorry!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For the Janet picture (File:Janet 7b.png), 119 should be Uue and 120 should be Ubn. Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The mistakes still exist in the PT10 file. Burzuchius (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking at the right file---PT10b.png? Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Burzuchius (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

A Barnstar!
The Chemistry Barnstar

Because you deserve it. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when can we expect a metalloid FAC? :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Double sharp. Metalloid needs a little more work: better pictures of boron and polonium; and a picture (plus accompanying text) of Rochow, the guy who wrote the first monograph on metalloids. Oh, and still owe you a response re 117 etc Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not very optimistic about getting a (reliable) Po image. During last year I searched for one for a long time and this is the only one I could find. Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I sent off a couple of e-mails today asking about images of Po and B. Am more confident about B. Oh, and I incorporated the other stuff about Rochow into one of the footnotes and into the main article comparing properties (no need for piccie). Sandbh (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, how about that. I just rec'd a very gracious and favourable response to my request to use a B image. Should have something sorted out soon. Sandbh (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
All right then. Boron has had an image makeover. Still working on polonium. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Discovery8.png[edit]

The colors for pre-1789 and pre-1869 elements should be swapped in the legend. Burzuchius (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, thank you. And fixed Cr, too. Sandbh (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, Ba is wrongly colored. Burzuchius (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Remarkably well spotted, thank you. Now fixed. Sandbh (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the file to Discovery10.png in the Timeline of chemical elements discoveries page. Burzuchius (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Radon[edit]

Know anything about Rn(IV) and Rn(VI) compounds? Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the radon article, only that calculations by Nesbet (1963) indicated that RnF4, if it could be synthesized, would be less stable than RnF2. And as far as I know no fluoride of radon higher than (II) has yet been shown to exist with any reasonable degree of certainty. Reference: Nesbet R K 1963, 'Theory of inert‐gas fluorides', Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 38, p. 1783. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ISBNs[edit]

Please reconsider [1]. Fast access to references is one of the strongest features of scientific articles on Wikipedia (scientist do not trust the content, but use wiki articles as reviews with quicklinks to the sources). By this logic you could remove all other links in references (doi/pmid/url, etc) - the references would remain valid and acceptable by wiki standards, but at reduced quality. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Materialscientist. I will self-revert. A rush of blood to the head. Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Too quick for me! Thank you Double sharp. Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

KFC[edit]

Ok, best of luck.Farrtj (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

don't get me wrong[edit]

Wanted to write it to you long ago, sorry that I'm writing it only now.

Sorry for that all discussions. I mean, I still believe Wikipedia is written for them Joes. That's what it all was/is about. Call me a socialist or whatever. I'm now trying to be as gettable as I can, and think we all should try to.

Anyway, it's completely no wonder I've freaked you out-- it must be tough when you're coming up with new ideas and I'm just saying, "booo" (and there are few other opinions). Nothing in person, of course.

Just keep it up with your enthusiasm. I'll stay away from the discussion for a while to cool it down.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree they should be written for the Joes of the world. And our articles also get read by knowledgeable readers (KR) as well as by experts (XP). So (IMO) we should try and make our articles understandable, as well as useful/interesting for KR and XP. Making something understandable doesn't require sacrificing 'useful/interesting'. Two subcategories of nonmetals are neither understandable (i.e. can we not do any better than lumping the non-noble nonmetals into one category) nor useful/interesting. Three subcategories are understandable and useful/interesting. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to write. Sandbh (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonmetal sandbox[edit]

Your sandbox looks generally nice -- I see a few nits that IMHO could be improved. Do you have any problem with me just editing it rather than listing my suggestions? You could just revert any you don't like. YBG (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free (I didn't even know that one could edit another user's sandbox). Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen[edit]

I have addressed the issues raised by you and TCO at Talk:Chalcogen#A class review. Thanks for reviewing! King Jakob C2 01:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

axis of instability[edit]

Unfortunately, Bh doesn't seem to be significantly less stable than the elements around it. What does this article say about crystal structure? (personally expect eka-Re properties) Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

got access? [2] [3] (if you do, then please tell me their predicted crystal structures for all the 6d transition metals so I can insert them into the element infoboxes!! I want information!!!) Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Only via DeepDyve. The abstracts look quite interesting. Axis of instability is on hold while I catch up on a few other things. There may be nothing to it in any event i.e. more of a weird coincidence than anything of substance, noting Bh seems to be rather boring. I share and admire your need for information. Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Aw, looks like Bh should have the Re crystal structure. :-( Double sharp (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

metallic nonmetals[edit]

(Not just an oxymoron!) Thought you may be interested: User:Double sharp/Metallic nonmetals. Salvaged from the nonmetal article (actually the only part of it that was cited)... Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Any advice on where in articlespace (mainspace) I should put this? Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting it in article called Allotropes of the nonmetals. And then doing a bit of a tidy up, eventually. For example I would probably seek to move the stuff about metals with possible nonmetal allotropes into a similar article called Allotropes of the metals. Both new articles would expand on a tidied up and condensed version of the current Allotropy article. In the Allotropes of the nonmetals I would put a note or something acknowledging the possible existence of nonmetallic allotropes of metals, together with a link to the new Allotropes of the metals article. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Nonmetallic allotropes of metals sounds extremely cool. Look forward to seeing you expound on it.
Good luck in real life. (And, uh, if you wouldn't mind, give us links to your journal articles/letters you mention on your userpage when they appear. (^_^)) Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A glorious edit[edit]

About the option 10 process. If I understand it correct, a closure of the discussion is at hand. A clear statement of the outcome would be great, sealing it so that no fringes remain open for restarting talks. I mean, let's push it over the hilltop. I suppose you are the one to close it? Then, if the outcome is in a certain way, I invite you to make the Glorious Edit of putting the sandbox text into nonmetal. After that I'll follow with the template edits. -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Am just waiting to hear from Double sharp before I press the red button :) Oh, I like your concise 'edits to do' list. Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

More cool blog titles[edit]

I do make up quite a few, don't I? :-P Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(specifically referring to "the wild lands of SHEs" and "the clouds of relativistic effects") Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I like your original title better. The best ones are the ones that crystallise unconsciously when writing something else and then you have an 'aha' momemnt and realise you have a cool title for a blog. That's my experience, anyway. For the first one I might make it: "The wilderlands of the SHEs"; for the second one: "Obscured by clouds...of relativistic effects". I'm probably trying too hard now, however. Sandbh (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

All those element categories[edit]

One was cast into the pit of FA; one was reshaped (Option 10) and cast forth into the outer mainspace; one sits now in the Sandy Halls of Awaiting and comes not yet among its fellows: the doom of the element categories of the p-block lies pretty close to fulfillment, as I can see. :-P Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, transition metal should also be done (my excuse: it's a p-block category with 113 now!) Because you cannot really discuss why the poor metals are being taken as starting at group 12 without discussing why we take the transition metals to end at group 11. (Out of curiosity, why do the transition metals sometimes get taken to end at group 10?)
Out of more curiosity, have you actually seen any online periodic table that specifically colours and calls Zn, Cd, and Hg poor metals? We can lead the rest, as usual. :-) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The doom of the element categories of the p-block, eh? Pretty good.
Why do TMs sometimes end at Group 10? Jensen's [article] discusses why the TMs sometimes finish at Group 10—basically definitional outcome. A related Journal of Chemical Education article (1969) is in vol. 46 no. 4, p. 227, 'Chemical queries. Especially for introductory chemistry teachers', doi:10.1021/ed046p227 wherein someone asked, 'Do elements in the zinc subgroup belong to the transition series?' Answer was that it depends on your definition (three examples given: one they do; two they don't.). This article was followed by a letter in vol. 46, no. 5, p. 329‒30, 'Teaching the transition elements', doi:10.1021/ed046p329.4 from a high school teacher who said he found it convenient to teach that all the elements between group 2 and group 13 were transition metals, noting he limited most of his teaching to the scandium row (so Zn didn't stand out to much).
Origin of the term 'poor metal'. Earliest usage I've been able to find is in Zworykin and Morton's famous 1940 book, Television: The electronics of image transmission, John Wiley & Sons, New York (Zworykin VK & Morton GA). I currently only have the 2nd edition from 1954, but I believe the words are the same (p. 5):
'Reading across the Periodic Table of elements from right to left, one finds the elements become increasingly electropositive. That is, the elements in the columns on the left have an electron configuration such that they can easily lose one or more of these electrons to become positive ions. In the solid state these electropositive elements form the group of susbstances called metals. This group is characterized by the fact that its members are excellent conductors of both heat and electricity. Futhermore, the metals are in general malleable and ductile, although there are some exceptions. It should be noted that these exceptions occur in the center columns of the the table, and are all elements which are only slightly electropositive; in other words, these exceptions might be termed "poor metals".
X-ray analysis of the metals shows them to be crystalline. The crystal structure of these substances (at least for all the good metals) is extremely simple. All of the elements of the first column of the periodic table, together with tungsten, iron, molybdenum, and many others as well, have a body-centered cubic structure. The very malleable and ductile metals such as gold, silver copper, and aluminium are face-centred cubic; others such as zinc, magnesium, and beryllium are hexagonal close-packed.'
Later (pp. 10‒11) they talk about silicon, germanium, carbon and arsenic 'in the centre of the Periodic Table' as being examples of semiconductors, whereas, 'sulphur, iodine, bromine are examples of good insulators.' They distinguish the semiconductors and insulators as 'two classes of materials', along with the metals.
They don't include a periodic table in their book. This makes it hard to work out quite which columns of the PT/elements they had in mind when they referred to the poor metals as occurring in the centre columns of the table.
Online PT. No, cannot recall seeing any online periodic table that colours and calls Zn, Cd, and Hg poor metals. This is because, as most online PTs aren't reliable sources for WP purposes, I don't take much notice of them. OTOH, if you look at literature, you'll see quite a bit of discussion about the 'B-subgroup metals.' For example:
  • Spice (1964, p. 46) has a PT dividing the elements into six classes. Class 6 is the B Sub-Group Metals, the central members of which are: Cu Ag Au | Zn Cd Hg | Ga In Tl; he notes Cu Ag Au overlap into Class 4 The Transition Metals, and that Ge Sn Pb | As Sb Bi overlap into the Class 3 The Non-metals
  • Phillips and Williams (1966, p. 4) have a PT dividing the metals into: pre-transition metals; lanthanides and actinides; transition metals; and B metals, which = 50/50 Cu Ag Au; then Zn Cd Hg | Ga In Tl | Sn Pb | Sb Bi | Po. They show Al as a borderline pre-transition metal.
  • Steele (1966, pp. 65‒69) doesn't have a PT as such, but places 15 elements into the same chapter, which he calls 'The later b-subgroup metals': Cu Ag Au (he notes these are 50/50 transition/main group) | Zn Cd Hg | Ga In Tl ('typically weak metals') | [Ge] Sn Pb | [As] Sb Bi ('weak metals'). […] = elements that mark the transition from metals to nonmetals.
  • The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1956, p. 1665) wrote: "Many solid-state physicists regard the metallic elements as being of two more or less distinct types — first, the true metals, and second, the B-subgroup metals. The true metals comprise the alkali metals, the alkaline-earth metals, and the transition metals. These are the elements in columns Ia through VIII of the Periodic Table, Fig. 10. They are characterized by pronounced metallic properties — strong electropositivity, metallic luster, ductility and malleability, good thermal and electrical conductivity. Close-packed structures predominate — body-centered cubic, face-centered cubic, and close-packed hexagonal. The B-subgroup elements, on the other hand, are characterized by a diminution of metallic properties. In any row of B- subgroup — for example, copper, zinc, gallium, germanium, arsenic, selenium, and bromine— there is a steady transition from highly metallic to highly nonmetallic properties. At the same time, these elements tend to have rather complex crystal structures."
  • Massalski (1986, p. 346) writes: 'When the noble metals, Cu, Ag and Au are alloyed with the B subgroup metals (to their right in the periodic table) Cu and Ag act more similarly to each other than to Au.'
You can see that in the first three examples, the Group 11 metals Cu Ag Au cause some boundary issues (Medeleev experienced this too, as per Jensen's article); that the ASME example includes Group 11 as B subgroup metals (despite copper, as per their quote, having 'highly' metallic properties); and that the last example starts the B subgroup metals at Group 12.
Now, the "B-subgroup" label isn't identical to the "poor metals" label. But there are problems with the the "B-subgroup" nomenclature: it clashes with the A/B difference in American and Eurpean group labelling schemes. It also clashes with the type a | borderline | type b categorisation construct for the behaviour of metal ions. And it's been rendered redundant by the IUPAC Group 1–18 labelling scheme.
Given these issues, and the problems and narrower focii of the alternatives ('chemically weak metals'; 'metametals'; 'post-transition metals'; 'semimetals') I think calling the B sub-group metals 'poor metals' instead is OK, noting both terms are found in the literature and that the boundaries involved have never been fixed (although the physical and chemical properties involved, as noted in the literature, make it reasonably clear where these lie).
Conclusion. The concept of a group of second-string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids is well established. The labels are a mess. 'Poor metal' would be a suitable, non-controversial replacement for the now redundant and confusing 'B sub-group metal' label.
Does this help?
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1956, Transactions, vol. 78, pp. 893‒1850 (1665)
  • Massalski TB (ed.) 1986, Noble metal alloys : phase diagrams, alloy phase stability, thermodynamic aspects, properties and special features, proceedings of the TMS Alloy Phase Committee, the TMS Thermodynamics Committee, and the American Society for Metals Alloy Phase Diagram Data Committee, held at the Metallurgical Society of AIME Annual Meeting, February 24‒28, 1985, The Society, Warrendale, Portland, ISBN 9780873390118
  • Phillips CSG & Williams RJP 1965, Inorganic chemistry, II: Metals, Clarendon Press, Oxford
  • Spice JE 1964, Chemical binding and structure, Pergamon Press, Oxford
  • Steele D 1966, The chemistry of the metallic elements, Pergamon Press, Oxford
Sandbh (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, spectroscopically ending the TMs at group 10 makes a lot more sense. What I still don't quite understand is why chemists would want to do that! (Lots of 1950s inorganic chemistry textbooks do that, don't they?) Is there some big chemical shift between group 10 and group 11, as there is between group 11 and group 12? (Not that I know of.) Double sharp (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Quick answer: Group 11 elements have appreciable main-group chemistries; group 10 don't. That's why Group 11 are treated by some authors as borderline TM/main-group elements. Sandbh (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
OK then, a reëmergence of main-group character from group 10 (not much) through group 11 (present, especially in +1 state, right? Or am I not remembering correctly) to group 12 (dominating, just as in the undisputed main-group elements of groups 1–2 and 13–18).
(The Thayer ref in the element 117 article, though titled "Relativistic effects and the chemistry of the heavier main group elements", includes groups 10, 11, and 12, the first two of those for comparison with actual main-group elements. He calls Pt and Au not main-group, but not Hg, so he is clearly taking group 12 as a main group. A cool thing in that ref is that FrO2 "has covalent character", thereby showing a quick simple no-jargon way to dethrone many beginning chemistry students' secret fantasies about throwing francium into any nearby body of water. Sorry, it's not going to be as big of a BOOM as they might think!) Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I just read a discussion on group 12 you've started. I've always admired how you always prove a point. Weird that I didn't give a star to you any earlier. Keep up. R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandbh (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please save me for the superheavy elements[edit]

Element 113: Gets compared to group 13 elements. Behaves like them, except not favouring +1 as much as Tl. forming a rather unstable +5 state. Its +2 and +3 states don't use 7s, instead using 6d. The IUPAC definition would have it a transition metal based on its usual chemistry, but the 6d involvement cause it to behave as a main-group element (with weird structures in some compounds, but that's about it), not a transition metal. Transition metal character only appears for the +5 state. (I would be OK with calling this a transition metal. It's the angle which the sources at the ununtrium article take.)

Elements 165 and 166: IUPAC definition starts breaking down utterly. In +1 and +2 states respectively they should be normal alkali and alkaline earth metals. But their 7d electrons can participate chemically to bring them to the +3 and +4 states respectively, in which they behave like boron and carbon group metals respectively (not transition metals, despite d-electron involvement!) (This makes element 165 remind me of Tl. I am confused what to call 165 and 166 now.) Double sharp (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This E165 situation is kinda reminiscent of all the trouble early experimenters had in classifying Tl, come to think of it. Oliver Sacks wrote something as to whether E113 would be as schizophrenic as Tl about chemical properties. It appears that eka-thallium might not, but dvi-francium (dvi-thallium? I'm still not sure!) certainly should! Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox caesium[edit]

I'm pretty sure the edit summary box wasn't for writing vignettes, but whatever. :-P [4] Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor metals - new article[edit]

I have just had look at the new article draft in you sandbox. impressive. There are points where I disagree and when it is presented as an article I shall make them. What I am concerned about is putting this category onto the "standard" periodic table. Students are taught about metals, non-metals and metalloids, they are not taught poor metals. I disliked the "current" standard P.table, I will hate a new one which included group 12 in the poor metals. The nice electronegativity chart showing the coinage metals , platinum group, poor metals etc. is excellent- a nice way of presenting the grouping of metals. The coinage metals and platinum group etc. could be highlighted in a version of the P.table along with the poor metals, but none of these should appear on the standard table. There are many ways of slicing and dicing the basic P. table, and such a version would sit happily alongside other versions highlighting other features e.g. p block, d block etc. Axiosaurus (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind feedback. I will look forward with interest to hearing of your points of disagreement. I think you are up against the history of the current 'standard' form of the periodic table. {BTW it is not 'The' standard form of PT---please see my post in the PT talk page about this). It dates from 2002, at which time the colour categories were 1. alkali metals, 2. alkaline earths, 3. lanthanides, 4. actinides, 5. transition metals, 6. other metals; 7. metalloids; 8. nonmetals, 9. halogens, and 10. noble gases. With some variations these categories have survived over ten years of edits. I like the color categories. They are visually engaging. They tell a story. They add value beyond the basic division of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals. I think they are here to stay; I see them, or variations of them, in text-books, encyclopedias, web pages, and for example, Theodore Gray's popular all colour-book, with photos of all the periodic table elements (often stocked in libraries). I think the days of tripartite information-poor periodic tables have seen better times, frankly---students these days are use to more pizazz. Sandbh (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the reply. Well certainly more pizzas! I see these "colorful" period tables too, they are OK, but I've seen none so far with poor metals. The oldest version you mention with "other metals" was at least neutral (gripe why don't editors use a sandbox to avoid having a 20 byte addition take 20 edits) and didn't create a "new" category, and yes I know you have references going back to Noah and even further but that don't impress me none. And yes your reply on PT is excellent, please call it the standard 18 column layout- that at least will give me an out when I try to defend wikipedia chemistry to friends. Anyway, good to chat, and I leave you with thought for the day "All that glisters is not gold". Axiosaurus (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Astatine[edit]

Cool stuff: At is expected to be monatomic as a solid (though still diatomic as a liquid or gas)! And yes, it would be metallic at STP. The abstract doesn't mention crystal structure, and I couldn't find the full text: doesn't that mess up Bonchev and Kamenska's estimate of 6.2–6.5 g/cm3 for At2's density in the solid phase? Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to get a hold of the paper in question? The authors use three levels of relativistic modelling: 1. DFT. 2. spin-orbit coupling; 3. a correction for dispersion interactions. First model predicts molecular solid, band gap 0.68 eV, in agreement with Batsanov. Second model, which is based on an approximation of a 'rough' scaling with the square of nuclear charge, predicts monatomic metal (body-centred tetragonal). Third model, which gives reasonable agreement for simple metals, results in face-centred cubic. The second model, which is an approximation, based on a rough scaling, of a power law relationship, concerns me somewhat, since this many qualifications are a lot to hang your hat on. Grateful for your view on this. Oh, and they don't say if the band structure of astatine would be that of a semi-metal (like e.g. As, Sb or Bi) or an ordinary metal (e.g. like Po). So, yes, it may or may not be a metal. Oh, nothing in their paper that I could see about At still being diatomic as a liquid or a gas. Sandbh (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The At2 (l) and (g) is from the news reports, which tended to hype up the metallcity! ;-) I didn't find the paper. But yeah, it's still kinda interesting. Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Non-metallic Barnstar[edit]

periodic table
The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table
For the contributions to the 420 day, 400k discussion in metalloids and non-metals from the early days into the closing consensus conclusions. It resulted in an improved Periodic Table.
-DePiep (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks DePiep; it's been good (and still is) working with you. Beaut looking barnstar, too. Sandbh (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
tx, took me half a day to paint the colors right, and paint drying took one day more. Must warn that the barnstar by topic is not only metalloid/metallic, but also contains traces of polonium: a metal! And poisonous too, so better wrap this talkpage in lead or so. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious: is Po just radiologically toxic, or is it also chemically toxic? I would guess that a hypothetical stable Po isotope would be methylated to Me2Po and cause acute breath problems! ;-) But I don't see it being too chemically toxic. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I've never stopped to wonder or look into Po's toxicological profile. I presume the Gmelin volume on Po might cover off on this? Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I have added the Po grey color to the barnstar background to be complete, so it may show metallic behavior from now on. It should show up on talkpages after some time (or click the background image). -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For all our discussion[edit]

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
Thank you for always making me think. Double sharp (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
With humble thanks. I owe you one of these for always responding (carefully) to my posts :) Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should relook at copernicium[edit]

The boiling point of copernicium has been experimentally(!!!) determined to be 84 °C (error bars: +112, −108). This is extremely low for a metal!

It is predicted that Cn should have a band gap of between 0.2 and 0.88 eV, depending on what calculations you use: this way it might be a semiconductor, or even an insulator. But the authors trust the smaller value more (which would still make Cn a semiconductor, albeit close to being a metal.)

As for the crystal structure, hcp is expected, with c/a = 1.63 (the ideal value!), unlike the high values for Zn and Cd. Cohesive energy should be much closer to Hg than the noble gases.

Refs: [5] (1st paragraph), [6] (rest). Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Stange beastie. Haven't read the second paper yet. Is it supposed to be monatomic, like a solid noble gas? I know you say hcp, just want to make sure this means hcp atoms of 112, not some other kind of 112 unit. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
112 is probably monatomic, given the comparisons given between it and the group 12 and 18 elements (which are both monatomic). Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here.

(I'm sending this message to all our active members.) Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Real life achievement[edit]

Youngkitten.JPG

For getting published. Respect, man.

R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(The kitten has no pun in it, I simply couldn't find a suitable image without exploiting a cliche.)

metalloid template[edit]

About {{Periodic table (metalloid border)}}. pls link (here) to the FAC page with the R8R note, I could not find it. As for the template, I see a. the legend colors are too similar, they could be more extreme (and all are too light on my screen). And b. color alone is not enough (say website access rules). So if we add another visual marker with the color, the lengthy description could go. That extra could be like a cellborder (dotted, interrupted,) or an abbreviation/code in each cell. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Link added. Search for 'It could be cool'. Happy with any subsequent improvements. Not sure how the lengthy text could be reduced as, even a snazzy visual marker as per R8R cld be hard for visually impaired folk to see/read, and I wasn't able to add any alt text to the template. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC[edit]

Sorry I missed this. When you renominate, please let me know and I'll try to help out with the review. --99of9 (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Other metals implementation[edit]

Just to let you know that I'm busy in RL, expected till end of February. If and when the proposal in 'Other metals' concludes, anyone can proceed with implementation edits of course. I'll keep an eye on some essential changes, but just can't do a full sweep this month. -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And also, I think we can temporarily shelve the group 3 and group 12 topics for the other metals one. Better to discuss one and reach a consensus quickly and implement, instead of talk about all three at once and get nothing into mainspace like we've been doing so far. :-P Neither is a prerequisite for this one, after all: we can compare the group 13–16 metals with the group 12 ones without putting them all in the same category! Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Your article, I would really consider it an FA now. Just not sure if I can edit the FAC (here). Of course, you can cite this phrase whenever you want to.

Wanted to apologize I didn't say this earlier, this is due to long-time lying in hospital (sadly, shit happens). I won't be watching every day either, sorry (it'll be difficult).

If you ever re-nominate it, please let me know, I'll cite FAC2 and support it (unless it gets worse, but this doesn't seem very likely).

(I wasn't watching pages lately, so I could've missed something about the FAC. The article looks FA-worthy anyway.)--R8R (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. No need for sorry. As you said, stuff happens. Good news is User John has copy-edited the article for me and it looks sharper now. At John's suggestion I will ask Dirac66 to ce too, and then ask Material Scientist for a technical check before trying FAC3. I much appreciate your support and your input to FAC2. Will send you an e-mail. Regards, Sandbh (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Re Other Metals. @Double sharp. 1. How to find the (text) edits needed:

search "poor metal"
search "poor metals"
Special:WhatLinksHere/Poor metal
Special:WhatLinksHere/Poor metals
&tc.
If the decision is stable, I'll do all templates & images (enwiki WPELEM).

Caveat: you must make a clear decision (=closure of the discussion). As it is now in WT:ELEM, it has loose ends. What is the exact change?

And from me there is this: I am not enthousiastic about the change elementcategory "poor metal" → "other metal". In short: the semantics for "other" is miserable. And: "poor metal" is of course poor, but not wrong. As a wording that can stand alone, it is preferable. We know, and I support, the approach to describe all variant elementcategories in the appropriate page (as your dozen or so sections do). Contrasting my promise, I have not reread the discussions nor the available sources for this. The fact that today it is not wrong, does not help me to start. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary of the rationale could help. The pertinent discussion about 'poor metal' to 'other metal' is at the end of the talk about post-transition metals, here. A key part of this talk was this post by me:
  • There is no definition of post-transition metals that I'm aware of. My impression of the literature is that 'post-transition metals' is more often used in the sense that Axiosaurus mentioned i.e. excluding aluminium. P-block metals won't work since element 113, which is a p-block metal, is expected to have some transition metal chemistry.
  • I agree with Flying Jazz, wherever he said it, that Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) should be reflective of the literature. I also agree with his comments about it’s an editor thing v it’s a reader thing.
  • The literature is all over the place with respect to category names for the elements between the transition metals and the metalloids.
  • Given all of this, I lean towards thinking that the former category name 'other metals'—in the sense of a category of metals, 'Existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned'; 'auxiliary', 'ancillary, secondary' (quotes from 2nd OED, and Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus entries for 'other')—may be more appropriate, with the 'other metal' article listing all the cited alternative category names. Some readers will still go "WTF are 'other metals'?", however what's going on will become clear upon reading the article, with readers free to choose any of the more specific category names listed therein, for non-Wikipedia use, should they decide that 'other metals' won't cut the mustard. I personally don't think that much of the name 'other metals' but the jumbled category name situation for these metals, as found in the literature, is what it is.
  • There's an other metal article in my sandbox that includes commentary on the rationale for, and meaning of, the 'other metal' expression. Previously there was no specific article on the other metals, which was part of the problem; now there can be.
At the end of the last part of this thread ('Return of the other metals'), in response to the following concern by User:Nergaal
  • I did not follow this discussion but honestly, I think it would be quite stupid to call a group of elements as "other" when we have the adequate, NON-AMBIGUOUS qualifier "poor".

…I responded like so:

  • Agree "poor" is adequate, and NON-AMBIGUOUS. It isn't in common usage however, and neither is anything else. This is quite shabby but that's chemistry for you. "Other", as in 'Existing besides, or distinct from, that already mentioned'; 'auxiliary', 'ancillary, secondary', provides a suitably generic yet meaningfully appropriate label under which the associated article can list all of the alternative names found in the literature for these forgotten metals, including e.g. b-subgroup metals; junior metals (my favourite); poor metals; post-transition metals; p-block metals; polyvalent non-transition metals etc. In RL, individual authors and teachers can choose their pet name; Wikipedia should simply reflect the—shambolic in this case—state of the literature. This represents the culmination of the poor metals thread-saga and is what I've tried to do in my sandbox. I also intend to add a note to the 'poor metals' i.e. 'other metals' talk page, re-iterating the rationale for the (currently proposed) change.
Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • MEGA OPPOSE I really do not understand all this energy bing spent into a topic so dumb as this. What is the problem if element 113 is not going to be a post-transition metal or whatever? We are not renaming noble gases into other nonmetals just because 118 might act funky. CAN WE STOP NAMING ARTICLES WITH OTHER XYZ??? Please! Nergaal (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • And side question: how is "poor" more ambiguous than "other"? Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nergaal. The bottom line is that there is no widely recognised label for the 'junior metals'—period. 'Post-transition metals' stumbles on Al. Having a category called 'p-block metals' would be contentious given E113 is expected to be capable of exhibiting transition metal chemistry in ambient conditions. E118 might be a relatively reactive solid at room temperature, in the form of non-conducting colourless crystals. The only references I could find to its increased reactivity predict that it will form a stable 118-Cl bond. There is nothing here that would merit anything else but a minor change from noble gases to noble nonmetals. Ambiguity is not the issue. It's the terminological wilderness found in the chemistry nomenclature, when it comes to these forgotten 'no name' metals, which is the relevant issue. Wikipedia should reflect this, with individual writers and teachers being free to use more specific names, given the lack of consistency in the literature on this point. 'Other metals' has a good meaning in this case, as explained above.
Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid colors[edit]

Though legend clarification is correct as you answered as Metalloid colors FAC, I'll dive into the change. I 'm thinking of dotted cell borders &tc. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the colours myself, as they are the easiest to understand for the greatest number of people. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the colors, but colors alone is not enough. Now there is that huge textual re-description. It would be better to have a graphical mark with the colors (border pattern, or text in the cell). -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Happy for you to go ahead. Would we need to keep textual description for read aloud software? Sandbh (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please no! You'd want that for the whole periodic table too? I'll take a look at how that should be covered. Could be through mousehoover title, alt-text (for images), etc. So I'd like to have the repetitive texts gone when other visuals are in place, but I'll have to base that on guidelines (to convince you). Challenge taken. -DePiep (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's all good. The read aloud software reference was prompted (I recall) by RexxS' accessibility comments, here. Sandbh (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC page[edit]

The page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive1 (the Metalloid FAC page) hasn't been updated for over two weeks since John last edited it. Why hasn't Metalloid passed the FAC yet? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See here, first dot point. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Al is a post-transition says Nergaal[edit]

Well-respected Nergaal has made one Move re Other metals. Please see WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I just saw that and was about to write a response. Do you happen to know how to revert such a change? I've seen how to do that somewhere just can't remember where. Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even research or try to revert. Hey, Nergaal is a grown up person. I hope he reverts after the questions. (A very a-typical action, though).
In general, if a page has no history edits (creation & move only), anyone can revert a move. I did not check this. I could also check WP:MOVE or WP:RM (revert/dispute a move). I did not search for this either. Because: I won't battle that route. I think he is an admin, but whatever. The questions should solve it. OTOH, I would take it very very very high when Nergaal had to use admin powers to perform the move (needed to solve non-simple page histories; again I did not check).
I addressed Nergaal with Questions. Already his arguments retracted to "I think" from "it is", so the discussion is open.
And as I said elsewhere: I won't clean up the mess he created in all PT issues. What we do need to deploy is patience; take time. We can always ask: "Al a post-transition metal?" -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

on your sandbox[edit]

Are the s- and f-block metals always excluded? You mention this in note 1, but also give the possible upper cap at uranium, which is redundant if s- and f-block metals are always excluded (you can then cap at the end of period 6 instead, because elements 87 to 92 are in the s- and f-blocks). (Although I don't think I've ever seen period 7 elements called heavy metals at all, TBH.) Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Only in the opinion of one particular reference, a citation for which I forgot to add. All of the references I've seen so far only use one criterion i.e. density, atomic weight, atomic number, or periodic table position, and ignore other definitions. So contradictions arise because there is no agreed definition, let alone a definition based on at least two criteria. I don't think it matters as the generic description of metals of environmental concern, in my view, is good enough. It is interesting however to try and summarize what definitions there are.
I stumbled on the heavy metal article and thought it looked quite shabby. There didn't seem to be a lead editor, either. I didn't appreciate how much literature there was on this topic nor how disorganised it was. Very hard to find a good book giving a broad overview on the topic. Sandbh (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

metalloid FA[edit]

Congrats! Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Quite an experience. I may write a lessons learnt article. Next nominee has to be F. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thank you for taking your time to improve WP's chemistry articles. Your work is greatly appreciated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats!--R8R (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, congrats. A very tough nut, encyclopedically, you cracked. -DePiep (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

These other post-transition metals[edit]

About the other_metal/ptm threads over at WT:ELEM. I am happy to leave that alone while you craft the substantial proposal, as you said. Then I'm sure to read good stuff. I do not feel any loyalty to Stone's distorted proposal, and I will not imply that one. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, is there any particular reason why Rg is excluded from your sandbox article, even though it would be a PTM by the TM-stops-at-group-10 definition? (Is it because that definition is really rare now?) Double sharp (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the TM-stops-at-group-10 definition was a reference to the effect that a filled d10 shell had on s electrons, in the group 11 metals, with their d10s1 config. Now, Rg is predicted to have d9s2, which means it will probably behave more like a genuine TM like Pt (also with d9s2). Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot about that electron configuration. Perhaps it should be explained in a footnote, though. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, then what about Cn with d10s2 but a willingness to breach 6d before 7s? Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you've got some misspellings in the lede image of your sandbox: they're at P, S (mistakenly shown as Si), As, Rg, Lv (mistakenly shown as Fl), 117, 118. Also, the top line of the Ne cell isn't there: was that intentional? Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tx; I believe I've fixed these. The blank line at the top of Ne is to be consistent with the other blank lines at B, Al and the group 10 metals. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On Scerri's argument[edit]

Hi, I have now replied to your comment on my talk page at User talk:Double sharp#Eric Scerri. Double sharp (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A teamwork barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I can't believe I didn't recognise your work earlier. Working with you to put the finishing touches onto the Metalloid article to FA was one of my peak experiences in a fairly long wiki-career. Thank you for letting that happen and for all the great work you have done in improving our chemistry articles. Look forward to working with you in the future. John (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Far out! Wow! What an awes-looking barnstar. Very much appreciated. Thank you. Hope to talk some more. Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Composition of group 3[edit]

I wrote an argument summary on WT:ELEM. Double sharp (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic ordering of some TM ions[edit]

Are the group 3 ions paramagnetic or diamagnetic? (Ideally I'd like the same info for groups 4, 5, 11 and 12.)

(The reason for this question is that, as Lewis noted, TMs often form paramagnetic ions, while main group metals usually form diamagnetic ions. Groups 3, 11, and 12 have sometimes been classified with the main group elements, so I'd like to know this to see how solid the arguments on each side are. Groups 4 and 5 would be useful for comparison: like group 3 their chemistry is dominated by their group oxidation state, though to a lesser extent.) Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found from Jensen's Zn/Cd/Hg article that group 11 forms paramagnetic ions and group 12 forms diamagnetic ions. Searching for the early TM groups now. Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, fluorine[edit]

This page, the fourth fluorine FAC, needs you, not the other way around. I want the article promoted as fast as possible, and I believe that two other reviewers need to give support for promotion. So, given your "haughty" prose standards, I'd like you to add all the errors you think are in the article, and I'll fix them. Before that you need to promise that you'll support once everything is over with. Parcly Taxel 06:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll joyfully give my support when I'm satisfied with the standard of prose ("well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard;"---FAC criterion 1.a). Listing what I believe needs to be addressed is laborious and burns a lot of motivation energy. I've done it that way, recently, to illustrate the kinds of things I'm not satisfied with. It would be far quicker and more convenient for me to edit as I go, and to wait for me to get through the whole article, at which point I would support. Then if you have any concerns---I'd be surprised if there were a lot---let's discuss. Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Eh. OK, I can tolerate the wait. Parcly Taxel 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Beaut. I expect to have some blocks of time available this week, RL permitting. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
All done :) Support lodged. Ура! Sandbh (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

on your sandbox scatterplot[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you use the Pb(II) value for Pb and the Tl(III) value for Tl? It looks that way, and it might not be fair because of the inert pair effect. It doesn't make much of a difference to categorization, though. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal preference would be Tl(I) and Pb(II), but Tl(III) and Pb(IV) is also quite defensible. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I have some catching up to do on this one as well as pesky Cn. Usual story about pouring rain here and in RL. Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would be also sweet to include text on why Cn–E117 could be PTMs. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Making it happen could take a while. My list runneth over. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Where do you think it should go, though? In its own "predictions" sections or in the sections for their respective groups? Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A minor question[edit]

I have a Chisté ref, which is this ref: [7]. It was formatted via the {{cite web}} template. I have found it is a part of a larger document, here's the preface: [8] . But even from that, I can't conclude how to format the ref now: is it a book? a report? what? if a book, how should it be quoted: just say the table is a book, and the document is a chapter of it (this is doable)? Or how? Maybe you could help, for which I would be grateful.

That's a hard ref to do properly. It has three publishers; what look to be editors as well as individual authors for each chapter; and the page numbers for each chapter are not sequential. It seems to be a report, in which case I would cite it as...
  • Chisté & Bé 2011
...and give the details as:
  • Chisté V & Bé MM 2011, 'F-18', in MM Bé, N Coursol, B Duchemin, F Lagoutine, J Legrand, K Debertine & E Schönfeld (eds), Table of Radionuclides, CEA (Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives), LIST, LNE-LNHB (Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel/Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique), Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
I haven't included what LIST stands for as I haven't been able to find this. They seem to have been merged with CEA, which will only make it harder.
Indeed, you seem to be right, I have followed what you'd suggested (I only left out the word "Cedex" -- as I understand, it's a French postal thing and is not okay without a postal code). I've never been a pro at formatting refs, and those cite web/journal/etc templates are a great help for me (I think I would manage it without them, having to learn what I already partly know, but they allow me to go without that, and I think I can find mistakes in formatting (like understanding English perfectly is easier than speaking English perfectly, you might've noticed that on me)). {{cite report}} confirmed what you write was right. Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about the Cedex thing. Thought it might've been something like that. Teamwork rocks. Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(If you want to ask about that act of childishness: my patience is on the verge of abyss (I hope the translation is correct; what I want to say is, I've had enough from him). I wish he learns respect (which I had never wished to anyone before).)--R8R (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"my patience is on the verge of [the] abyss" is quite good. "my patience is on the verge of collapse" would work too. Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am touched[edit]

(I think I would probably say "поддерживаю," which still translates as "support," but it's a verb (precisely, the form used after the word "I": "[I] support.") -- and Russian sentences easily go without a subject. But you're clearly not to blame for this, U.S. officials make much sillier mistakes (and I would clearly not do any better in a language I don't know).)

This is very nice from you. I wish I could've paid back (I've promised to DS I would review an article he wants to eventually FA, neptunium, after the FAC was over, and just yesterday I promised Parcly I would help a little with an article he'll probably try to promote, which, as I understand, would probably be silver, and I don't have much time on my hands) -- still, I'll try to help somehow. I hope I will be relatively free (more free than now) from October on -- which is when I probably can (and, if so, will, unless asked not to do so, which you are free to do) help with the article currently in your sandbox (or anything you might ask for). Also, as always, I'm free for any questions or requests (if it's a request, not sure how fast I can do that, but I will try).

This offer on help would apply even if you didn't do that small, but neat thing. You were a great help at the FAC (and maybe will do more if anyone asks for something else to be done). That makes me grateful and more willing to help you.--R8R (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You have my respect and appreciation, R8R Gtrs. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with you and I look forward to further elemental explorations. Sandbh (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles[edit]

While writing previous message, I've remembered you'd taken part in the discussion on the other metal -> post-transition metal move. I checked and saw you appealed for that change to happen on the RM/Technical requests page. What do you think, is it appropriate to ask for the same for the ununseptium -> element 117 move and the like? (Here is the previous discussion to refer to: part one, part two.)--R8R (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would move it yourself and see what happens, but let DePiep know you're going to do that, first. 12:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 [edit]

periodic table
a Post-Transition Metallic Barnstar
combined with that Other Metal Barnstar
One star for making one thing into a great article. And another one for applying talk loyally, contre-cœur and scientifically, into another great thing.
-DePiep (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


Très cool, merci DePiep. I've been a little surprised by the interest shown in this article. Will get around to adding the finishing touches as soon as I can. Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Radium[edit]

Hi Sandbh. Any info on what the melting point of Ra actually is? Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Marie Curie gave it as 700° C in volume 2 of her Traité de radioactivité (1910, p. 542; see internet archive) and I'm not aware of any different experimental evidence. I'd list it as ~700. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah OK. The main reason I was wondering is that later Kirby in The Radiochemistry of Radium (1964; here's the link) gives "700°C or 960°C". His citation for the latter figure is the same as the one for the boiling point and is more recent than Curie's (it is "National Research Council (U.S.), “International Critical Tables of Numerical Data, Physics, Chemistry and Technology,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1928-1933.". OTOH Lange, CRC (92nd ed.), and Greenwood & Earnshaw (2nd ed.) all give the 700°C value. This textbook, Modern Inorganic Chemistry by R. D. Madan and S. Prakash (1987), gives a clue by stating that "Radium is a white metal which melts at 700°C, volatilises at 960°C and boils at 1140°C." Is that a plausible explanation for the measured 960°C value for m.p., that that's actually when Ra becomes especially volatile? (Wouldn't be surprised at that; Po is really volatile even when solid, and it's also quite radioactive.) Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The plot thickens. Traité de radioactivité (vol. 2) says:
"I. Le radium a été obtenu à l'état métallique à partir de l'amalgame préparé par l'électrolyse du chlorure ; pour cela l'amalgame a été chauffé dans l'hydrogène sous une pression convenable, de manière à éliminer le mercure par distillation. Le métal obtenu est blanc, brillant, fond vers 700" et commence à se volatiliser à cette température;"
which Google translates as:
"I. Radium was obtained in the metallic state from amalgam prepared by the electrolysis of chloride; why amalgam was heated in hydrogen at a pressure OK, so as to eliminate mercury by distillation. The metal produced is white, shiny, all the way to 700 "and how [sic] begins to evaporate at this temperature;".
So, now a plausible explanation seems to be that radium does a polonium-like trick, by starting to volatilize (at 700°C in this case) before it at melts (at 960°). Mind you, I couldn't find "960" anywhere in Traité de radioactivité. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Stone corresponded with me on WP regarding this too. The problem is that Ra is not readily available anymore because its dangers are now fully appreciated. That's a good thing for safety but also means that all the work on determining its physical and chemical characteristics essentially stopped in the 1950s. So we don't have new data. The 960 °C value Kirby mentions, along with the b.p. of Ra, comes from 1928–1933 and is by the U.S. National Research Council. So both values are really old but there does not seem to be much newer. Your explanation is certainly plausible, though, and seems to agree with Marie Curie's characterization of what actually happens.
(P.S. The Google Translate looks like it preserved the meaning quite well, aside from the incomprehensible second clause, which I think means "for which [the isolation of Ra] the amalgam was heated in hydrogen at a suitable pressure...". I'd translate se volatiliser as "volatilize" instead of "evaporate" here, though: it can mean both but I normally don't see "evaporate" used to describe solid-to-gas, only liquid-to-gas.) Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Odd. The rubber bible gives 696° C for the mp but nothing for the bp. It also lists four sources, the first of which is the major one so I'll see if that one gives a primary source. I'll have a look in Gmelin too. Sandbh (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Gmelin on Ra (1928) says that Ra schmilzt bei etwa 700° ie radium melts at around 700. Source is Marie Curie & A Debierne, Comptes Rendus 151 (1910) p. 524. Gmelin does not give a boiling point apart from noting this is less than that of barium (same source). I think Comptes Rendus from then is available on the Internet Archive. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's an extract of the Comptes Rendus article:
La plus grande partie du mercure a été distillée à 270° puis la température a été augmentée progressivement ainsi que la pression du gaz dans l'appareil. Afin de pouvoir observer le contenu de la nacelle pendant toute la durée de l'opération, on chauffait à l'aide de brûleurs à gaz. Vers 400° l'amalgame était solide mais fondait par élévation de température et dégageait alors du mercure. Le point de fusion pouvait être déterminé très exactement, il montait progressivement et a atteint 700°. A cette température nous ne pouvions plus observer de distillation de mercure, aucune condensation ne se produisant sur la paroi froide. Par contre, le métal a commencé à se volatiliser abondamment et la vapeur attaquait énergiquement le tube de quartz. L'opération a alors été arrêtée. La nacelle contenait un métal blanc brillant, ayant une fusion brusque vers 700°. Nous pensons que ce métal était du radium sensiblement pur. Il adhérait fortement au fer et ne pouvait en être décaché facilement.
Which Google translates as:
Much of the mercury was distilled to 270° and the temperature was gradually increased as the gas pressure in the apparatus . In order to observe the contents of the basket during the entire duration of the operation, is heated by means of gas burners . To 400° amalgam was solid but melted by raising the temperature and then gave off mercury. The melting point could be determined very accurately, it rose gradually and reached 700° At this temperature we could not observe distillation of mercury, no condensation occurring on the cold wall . As against , metal began to thoroughly volatilize steam and vigorously attacked the quartz tube . The operation was then stopped . The pod contained a shiny white metal , having a sudden merger to 700° , we believe that this metal was substantially pure radium. It adhered strongly to iron and could not be easily décaché .
See, here. Sandbh (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
(Placeholder for future comment: not too happy with the Google Translate: will write what I make of this soon.) Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Metalloid, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 4 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date.