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)


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-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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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]


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)


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)


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
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)


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)


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.


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

metalloids jungle
Thank you, user looking for the meaning of a word, for quality articles on chemistry, such as Metalloid and company in the jungle (Dividing line between metals and nonmetals, List of metalloid lists ...), for workshop bench and team spirit, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda for your very kind words and fine graphics. Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Graphics: do you mean what I call br'erly style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, love the box with the round corners and the sparkly gem is polished too. Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Every Precious given is an homage to the photographer and the designer, missed, - a year ago was #623 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Today is #992, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were recipient no. 992 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for today's heavy metals! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Elsevier access[edit]

Hello, Sandbh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you still remember old good 2012[edit]

Hello. Could you please help me remember a thing from long ago?

Back in 2012, I edited astatine and approached quite a high level of an article with it. And you came in and took a great part in making it shine. I remember I'd left it just before I FAC-nominated it, so I think maybe it's the time to give it a try. I've asked for some comments from the project (just to be sure, a sort of last minute check), and DePiep has raised a good question: What's the commented out part in the Synthesis section commented out for? Some trial and error could not help me figure out the part of discussion it was in, so I couldn't see for myself. I don't think I'd comment it out unless pushed/talked into it, so there must be a reason why. If, after giving a look, you can remember the talk or at least suggest why it was commented, I'd appreciate it. (If not, then I'll just read through discussions (for which I am now just too tired) and think once again about it, so it won't be a problem).

If you have some spare time, I'd appreciate it much if you gave it a look to see if there's anything else waiting to be fixed prior to the showtime. Cheers--R8R (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, very pleased to be able to help, my friend. Will have a look tomorrow night (when I expect to have a solid block of available time), if not before. 00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
First impression: wow, this is really good! I only saw a few trimming opportunities. More later. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I keep saying, "I'll soon manage to find time" or "I am here" or stuff like that, but this time, I am confident nothing else will divert me after I get my current business done. That time before, I think, I mistook the wish for the reality. Not sure when, but I think I'll get it done within a week. After that, I guess we can go for it, so I can actually take part in bringing the angel to the paradise. I do want to take part in this going on. I thought I would get a better chance to this, and I must admit, I was thinking like, just get this nominated, and I'll have it. But it's great you made me realize some labor will do it better even if you think the victory is already in the bag. The bronze star is a very nice reward, but not the ultimate reason why this is done in first place. This also gives me some tips about another article that is a near-FA I want featured, ununseptium, I'll do my best to use those.

I hope you'll be there at the FAC, and, after we succeed, I'll gladly share the star with you. You really helped this be what it is now in both 2012 and 2015. And this is very appreciated and I am otherwise left speechless.

That said, you're doing great, really; not sure I could make the article as good without you taking part.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your fine words R8R Gtrs. I'll be there at showtime. I'm very pleased to have had this opportunity to contribute to the most informative encyclopaedic entry for astatine yet compiled. Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment and request[edit]

Wanted to let you know that I had started using your (largely your) tidied Origin and use of the term metalloid as an example article when I engage new editors interested in producing science content. If only all had such a commitment to verifiable content.

Thank you.

Second, and only if you have the time: I have engaged in what seems a fruitless debate with a pair of Dutch (?) editors that have a devotion to the pictures of elements, and have asked them to make clear, at a particular template, here, [9], what their criteria are for including/excluding images. This arising because in discussions, it became clear their understanding of chemical pedagogy is only very superficial—they did not understand the point of space-filling models, or CPK coloring—and that the criteria they are applying seem to lie squarely with image "prettiness". THis is important because their template has become (through their focused editorial efforts) the chosen image that must appear in every element infobox. The issue definitely needs cooler editorial heads, talking a look. Cheers, whatever your perspective might be. At very lease, I want them to think about, and state, their criterial for that Template cum list. Note, if these editors have reverted the Expert tag on the template, please look to the Edit history to see what last appeared from me. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been busy in RL and much of my time here has been spent working with User:R8R Gtrs on getting astatine up to FAC standard (it's now there), and working with user talk:YBG on properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals (in progress). I'll see (no promises) if I can have a look at what's been happening with oxygen. Sandbh (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Spectrum for astatine[edit]

At FAC, there was raised a question we have no info about, but some info actually exists: the spectrum. A paper to look at is proposed, but it's paywalled, and since I read somewhere Wiki prefers books over papers, we are in luck, since the Lavrukhina/Pozdnyakov book does mention those two lines. Do you still have it? Could you add this to the article, please?--R8R (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have the article and will check it and L&P, and Gmelin.
Done and added. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to that, should we add info on the At2 molecule if we're not sure it even exists? It makes little sense to me, but I don't want to look like "I can try to ditch it, so I will."--R8R (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with it given there are a reasonable number of predictions in the literature as to the properties of diatomic astatine, if it were to exist. Sandbh (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

molar volume, check[edit]

Please check me if I made this right, after all I edited. I changed the "default unit" options for this new molar volume, somewhere. Now: {{Infobox astatine}} shows:

Molar volume (At2) 32.94 cm3·mol−1

That should be what Bonchev says. (note: last few days, after a bad edit by me, it said: 32.94 m3·mol−1. Not cm3 then). -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, looking good thank you DePiep. Sandbh (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't have an article that finely worked without you[edit]

Diamond cutter. Amsterdam. 2012.jpg The diamond has been finely cut
I am certain the article astatine, which you helped me build, would not be as good without you having taken part. The bronze star we got is a nice reward, but it is not the reason I got into this in first place, and I think, these stars are not the main driver for you, either. Thank you for making the article that refined and well-written. I doubt I could reach such quality myself. R8R (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Sincere thanks R8R Gtrs for this very cool edit and your trailblazing, and follow-up work on the article. Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA nomination of "Astatine"[edit]

I have nominated an article you have greatly contributed to, according to, for TFA. Here's the page: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Astatine. TVShowFan122 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

the name "lanthanum"[edit]

Is it from λανθανω or λανθανειν? I've seen both. I know it's the same root but I wanna know which one Mosander wrote. (And yes, I'm interested in rewriting the La article. Surely it's one of the most well-known lanthanides, along with Ce – although it is of course helped by the fact that it gave its name to the entire series.) Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like they mean the same thing and that the first one means "to escape notice, to be unknown, unseen, unnoticed" whereas the second one is the noun equivalent(?): "a hidden thing". A lot of guess work going on here. Google says the first one = stranded, and the second one = lanthanein. Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Here are two links and how I interpret them:
  1. λανθάνω
    • present active indicative 1 sg. - translates as "I escape notice" or "I am unknown, unseen, unnoticed"
    • present active subjunctive 1 sg. - translateds as "I might escape notice" or "I might be unknown, unseen, unnoticed"
  2. λανθάνειν
    • present active infinitive - translates as "to escape notice", "to be unknown, unseen, unnoticed"
The two are in fact different forms of the same word, like the difference between "walk", "walks", "walking" and "to walk". It is akin to the question of which English word sodium was named for -- was it "soda" or "sodas"? I suspect that the difference between sources reflects differing ideas of what is the proper Greek citation form -- the form you looked up in pre-Internet-age dictionaries which only have a single entry instead of a different entry for each and every form. In English, the citation form for verbs is the bare infinitive, that is "to walk" without the "to". For most English verbs this is also the present form used with I, we, you, or they as the subject. (I say "most English verbs"; "to be" is an obvious exception; this verb fills pretty much the same role in grammar as hydrogen fills in the periodic table.) In Greek, the most usual citation form is the first person singular present active indicative form, e.g., "I walk". But some authors and dictionaries use the present active infinitive form, e.g., "to walk". It would be interesting to know what Mosander actually wrote, but all that would reveal is something about the books and teachers from which he learned Greek, that is to say, their preference in which form of the verb to use for the citation form. YBG (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I stand in awe of your language-fu. I had a quick look to see where Mosander announced his finding, without success. Am working on the pesky other nonmetals, and their ilk, at the moment. Haven't looked closely at the lanthanum article yet, to see if I find it engaging. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium FAC[edit]

Hi! As you know, ununseptium is at FAC now... I know superheavies are not something you specialize at, but could I please ask you to review it for the FAC? The FAC is quite old, and I'm afraid it may close without getting enough attention to stand a chance, again. If you specify there you would review it in a few days, so the FAC coordinators won't lose their patience prematurely, it'll be so helpful right now.--R8R (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I must say, I feel like I've been asking you for far more than I could give back... is there a way I could make amends? (I've wanted to for a long time, except at any moment, I just either didn't know how or wasn't able to.)

Sure, will do. Forget the give back stuff---that's not required. Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. The give back stuff is not because I signed to this; it's because I want to show some appreciation. I'll take your reply as a "nothing for now, thanks," but if there's anything I could help you with, feel free to ask anytime, now or later, whether I've been active lately or not.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

about your sandbox[edit]

Hey Sandbh. Tc is a problem with the noble-metal periodic table cutout. It is not usually put among the noble metals, as it's radioactive and hard to use, but the potential of the reaction TcO
+ 4 H+
+ 4 e → Tc + 2 H
is 0.272 V, higher than that of the Re equivalent which is 0.259 V. Maybe we need a note saying that Tc is pretty noble too, but is excluded because of its radioactivity. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm using a table of standard reduction potentials in Wulfsberg (1987), Principles of descriptive inorganic chemistry, p. 155. He lists –0.5 V for Tc+2 and +0.3 V for Re+3. There's a note at the foot of his table which says for ions with more than one cation, the more prevalent cation was chosen. Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Greenwood and Earnshaw 2nd ed. (p.1045) give Tc2+ (aq) + 2 e ⇄ Tc (s) as 0.400 V, while Re3+ (aq) + 3 e ⇄ Re (s) is given 0.300 V. Both Tc and Re resist oxidation in bulk and tarnish slowly in moist air according to Greenwood and Earnshaw. In powders they are more reactive (they are apparently quite similar in behaviour and reactivity, as expected after the Ln contraction). Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Curious. Wulfsberg gives two references: Douglas, McDaniel and Alexander (1983), Concepts and models of inorganic chemistry. These authors list Tc2+ as –0.4 V (p. E-3). The other ref is Ball and Norbury (1974), Physical data for inorganic chemists. I don't have this one at hand but can look it up tomorrow. This other source gives 0.3 V but there is a note next to the entry saying, "This half-reaction involves at least one doubtful chemical species…". Parish (1977) The metallic elements says of the 4d- and 5d- metals that, "…most redox-potential data refer to complexes rather than to aquated species, and the values vary with the anion present" and a little later, "in a few cases special care has been taken…and simple aquated cations have been observed. Let me check that other source. 09:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Ball and Norbury don't list a value for Tc2+. Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh and I am not sure Tc2+ is really the most important oxidation state – Tc and Re are more stable in oxidation states beyond +2. Most Tc chemistry starts with TcO
. Is it excluded because it's not a cation? Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I follow. It's excluded as it's not a cation. Sandbh (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Couples involving the pertechnetate and perrhenate ions, the starting point for nearly all chemistry with Tc and Re:

  • TcO
    + 8 H+ + 5 e ⇄ Tc2+ (aq) + 4H2O: 0.500 V
  • ReO
    + 8 H+ + 4 e ⇄ Re3+ (aq) + 4H2O: 0.422 V (as Tc2+ and Re3+ are respectively the more common lower oxidation states). Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Let us draw the PT in 32 columns, by habit. Others can cripple it into 18-col or IKEA-package or whatever. DePiep says: "If you can't draw it in 32-col, something is wrong". -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the 32 column table (including our footer) but I think the 18-column table will be around for a long time, due its compact size. Certainly this is the case for wall-sized posters and books. Sure there is much more room on-line but even here the 18-column form is a better fit for mobile devices.

Did we loose each other here? -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. I'll return to the transition metals after I finish with the periodic table draft. Sandbh (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Again in the PT graph thing, side issues are entered into the main decisions to be made, and as a package decision even. Loosing energy & faith this way. I'd expect independent topics to be kept treated independently. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please keep helping me. Just now, I made Major the "footnote group numbering claim". Now somewhere else, I made notes about "common PT" and "medium PT" language. Can you point & isolate those subtalks for me? The talkpage search is hopeless by now. Then I can root out those subversions. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Will do (if not today, then tomorrow). Sandbh (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You have won: the 48h-patience card, to be used against me ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I can't get enough of your great improvements in articles and careful, deep research behind them. The current group 3 issue demonstrates great accuracy and diligence, and your involvement always does that. It is great there is an editor as industrious, open-minded, and polite as you around; I stand in awe of you. R8R (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow---far out!---don't know what to say. Humble appreciation comes to mind. Sandbh (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed[edit]

Hi. I've reworked my sandbox for coloring and the PT, and I think the development process is close to the conclusion. Remembering my previous scheme was not too great for easy telling colors apart, would you please take another look at its current state, both the regular PT and the extended one and tell me if the colors are easily distinguishable now. Thank you--R8R (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The regular table is good. In the extended one, have the super actinides been coloured correctly? The cell colour doesn't appear to match the legend colour or does this have something to do with the fact that the actinide font is blue whereas the super actinide font is black and that causes the super actinide colouring in the cells to appear muted? Sandbh (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The superactinides are colored with the "(predicted)" color. For this reason, you won't see the main color in those cells, but only the paler color for the predicted elements. The main color currently serves only to show what it will be once a superactinide has been synthesized. Is the extended table otherwise fine, or are there any other problems?
Also, I'd like to draw your attention to one important aspect of the regular table coloring. Are the font colors for solid, liquid, and gas are a) easily distinguishable from their backgrounds in the PT and b) easily distinguishable from each other?--R8R (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand now what is happening with the superAn. The only issue now is that the colour of the predicted super-An is too close to that of the Ln. (This is not an issue for the current colour scheme used in our extended PT.) Have you thought about using white for unknown properties and grey for the super-An? The colours for the solid, liquid and gas fonts are fine. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have altered the colors a little bit. Are they okay now? I have considered white, and made the gray much brighter as the result. However, I think, we'll be better off without white: it stands out just too much, and on a not so bright background it's trying to attract too much attention, compared to the mild colors of the other categories. Gray for San may not work since it may be introduced to the extended PT as another "unknown" color; see the discussion, and would you want to take part?--R8R (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you may have it now. I'll pass on the discussion. The transition metal article rewrite is waiting for me. The joy of coordination complexes :( Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reception. Soon, I'll publish a post on WT:ELEM describing it and offering it for a closer look. Good luck with the article! By the way, I have a reply in mind for your post on nonmetal split. The biggest problem is to take the time to write it down. I think I should be able to do so in the coming days. Would it be okay for you now, or should we postpone the discussion then?--R8R (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to read it when you're ready. Sandbh (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. On the day you appproved the scheme for a wider review, I found a way to improve the colors, and I have updated the scheme. Would you please take another look?--R8R (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It works for me. Sandbh (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Great; thank you.--R8R (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your last change[edit]

In this revision: you replaced "with similar properties" with "with some approximately similar chemical properties".

"approximately similar" doesn't sound right, since both words mean about the same thing. I think "approximately" should be removed, and I'm not sure about "some". I didn't want to edit your changes myself, considering your status...Dhrm77 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The expression "with similar properties" becomes less and less true as the blocks are traversed from left to right. The s-block and the f-block are OK but the extent of similarity degrades in the d-block and nearly completely breaks down in the p-block. Compare B with F, for example, or Al with Ne. The similarity primarily refers to the representative or main group elements, the transition metals, and the f-block metals on the basis of common electron configuration filling arrangements. So, similar properties, without some qualification doesn't work. And it wasn't clear to me how to refer to similarities in electron configurations in the lede of the article without losing the general reader. You could say "some similar properties" but that implies more than one property and what other property are we talking about besides electron configuration in the p-block. I suppose chemical properties comes into it because we are talking about e.g. main group chemistry, or transition chemistry, but in the case of the noble gases, there is no substantive main group chemistry for He, Ne and Ar. So I added "approximately". Feel free to edit my edit. Sandbh (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Periodic table (revise edit)[edit]

Could you revise my reverted edit and save it back? Please check this, too. Note that two tables break note 15 preview box etc. Thank you. --Obsuser (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Obsuser. I've revised most of your reverted edits. Mendeleev's picture doesn't need the name of the artist. The caption for the left-step table doesn't need to refer to the shell filling sequence as this is explained in the accompanying text. Benfey's table doesn't have a metal-nonmetal dividing line. The other external links you added have no encyclopaedic value. I don't think it matters that the two tables in note 15 go outside of the edge of the preview box. It was hard to follow most of the other changes you had made. Feel free to make some more edits but please do them more or less one at a time. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Why it doesn't? I think I made no changes to the caption; I corrected redirect name to the current template name. What dividing line is then "DIVIDING LINE" marked on the image? Why they don't have encyclopaedic value as song, for example, is very unique and useful for young students?
Note 15 looks bad, I don't see problem if it is moved to the lower part. I noticed it is different form other notes too, as it is in the part of the article with no references – probably Wikipedia editors' original research.--Obsuser (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


If you have a bit of time, could you help me find a few sources regarding the extent of 4f involvement in La and its effects? (No, I'm not starting another megathread; I'm working on the La article.) Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There are some mentions of this in the Group 3 composition debate thread---see arguments 12, 22 and 27. Alternative explanations have been proposed for the low melting point etc of La which don't rely on any 4f involvement. Even so, 4f involvement is still suspected in some cases—but no "smoking gun" has yet been conclusively uncovered, as far as I can tell. Does this help? Sandbh (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!! I was looking for that megathread, but kept looking in the wrong place! For sure, I will include this on how La is suspected to have 4f involvement, but that it's not known for sure yet. Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

your sandbox[edit]

I removed the rare radioelements that are the daughters of natural Th and U, because their occurrence is negligible and tends to be more of a function of their parents' than their own (naïvely looking at Tc's chemistry for instance would conclude it to be a siderophile, but it only occurs with its spontaneously fissioning parent, the lithophile U). I think in this sort of thing it only really makes sense to include the primordial elements, as in File:Elemental abundances.svg. (I don't even think Pu should qualify, and neither do most people making these images, since the amount of 244Pu left from the formation of the Solar System has by now been slashed in half so many times that it is swamped by the 239Pu produced from neutron capture in natural U, and that's not even mentioning the huge amounts of artificial 239Pu produced.)

I nonetheless made a little exception for Pa (I'm not sure whether I should do this), because it is the most long-lived of all these insubstantial ghosts and by far the most abundant (see list of elements – it is the only one of them that gets beyond 1 ppt), so that it actually makes sense to speak of a standard atomic weight (since 231Pa, the granddaughter of not-uncommon 235U, sticks around with a 32760 year half-life). (Similarly, 230Th with a similar half-life is also considered by IUPAC. All the others are just too insubstantial and fast-decaying.) Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be fine, as long as we explain (when required) our exclusion decisions. I'll have a closer look a bit later. Sandbh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that list of elements had a typo for Ra (checking with CRC), so it is actually nearly as abundant as Pa (both close to 10−12), and CIAAW indeed used to give an atomic weight for it, 226.0254(1). So I added it back, but kept the others out (they're several orders of magnitude away). Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you! The sandbox has been moved to the heavy metal article, so if you're still there pls go ahead and restore Ra to its rightful position. Otherwise I'll do it when I get back from my walk around the block with the doggie. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I added Ra in the article and put a note that the limit I imposed was around 1 ppt. (BTW, perhaps the stretch of the s-process you include is not the best stretch because it forces us to explain the almost-stability of 115In.) Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Good! The black line needs to go under Ra now. I happened to find the stretch in the Padman... reference and would have to go back and look it up. Is it fatal? Happy with any other one as long as it has a ref. Have to go now else will be walking in the dark. Sandbh (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Fixed black line under Ra. I don't think it's fatal but it needs a note, which I attempted to supply in parentheses. It works to explain everything up till Bi, and then Th and U are only from r-process neutron spam. Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metal (chemical element)[edit]

It took me abit to figure out what you meant by centering. I'm slow. I tried something different to center it. The {{pad}} uses either px or em and I'm not sure what is best to use. I did 50px which is around 3.8em. I don't have a mobile device right now to look at it, so make sure it looks good on mobile. Bgwhite (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go back to the original HTML coding simply because it will always work, whereas I understand that px or em spacing won't necessarily produce a properly centred result. As far as I can tell we're still allowed to use HTML tags in tables. How do you see this? Sandbh (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: In case you haven't noticed this one yet. Sandbh (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I usually don't notice unless I'm pinged, so thank you. It's probably best if an expert looks at this. Redrose64, could you take a look at the article and see what's best to center a line. Look for the pad template in Heavy metal (chemical element).
Crap, I see Graeme Bartlett editing the page too. Be careful Sandbh, Graeme is an Ausie and you know how weird they can be.... Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why you need to manually centre it - it's a table header cell, which are centred by default. But using measured values - whether px or em - to centre text is never a good idea, since you don't know the characteristics of the other user's system setup. Even something trivial like a different font face or zoom level can make a great deal of difference to positioning. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
See the heading in the second table. It has a break halfway in, as the full width title screws up the column spacing in the rest of the table—the table becomes wider, for no reason that I can see, whereas I want it to be the same as the first table higher up in the article. Because the end of the title has two notes after the end of it, ordinary cell centring doesn't work properly unless I put some dummy notes at the front of the second row of the title and change the font colour so that they effectively disappear. As far as I can see this solves the centring problem or, rather, I don't know any other way to do it. I've reverted the table coding back to this "solution" so that you can see what I'm talking about. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

more impossible chemistry[edit]

They're still current examples (neither has been synthesised yet), but I always liked the pair of oxirene and nitrogen pentafluoride – the first looks like it should exist and the second looks like it shouldn't on paper, but in reality the second is more plausible IIRC! Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I need to be clearer about what impossible chem is about. It's examples of chemistry once thought to have been non-existent or impossible but which have since been actualised. So oxirene and nitrogen pentafluoride, interesting as they are, don't really count. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


I will have to go through it carefully again, but the intro is still on the too short side, and the source part in the second table still throws me off. The Goldschmidt classification article shows a different distribution. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nergaal. I think the intro succinctly captures all of the main body of the article but please let me know if there is anything you think I've missed.
Still short. Here are some ex I pulled form a quick search: "Many of the heavy metals, such as zinc, copper, chromium, iron and manganese, are essential to body function in very small amounts. But, if these metals accumulate in the body in concentrations sufficient to cause poisoning, then serious damage may occur. The heavy metals most commonly associated with poisoning of humans are lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium. Heavy metal poisoning may occur as a result of industrial exposure, air or water pollution, foods, medicines, improperly coated food containers, or the ingestion of lead-based paints." or "The term has particular application to cadmium, mercury, lead and arsenic,[5] all of which appear in the World Health Organisation's list of 10 chemicals of major public concern." These might be a bit on the slightly too descriptive but some of the info should be explicit in the intro. Plus "heavy metals are useful in nearly all aspects of modern economic activity" is sooooooooooo vague. Give some explicit examples of common uses. Nergaal (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The second table shows the abundance and primary geochemical classification of the naturally occurring elements in the Earth's crust. The Goldschmidt periodic table shows the geochemical classification of the elements in the whole of the Earth, rather than just the crust, hence the difference. Does this help? Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you could pull up the line into period 3 to go around the word litophile. But what about the f-block? The current scheme is not clear. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Would adding some explanatory text at the bottom of the table fit the bill? Something like, "Heavy metals above and to the left of the dividing line (including those shown by the * and † symbols), are lithophiles; those to the right are chalcophiles, with the exception of tin and gold. Sandbh (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Legend for table 2: baby blue seems to be actually only up to 950.
I believe that was because the middle four legend boxes spanned two magnitudes each: 102 to 104; 100 to 102; 10–2 to 100 etc but I agree in this case it's misleading, so I've changed it to 999. Sandbh (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, TBH, all the stuff in red and orange (plus Cd) in table 1 is what I think people think of when hearing HM. Anything in period 4 really seems like a stretch, so I would really like some clarification how and who see them as HM. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This thread has been moved to the talk page for Heavy metal (chemical element). Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Be and Mg[edit]

Their exclusion from the alkaline earth metals seems to be a Japanese thing. You can find this classification on Japanese Wikipedia, along with this site (which looks like something meant to follow a high-school syllabus? the material looks similar in level to what I would expect for that). The properties they cite to explain this are that Be and Mg do not react with water at room temperature (dubious; true for Be, which remains above it all even at red heat, but not Mg, which will react very slowly), that Be and Mg have sparingly soluble hydroxides and rather soluble sulfates, and that they (unlike Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra) do not show coloured flame tests (although the colours they give are so unrealistic! Ra is carmine red, not peach! And Ba is not yellow!) I can understand the urge to move Be away from the rest of the group but the arguments for Mg strike me as very lame. I think it is better to think of it as just a first-row anomaly characterising Li–F that you should expect (with H being an extreme "zeroth-row anomaly"). Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In Russia, they are also often excluded.Burzuchius (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I see they are "その他の金属", which Google translates 'other metals'. Yuck! Maybe "Pre- and post-transition metals'? 'Meta-transition metals? Cis-trans metals? Ambi-transition metals? I'm sure Dr. Seuss would be able to come up with a better name. YBG (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I love "cis-transition metals," even before I know what the cis prefix means. Parish (1977, The Metallic Elements, p. 34) says, "Historically, Be and Me were not classed as alkaline earth metals, a convention which is maintained here" but does not elaborate. Don't Be and Mg fit better over Zn-Cd-Hg? Sidgwick (1950, The chemical elements and their compounds, vol. 1, pp. 195, 219) says "Group II A…afford a good example of the general principle that the first…element of a group has affinities with the second element of the next group…and the second element with its own B subgroup [i.e. Mg with Zn, Cd, Hg]. Be, however, is so peculiar in many ways, owing to its small size and correspondingly intense ionic field, and also to the limitation of its covalency to 4, that it is better treated separately; the same is true, though in a lesser degree, of Mg. The general relation in the series are much the same as in [Group?] I.A.: the most marked difference in properties is between Be and Mg, and the next between Mg an Ca; the series of alkaline earth metals from Ca to Ra is one of the most regular in the Periodic Table…" and later, "The gap between Mg and the succeeding elements is sufficient to make it desirable to treat the Mg compounds separately; but in the general discussion we may include it along with the alkaline-earth metals proper, the elements from Ca to Ra." I haven't otherwise looked too closely at what's happening here. Sandbh (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Japanese Wikipedia also cites the similarity to Zn as well as Al on their Be article (ja:ベリリウム), which makes sense. They also mention that Be's small size results in an almost universal coordination number of 4, which means that it cannot be chelated by EDTA (a useful test in analytical chemistry!). On the other hand, I think they go way too far in their Mg article, writing "これは第1族元素である水素がアルカリ金属ではないのと同様、化学的性質が異なるためである。" ("This is similar to the case of H having some similarities to the alkali metals but not being one of them, because its chemistry is so different.") (This is a rather free translation, because I know enough of the language to understand the sense of it, but not enough that I'd dare to try a very literal one; but Google Translate agrees, so I'm reasonably happy!)
I would honestly say (as I have said several times) that groups 2 and 3 are where the different A- and B-group trends somewhat collide. Nobody in their right mind would put C and Si over Ti, because the trends look awful. However, both the trends Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba and Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg look all right; the case is similar for B-Al-Sc-Y-La vs B-Al-Ga-In-Tl. Both trends look all right, but the first looks more like the trend of Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs and the second looks more like that of C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb. OTOH, I think Al is too similar to its heavier congeners in group 13 to put it in group 3, so by default I'd have group 2 following the s-block as well. All this is just another size thing, IMHO, and so it is just explained by edge effects on the periodic trends. Somehow nobody complains that Li does not behave exactly like K.
I am not sure about what Sandbh's quoted source says about the groups: I do not see much of a diagonal relationship between N and S, so clearly there must be some qualifications to this. (Yes, I know there is still some, but you do not see the electronegativity similarity until you stick enough electron-withdrawing groups on the S atoms, because S has EN 2.5 whereas N has EN 3.0.) Likewise I do not see much of a similarity between Na and Cu, so again this needs to be qualified a little. Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll try and make more considered comments later today. Double sharp have you possibly seen Rayner-Canham's paper on isodiagonality (2011, Foundations of Chemistry, vol. 13, pp. 121–129, doi:10.1007/s10698-011-9108-y)?:

Greenwood and Earnshaw (1997) suggested that similarities in charge densities and electronegativities between nitrogen and sulfur would lead to isodiagonal behaviour of these two elements. As evidence, they used the extensive range of cyclo binary sulfur nitrides. They contended that the large number of permutations of the two elements, or their interchangeability, indicated strong similarities between the two elements. Of particular relevance is the aromatic nature of the cyclo-S3N22+ ion, suggesting the close similarity in electronic energies of the two component atoms (Gimarc and Warren 1991).

Maybe that's what you had in mind when you mention you know there is some similarity? Sandbh (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's it! Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Jensen discussed the placement of Be-Mg at length and concluded that -Ca-Sr-Ba and -Zn-Cd-Hg had equal merits. On group 1 and group 11 Sidgwick also said that it is characteristic of the periodic table that the difference between the two divisions of a group (i.e. between 1A and 1B) is greatest in the earliest and latest groups. For the monovalent coinage metals he says they are comparable to the alkali metals, "though the resemblance scarcely extends beyond the value of the valency." Having said that I'm not aware of any sources comparing Na with Cu and I've never looked closely at the chemistry of univalent Cu, to see if there are any meaningful resemblances to Na. Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Massey (1973, in Bailer et al., Comprehensive inorganic chemistry, vol. 3, p. 16) says, "Perhaps the only similarity between copper and the alkali metals is that their monovalent compunds are diamagnentic and are normally colourless unless the accompanying anion is itself paramagnetic or coloured." Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Greenwood says (p. 1177) that "Such similarities as do occur, however, are confined almost entirely to the stoichiometries (as distinct from the chemical properties) of the compounds of the +1 oxidation state. The reasons are not hard to find. A filled d shell is far less effective than a filled p shell in shielding an outer s electron from the attraction of the nucleus. As a result the first ionization energies of the coinage metals are much higher, and their ionic radii smaller than those of the corresponding alkali metals.... They consequently have higher mps, are harder, denser, less reactive, less soluble in liquid ammonia, and their compounds more covalent. Again, whereas the alkali metals stand at the top of the electrochemical series...the coinage metals are near the bottom.... On the other hand, a filled d shell is more easily disrupted than a filled p shell. The second and third ionization energies of the coinage metals are therefore lower than those of the alkali metals so that they are able to adopt oxidation states higher than +1. They also more readily form coordination complexes. In short, Cu, Ag, and Au are transition metals whereas the alkali metals are not." Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
...I typed this all out, and then I realised I'd already said it before: see Alkali metal#Copper, silver, and gold. (Also has sections about the similarity of H, Tl, and ammonium. Although I need to look for sources explaining why H is in group 1 – in brief, because H prefers being H+, which has a much bigger chemistry than H or H, being the foundation of acids and bases, and this preference for letting go of that electron suggests that Li is closer to it than F.) Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I disagree with some of these arguments is because they neglect the natural tendency towards larger size at the bottom of the periodic table. Notice that Sidgwick says that while in complex formation Mg is closer to Zn than Ca, "this is a natural result of its small size", and anyway Mg tends to occur with Ca in nature instead of Zn. We do not have any calls to turn the diagonal relationships like Li/Mg or Be/Al into vertical columns, even though these pairs share considerable similarities and even tend to occur in nature together. If we keep going down this route, we're going to have some difficulties when we look at N and Bi, both pnictogens.

For this reason, I think Be-Mg-Ca is better, because then we rationalise the slightly anomalous behaviour of Be (and to a much lesser extent Mg) by noting their smaller size (also for Li vs Na). Similarly, I naturally put H over Li for this reason.

La under Y is a bit of an exception to this desire to keep the blocks intact (it's only a preference; I don't think twice about putting He over Ne.) It's because the case for 4f involvement in La is somewhat suspect (Greenwood says 4f only becomes low enough to contribute at Ce, and 5f at Th), whereas Lu has a full 4f shell. So I tend to think of La and Lu in relation to Ce–Yb as I do Ca and Zn in relation to Sc–Cu. Ca, Sr, and Ba are obviously not transition metals; but already you can make some arguments for Zn (it still shows that characteristic of a greater tendency towards forming covalent compounds and more coordination chemistry), and by Hg there is no definition that excludes it (aside from Jensen's one about atypical conditions – the unfortunate result of that argument though is that then the whole chemistry of Kr, and the whole existence of the transfermium elements, becomes atypical). (Basically, Zn is class-A, Cd is borderline, and Hg is definitely class-B). I would also argue that the lower ionisation energy values for Lu and Lr are completely expected since it is easy to remove the last electron over the full 4f shell (this is also true for Gd and Cm). Additionally, because of the dominance of the +3 state across the lanthanides, starting the series with Ce results in more accurate predictions (Ce3+ is 4f1, as it is the first of them, all the way to Lu3+ as 4f14). In fact, since the 4f electrons by the time we reach the +3 ionic charge are so stabilised (with stabilising effect 4f > 5d > 6s), and 4f and 5d are so close in energy, I would then say that while Sc/Y/La/Ac might predict the wrong electron configuration more often, it predicts the right chemistry more often, and after all the PT is based on chemical properties, isn't it?

I don't mind Hf in group 4 because there is no choice there for the trend, and also because there is a qualitative difference between the main-group-like group 3 and the transition-group-like group 4. This is because the +4 charge even in Hf4+ (and even more so for Ta5+) is really too high to be purely ionic, whereas La3+ (and even Sc3+ and Y3+) is clearly predominantly ionic. I don't advocate putting B and Al over Sc because this tears them away from the p-block they obviously belong to, and also because the d-electron has a more cohesive effect than the p-electron, as can be seen from the m.p. and b.p. data. (OTOH, since there is no switch to f-electrons for La instead of Lu, I don't have a problem with Y over La.) Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One simple q[edit]

Hi! I recently stumbled on the following problem: a discussion of physical properties of an element logically falls into three parts: bulk properties (mp, bp, density, etc.), isotopes (radioactivity and nuclear stability), and atomic properties that rely on electrons rather than nucleus (ionization energies, electron configuration, interatomic bonding in bulk state, etc.). The question is, what good title could I invent for the last part? "Atomic" doesn't seem to be a perfect title as nuclear uses perhaps also fall under this "atomic" category.--R8R (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

G'day R8R. I don't believe there is a really good single word in the English language for this. Perhaps "electronic properties" is correct but most people wouldn't associate ionisation energy and bonding etc, with electronic things. Perhaps "electron-related properties"? And then see if anyone changes it to "electronic properties" :) Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd vote for "electron-related" because "electronic" is an ambiguous term, and outside of chem-geeks and PT-geeks, most people would think first of electronics. YBG (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've had this idea, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it. While ionization energies and electronegativity are more or less clearly matched to electrons, details on metal bonding, for example, are, while dependent on electrons as well, are different from those in that this affects the substance in macroscopic quantities. Maybe this should be shifted to bulk properties? But then again, it's electrons that matter here. And will such a change, should we decide it's desirable, affect naming of the subsection in any way? I'd love to hear some input on this.--R8R (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I always thought of the most important thing behind an element being the electron configuration. If you look at Li, which is [He]2s1, you see the lone valence electron, so far from the nucleus. From this you get size and reactivity in chemistry (yes size matters for coordination chemistry), as well as phenomenal conductivity of heat and electricity in physics. So physical and chemical properties tend to work together, with isotopes being somewhat distinct. You cannot get from the electron configuration to why lithium-6 and lithium-7 are the only two stable lithium isotopes, or why they can undergo fission under neutron capture. Perhaps this suggests one organisation method. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a possible way out, yes. I checked fluorine a few hours ago and that's what it does. Then again, that article gives a very brief explanation on the matter, as the article was way too long before the radical cutting. For this suggestion, the following questions arise: where would ionization energies go? Is "Bulk properties" still a valid title if we talk about bonding there? Or maybe move that talk as well?--R8R (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of the way Sandbh & I classified the properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Comparison of properties
  1. Physical properties: (a) Presentation and structure (b) Electron-related (c) Thermodynamics
  2. Chemical properties: (a) Elemental chemistry (b) Combined form chemistry (d) Environmental chemistry
Note that I just today, as a result of this discussion, renamed 1b from "Electronics". YBG (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It definitely was wise to change the title Electronics to anything, I couldn't argue here :)
As for chemistry, environmental stuff usually does into a separate section. In general, if I wanted to compare properties, I would probably end up with a similar structure. But things are different when you write a story from scratch. You need (not sure if this is a strict requirement, just for the sake of readability) to add introductory text. However, thanks (indeed thanks) for the tip! It sparks thinking on the matter.--R8R (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Great! I certainly wasn't expecting you would adopt this categorization, but hoped it would, as you say, spark some thinking. Mission accomplished! YBG (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Lists of heavy metals[edit]

We have Lists of metalloids. Why not Lists of heavy metals? The chart might be much more unwieldy as there are many more elements to list. YBG (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a rather large chart. Still, you have me thinking about it, so let's see what comes of this (in slower time while I work on the FAC). Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I just changed the qualified citations from #hash to (parens); I think it is a more intuitive notation, retains the centering of the symbols and in general looks better, IMHO. YBG (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It looks better. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

alkaline earth metals only encompassing Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra[edit]

Do you have some more sources giving this definition? (I know the reason perfectly well – Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra are very much like the alkali metals, while Be is strikingly like Al and Mg is strikingly like Zn.) Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"The chemistry of the s-block metals is the simplest of any group of elements in the periodic table, because each element displays only one oxidation state: +1 for the alkali metals (lithium to caesium), and +2 for beryllium, magnesium and the alkaline earth metals. (Historically, beryllium and magnesium were not classified as alkaline earth metals, a convention which is maintained here.)"
Parish RV 1977, The metallic elements, Longman, London, p. 34, ISBN 0-582-44278-8
That's the only one I can recall, and is astonishing for being so recent. Sandbh (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you get stuck in the dark?[edit]

Just wondering. YBG (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I could've been but, as things worked out, I wasn't in that part of Oz when the dark descended. In the 21st century it staggers me that our governments and power providers set up such fragile systems, with no risk management plans. And the political games have now started about the merits of a renewable power and what role this played in contributing to the event. Sandbh (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My in-laws were in the dark for several hours. (I think I never answered your e-mailed question of years ago). As for risk management, IMHO, there is something to the political games, but its not that simple. Wind and solar place a greater burden on those who keep the system in balance, not because they are renewable, but because they are "variable", that is to say, not dispatchable. In my part of the world, hydro (which is renewable AND dispatchable) helps balance wind - dialing the hydro up (or down) when the wind slacks off (or picks up). This goes not only for the second-by-second load-resource balancing but also contingency reserves. It sounds like SA did not have adequate spinning reserves to cope with the contingency of a lost interconnection. But there is also the question of how much spinning reserves to hold. Certainly one needs enough for the largest single contingency -- the largest generator or import interconnection. Beyond that is a question of how much you are willing to risk the possibility of multiple contingency events occurring together. It's all a question of risk management. YBG (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

the transition metals redox potential table in your sandbox[edit]

Illustrates nicely without words my point about group 3 acting like a main group! Can I use it? Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course! :) Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I have an expanded version here now. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, what do you think of my suggested additional argument (5) at User talk:Double sharp#Arguments 6–10? Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope to be able to review all of your arguments by NLT early next week. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

TM sandbox[edit]

Just a few comments:

(1) we need a PT cutout at the top clearly showing the 3d, 4d, 5d, and 6d series, and a statement that we're not going to look very much at the 6d series because none of them particularly want to exist. (Indeed actinium had a bad habit of taking the early experimenters with it too...)

(2) Aren't there some differences as you go along the series? For instance, an element in group 9 should be expected to behave differently from one in group 5. Maybe an approach like post-transition metal, going through each group and its 3d, 4d, and 5d member, would shed a great deal of light on what these common properties are and the trends.

(3) Why is only period 4 honoured with the electron configuration table? And does it have to be so huge? I'd have done something like this (deferring to Sc-Y-Lu on your page, and because it is frankly easier to write here):

3d Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn
[Ar]+ 3d14s2 3d24s2 3d34s2 3d54s1 3d54s2 3d64s2 3d74s2 3d84s2 3d104s1 3d104s2
4d Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd
[Kr]+ 4d15s2 4d25s2 4d45s1 4d55s1 4d55s2 4d75s1 4d85s1 4d10 4d105s1 4d105s2
5d Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg
[Xe]4f14+ 5d16s2 5d26s2 5d36s2 5d46s2 5d56s2 5d66s2 5d76s2 5d96s1 5d106s1 5d106s2

(I'd ignore 6d; these are not known for sure yet.)

(4) More explanation of the colours (this is high-school material, isn't it?) etc. But I think you want to put this in later anyway, so I won't comment anymore on those things. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you're going to change everything to Sc-Y-La-Ac now, I suggest scrapping the noble-gas-like cores entirely and just writing a table for valence electron configurations. This way La can be "5d16s2" and Hf can still be "5d26s2". Admittedly this then needs a note for group 12 (or you could remove them entirely from the main table and only cover them separately). Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


This unlikely-looking species appears in standard electrode potential (data page). Is it a thing? I also found some sources with mentions of Sb3+, Te4+, and At+ while trying to populate the p-block of my expanded version of your table. Do these actually exist under normal conditions? Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is some information about this on the metalloid page. No to Ge, as far as I know; yes to Sb and Te at least notionally; yes to At. Are you using the, I think it might be NIST, tables? Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I was using mostly the CRC one. Double sharp (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I've made a few corrections (Tc, Eu, Bk–Lr) and additions (Ge, Sb, Te, I, At, Rn) based on this. Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 13, 2016[edit]

Hi Sandbh, this Featured Article you nominated has been selected for the Main Page. I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dank. I'll have a look at the TFA text. Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

on the Sc-Y-La-Ac sandbox[edit]

While I am very happy about this change (soon to be live?!), I do think you should explain in the note just what the value of "½" for Th means (overlapping 5f and 6d bands). (It also occurs to some extent for Pa, U, Np, and Pu, so perhaps one should write "~2", "~3", "~4", and "~5"; and I was under the impression that Pa was more like 1½?) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, more work to do here. Sandbh (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. we already have a 14CeTh table we can use ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! It looks quite pretty. Sandbh (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Sandbh! I'd like to ask you to read lead and make some adjustments on prose quaility. I remember that you have a good sense of English, something I can sense but (unfortunately) cannot claim. A comment or two would also be very appreciated, but not necessary (though some feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated during the upcoming FAC). If you do have a spare minute, your input on prose quality would be appreciated.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Sandbh (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--R8R (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope you're not in a hurry. There are a few things happening here, and my Wikipedia time over the next two+ weeks will be unpredictable. Sandbh (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The etymology section is probably unnecessary. There is nothing particularly interesting in it. Perhaps all that is required is a few words in the lede, like what is done with silver. Sandbh (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, if deemed to be insignificant enough, it could be buried in the History section. That's the tack taken in most of the element articles, as can be seen here. YBG (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

condensed phase electron configuration for transition metals[edit]

Do you have them? Would be useful for comparing the group II (d-block insertion) and group III (f-block insertion) situations. I know Scerri has that table but it is not made clear unfortunately whether these are s1, s0, or something in between (I remember that Ni is complicated, for example). The annoying thing is that I distinctly remember seeing all of these somewhere but cannot find them now. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look through my papers---there are a few I haven't read yet. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like Eric populated his table based on this article, Table 1 (p. 446). The article is a difficult read and I found some of the terminology to be confusing. Anyway, Sc–Mn; Y–Nb, and Lu–Os are given as dG–2s2, where G is the group number; Fe–Cu; Mo–Ru, Ag; and Os–Au are dG–1s1; and Rh, Pd are dGs0. There is a note that says the experimentally derived configurations for Os were not accurate enough to decide between dG–2s2 and dG–1s1. These configurations map to Eric's table called "anomalous configurations for atoms in condensed phase (purple shading)". Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very useful! I would also draw attention to one other revealing note in the article: "In the series of elements, (n − 1)d collapses below ns only after group 2, and (n − 2)f only after group 3." What this all seems to be saying is that, even though anomalous configurations are very common in the d-block, the rules are very simple: you start a block only when an orbital collapses and starts filling. This means we start the s-block at group 1; the p-block at group 13; the d-block at Sc, Y, La, and Ac; and the f-block at Ce and Th. This guarantees that, apart perhaps from the last group in the block (the noble gases, group 12, or Lu and Lr), x-electrons will be available for bonding throughout the x-block (x = s, p, d, f). I suppose I should add something like this to my 14CeTh manifesto. Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Great job![edit]

On the HM article! Tricky subject but you brought it up to a really nice, well-deserved FA standard. Congrats! Nergaal (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nergaal. It seemed like there was a cast of a thousand reviewers, and at times I felt like I was editing through treacle, but we got there in the end :) ¶ Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
What a sweet thing to say about me! YBG (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
LOL! Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
¶ ably assisted, I hasten to add, by YBG, and Double sharp. Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

cerium 4f electron[edit]

@Double sharp: Hmm, Greenwood & Earnshaw (2002) say metallic Ce has some ions in an oxidation state above +3. (p. 1234)

Russell & Lee (2005) say, "The simplest explanation for Ce's multiple crystal structures and sluggish transformation is that α-Ce has the 4f electron localised within the atom, and γ-Ce promotes the 4f electron to the conduction band...however analysis of magnetic susceptibility data, Hall coefficient measurements, and atomic radii suggest that a more accurate description of the Ce valence is α-Ce (+3.67 at 116 K...), β-Ce, and γ-Ce (+3.06 at 116 K)..." (p. 447)

From the above it seems like the f count of Ce is ~1?

  • Russell AM & Lee KL 2005, Structure-Property Relations in Nonferrous Metals, Wiley-Interscience, New York Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding at least, it is not so much that the last 4f electron in Ce is promoted to 5d to join the conduction band; rather, Ce is the first lanthanide, so the 4f level is not drowned completely into the core and can participate in bonding, creating an "effective" valence slightly above three while retaining a [Xe]4f5d6s2 configuration (you'll note that the [Xe]5d26s2 configuration is too high in energy to occur without complete ionisation to Ce+). The reason why the valence is not +4 is that the Ce atom retains a partial hold on the 4f electron. Thus, the difference is not between 1 and 2 4f electrons, but rather how much the single 4f electron is delocalised. Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Some papers: Ce is a 4f-band metal. Indeed treating Ce as a 5d6s transition metal the way you'd treat Ti, Zr, or Hf results in an erroneous prediction of the crystal structure. The difference between alpha- and gamma-cerium is the localisation of the 4f electron (which might be better called a Mott transition). Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. The paper also gives 5f occupations of 0.5, 1.7, and 2.9 at zero pressure for Th, Pa, and U (compare the idealised 1, 2, and 3). Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, will get back to you on this one. Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

historical sleuthing[edit]

If you have time, you may want to have fun looking up the history of the supposed Re ion – makes for fascinating reading (including one paper which noted that that interpretation could not be right, because the only way you could have such an ion and not violate Hess' Law is if Re had an electron affinity higher than F, which is manifestly implausible). Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

5 factors[edit]

I'm tantalized by the idea of classifying the elements using a five factor scheme. Care to share some details or links? YBG (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a reminder from the past; I'll see if I can send you a paper. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Ta! YBG (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
To the e-mail address we've been chatting on? Sandbh (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure. YBG (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

group 3[edit]

Since we're now working on this in your sandbox, I'm going to archive the lengthly discussions on my talk page about this (it was starting to be offputting to edit). All the info will of course still be available in Archive 11. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

redox potentials: classification of tennessine[edit]

When I was making the User:Double sharp/Pretty picture of electrode potentials, it struck me that our criterion on "what is a metal" seems to completely coincide with the question: is there a value of n so that the redox potential for M to Mn is positive? This is so for At (+0.2 V for At→At), but not for Po (−1.0 V for Po→Po2−).

Of course then I could not resist looking up the value Fricke predicts for Ts, where I find a value of −0.25 V for the Ts/Ts couple, nicely following the trend down group 17 (F +2.87, Cl +1.36, Br +1.07, I +0.54, At +0.2, Ts −0.25), and following the relativistic destabilisation of 7p3/2. And indeed, unlike At which curiously combines the properties of a halogen and a metal chemically, Ts is predicted by Fricke to have +3 as a more important oxidation state than −1. Indeed Ts3+ is predicted to behave like Au3+, so that it would be like Au: possible to form a negative Ts anion, but very unwilling to.

The implication of all this is that I am now wondering if Ts had better not be classified as a metal. Extrapolated GH criterion would certainly agree. As for element 171, the electron affinity is expected to be close to that of I, but since Au has one similar to At I'm not that impressed. It should probably physically look like a metal anyway, so I might even dare to call it a metal now, albeit one that doesn't mind going into negative oxidation state territory (but we have precedents for that in Pt and Au, don't we?).

P.S. What would the extrapolated GH criterion say for element 172? Double sharp (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I just reread your old comments on the WT:ELEM articles and I think I find myself agreeing with you (finally) that E171 would be a metal – perhaps one with a prominent −1 oxidation state, but nobody complained about Re when it was thought to be so. I'll change it, then. Now I am still wondering what you think of Ts; if At is expected to be metal then surely it should. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
...and I changed Ts as well. Arguments that it may be a semiconductor to me seem a bit spurious given that (1) that is not expected for At and (2) people call Cn a metal, even though it may also be a semiconductor. Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Unless you prove me wrong, I'm going to assume this is something WP:OR is warning against for mainspace usage. Are there sources to justify that exact claim?--R8R (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not like there are ones for Ts being a metalloid either, but try this. (Gotta run now, don't have time to search for something more reliable yet) Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Found them. "A highly radioactive metal, of which only a few atoms have ever been made" (Royal Society of Chemistry page for tennessine); "When going down along the members of group 17, the elements are getting more and more metallic, with astatine being a semi-metal and no longer a typical halogen like the lighter members of that group. If this trend were followed, element 117 would likely be a rather volatile metal." (GSI page about their 2014 confirmation of the discovery of tennessine). Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is fine, thank you. Care to add a ref or two to {{infobox ununseptium}}?--R8R (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've got a simplified criterion for this to decide things near the metalloid border (and maybe beyond?!):

  • An element cannot be considered a metal unless it can form a simple cation. (To anyone who remembers seeing species like Br+ from high-school organic chemistry in electrophilic aromatic substitution and is confused, I'm afraid this is another of those lies to children, and a simplified form of the actual bromonium intermediate you get.) This is a necessary condition.
  • Even if an element can form a simple cation (like At+), it may be disqualified from being a metal if it can also form a simple anion (At) whose oxidation back to the elemental state (here, At0) is not spontaneous (i.e. E° < 0). The opposite of this is a sufficient condition.

For example, consider Au. Since the Au3+ cation is known (admittedly only in very acidic noncomplexing media), it is not ruled out by the first criterion. Although the Au anion is also known, E°(Au/Au) = −2.4 V, so its oxidation back to Au0 is spontaneous, so it is considered a metal.

Is there anything I'm missing here that would disqualify such a criterion? Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this?[edit]

Now here is a website with quite a grandiose goal: 'We want to construct a “periodic table” that is a reasonably faithful representation of the observed relationships.' Review to follow later. I disagree with quite a lot of it, but am very amused by this quote:

I think s/he goes too far into being a "periodic table fan", though. S/he seems to completely misunderstand the point of the table by criticising {N, P, As} as a triad, noting that the difference between {Be, Mg, Ca} and {Be, Mg, Zn} pale in comparison. In actuality I think the true direction this argument should go is that this shows that placing elements based on similarity as opposed to trends is nonsense that not even the alkali metals can follow. The true basis of the table today is idealised electron configurations of elements, with some allowance made for the experimental reality in moving He, Sc, and Y. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I've even corresponded with the author via e-mail, and they are a member of the CHEMED-L listserv (Scerri is there too). Quite clever, but with some views that I couldn't reconcile. Has not published anything in the literature AFIK. If I recall correctly they prefer Sc-Y-*-**. Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The biggest thing with his/her view that I think is utterly wrong-headed is "On the other hand, putting tin and lead in the same column as carbon and silicon is an example of letting the naïvely theoretical tail wag the factual dog – although I haven’t seen any good way of improving this. My point is that finding an element in a particular column of the periodic table sometimes predicts its properties, and sometimes doesn’t. As we go around the cylinder in either direction, columns near noble-gas column are more well-behaved than columns farther away." This, I am sorry to say, is nonsense. Does s/he expect that the tendency towards increasing basicity and hence metallicity down the table does not happen? The placement of C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb in the same column profoundly reflects their predominant tetravalence. That is why they are in group IVB. For sure, C is nothing like Pb, but any two adjacent elements in the column can meaningfully be compared similarly. For instance, the band gap falls smoothly down the table: C ~580, Si 106.8, Ge 64.2, α-Sn 7.7, Pb 0, with a small gap between each one adding up to a huge gap. Furthermore, Sc is not really that similar to Ga. The d-electron in the former really does confer different physical properties that s/he sweeps under the rug. So his/her neglect of the electron configurations as a basis neglects the whole point that a periodic table is meant to give a first-order prediction of properties and thus should be constructed on as simple a theoretical basis as possible. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

more things from the lanthanum manifesto[edit]

Since we seem to be giving all arguments, I've added a few more points of perhaps some relevance to your subpage:

  1. Our "block assignment criteria" are actually not that far-removed from Jensen's.
  2. The only hard-to-refute objection I have found to them is that they may break down in the superheavy region, but past Z = 122 there are no complete calculations and thus the whole thing is somewhat moot, and up to Z = 122, no cracks are expected to appear in the periodic table, with Mendeleev steering us carefully between Scylla and Charybdis (119, 120, 121, and 122 are clearly eka-Fr, eka-Ra, eka-Ac, and eka-Th).

Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

when we go Sc-Y-La-Ac[edit]

We should put E121 below Ac in the extended periodic table, incidentally – despite the [Og]8s28p1 configuration (compare Sc, [Ar]3d14s2; Y, [Kr]4d15s2; La, [Xe]5d16s2; Ac, [Rn]6d17s2), the chemistry would not be all that different and would continue the trends down group 3 admirably well. (After our unraveling of the case of Lr, I have to wonder if the odd configurations of Rg and E121 – [Rn]5f146d97s2 and [Og]8s28p1 respectively instead of the expected [Rn]5f146d107s1 and [Og]7d18s2 – would only appear in the gas-phase, and be perfectly normal in the condensed phase. But I can't find any condensed-phase predictions beyond Db.) Double sharp (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem of where to begin the g-block is a little more vexed, since it seems to occur somewhat after Z = 122, the last element for which we have calculations. The only semi-solid figure I have sort-of found is Z = 125. I am tempted to just follow Fricke's table here and start a notional "superactinide" series where you would expect it to, just after eka-actinium, since the chemistries of the 5g and 6f elements are not really expected to be significantly different, and 7d and 8p are also supposed to partially fill there. There, if anywhere, does the block concept seem to break down if we follow the extrapolations by Fricke, Nefedov, and others. This superactinide series would continue until element 157; E158 should then be eka-rutherfordium, all the way to eka-oganesson at E172. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. BTW, with how much "superactinide" has been used in the literature, does that mean that E121 would have to be named "superactinium" (symbol Su, probably)? That would be entertaining, even if I find it a little unsatisfactory! Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I presume the superactinides would end up getting called the E121ides, where E121 will not be superactinium! Let's see, if actinium was named after the Greek for beam or ray what would an eka-beam or -ray be? Sandbh (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at what happens in group 3, apart from the geographical scandium (Scandinavia) and yttrium (Ytterby), we have lanthanum (from λανθάνειν, to lie hidden) and actinium (from ακτίνος, ray). Rays lying hidden? What a pity roentgenium is taken! Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
LOL! BTW I faintly suspect you might like my next edit to the Group 3 page re pesky conduction band structures. Gimme a few minutes to finish it. Sandbh (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Your suspicions are right on the mark, as always! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's just the cat's pyjama's!! Sandbh (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! (I had to click that.) Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

idea for terminology to solve the d-block and f-block problems[edit]

Since the availability of d-electrons and f-electrons is important whether or not they are being filled, why not have these definitions:

  • d-block element: one of the elements Sc–Zn; Y–Cd; La, Hf–Hg; Ac, Rf–Cn. These comprise the elements Sc, Y, La, and Ac in which the 3d, 4d, 5d, and 6d subshells first become occupied, and the remaining 27 elements which progressively fill these d-subshells.
  • transition element: a d-block element which has an incomplete d-subshell, or which can form ions in which it has an incomplete d-subshell. This gives Sc–Cu; Y–Ag; La, Hf–Au; Ac, Rf–Rg.
  • f-block element: one of the elements Ce–Lu; Th–Lr. These comprise the elements Ce and Th in which the 4f and 5f subshells first become occupied, and the remaining 26 elements which fill progressively fill these f-subshells. The first row of the f-block may be called the lanthanides and the second row the actinides, in homage to La and Ac, the elements just before them, and which they resemble due to the mostly chemically inactive nature of the f-electrons.
  • inner transition element: an f-block element which has an incomplete f-subshell, or which can form ions in which it has an incomplete f-subshell. This gives Ce–Yb; Th–No.

I think this would also illustrate the similarity between Zn-Cd-Hg-Cn at the end of the d-block and Lu-Lr at the end of the f-block. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

At first reading, I like it. I see you say "4f and 5f subshells first become chemically active" and then, later, "due to the mostly chemically inactive nature of the f-electrons". This sounds contradictory? Sandbh (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
That's why I said "mostly" in the latter. I think I've fallen into the trap of using the same word for two different things: even though the f-electrons are not going to be ionised any further in, for example, Ho3+, the fact that they are there has effects on the magnetic and spectroscopic properties. Greenwood agrees: "Because the 4f electrons of lanthanide ions are largely buried in the inner core, they are effectively shielded from their chemical environments. As a result, spin–orbit coupling is much larger than the crystal field (of the order of 2000 cm−1 compared to 100 cm−1) and must be considered first. Note that this is precisely the reverse of the situation in the d-block elements where the d electrons are exposed directly to the influence of neighbouring groups and the crystal field is therefore much greater than the spin–orbit coupling." To further dissociate the two concepts I've changed the "block" definitions from "chemically active" to "occupied". Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Right, that's good then. I edited and trimmed your definitions. Sandbh (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I take this out of its context, but if this is supposed to be displayed in Wiki mainspace, then I object on two of these. The thing characteristic for d-block elements is the d-shell being filled. Any reasonable introduction into this concept should start with that rather than the set of elements. Besides, I'd want at least "although other suggestions exist, the most common one is..." or something like that to show that there is at least some disagreement. We should describe and not define here. Same for f-block elements.

If the context is different, then my apologies.--R8R (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, none of this is meant for WP, where we are supposed to describe rather than prescribe. This is a suggestion for use outside WP. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Okay then. Sorry for the interruption.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

looking at your old work[edit]

Post-transition metal seems GA-worthy at the very least and we may have overlooked it before... Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


See p.45. At is expected to be less metallic than Bi or Po (which are approaching the lower limits of metallicity), and be about as much so as Sb, so our metalloid classification seems sound. Ts is actually expected to be slightly more metallic than the clearly metallic Mc and Lv! So I think our current definition is sound for the 118 known elements. (Although I am still wondering whether the next noble gas, 172, would finally be metallised.) Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I somewhat doubt E172 would be metallic. From here I see it has an estimated atomic weight of 504 gm/mole, and density of 9 gm/cm, which gives a molar volume of 56 cm3/mol. In comparison, the molar volume of Rn is 50.5cm3/mol. According to the Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion ratio, metallicity requires R/V >=1, where R = the molar refractivity of the gaseous state and V = the molar volume in the condensed state. Now, R = (4/3)Lπα, where L is the Avogadro number and α is the polarizahility. The table on p. 45 of Google books is from The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements, 2nd ed., edited by Schädel & Shaughnessy (eds). Plugging the estimated ionisation energy for E172 of 11.3 eV into the table on page 406 of Schädel and Shaughnessy I can see that α for E172 would be predicted to be marginally less than that of Rn. Given this means that R for E172 will be less than that of Rn, and that the molar volume of E172 is bigger than that of Rn, I see no prospect of a metallization catastrophe, barring relativistic funkiness. The polarizability of E172 would need to be at least (say) three times bigger for this to have any prospect of happening. Please check my line of reasoning.
The source of the p.45 table is "Eichler, B.: Das Flüchtigkeitsverhalten von Transactiniden im Bereich um Z = 114. Kernenergie 19, 307–311 (1976). Google scholar only gives a citation, with no link. The location of boron is interesting and reminded me of Greenwood's quote: " On the analogy between boron and metals, Greenwood[266] 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 ..." ^_^
Ts would likely be a metal, would it not (and given the predicted metallic band structure for condensed At)?
BTW, in Schädel and Shaughnessy, it says, "If the elements Cn and Fl (element 114) have a noble-gas like character [54], then, in a fictitious solid state, they would form non-conducting colorless crystals." Does this ring true? Sandbh (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I can find no flaws in your reasoning for E172, so I am confident about our current colouring! It rings true as a statement, but I would be cautious about drawing conclusions from it because later experiments seem to indicate that the premise is false. Cn and Fl act like unreactive metals, at least in their interaction with Au surfaces (though I'm sure you remember that paper speculating that Cn might be a semiconductor...). And yes, I found the location of boron (and to a lesser extent carbon) extremely interesting. (After all, carbon is lustrous, a good electrical conductor that behaves kind of like a metal with its delocalised electrons, and forming intercalation compounds that act like alloy analogues. I presume phosphorus is much lower because the standard state considered is white phosphorus, and not the graphite-like black phosphorus.) Since condensed At is probably metallic Ts should be a metal too. There were some old predictions (antedating the metallic At paper) predicting Ts to be semimetallic, but I think those are superseded now (because old predictions for At tended to assume that anything in group VIIB had to be a halogen). I'd still call At a metalloid, but more for its chemical than its physical properties, in which it is strangely two-faced as a halogen-metal hybrid. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Polarisability of oganesson[edit]

P.S. This is also interesting because if you look at source 1 on the Og article, you will find the predicted α of Og given as over 54 au, almost double that of Rn and approaching that of Pb. But on Talk:Oganesson you appear to have done the GH calculations for that already, so the polarisability of Og would still be insufficient to induce a metallisation catastrophe. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. Og's not there yet. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay![edit]

Hogmanay supermarket booze.jpg Happy Hogmanay!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you John, nice to hear from you. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


I like this workaround. I've looked for an actual solution but couldn't find it. I've contacted DePiep; maybe DePiep will help. Anyway, in the meanwhile, this will also do; too bad I didn't come up with this myself.--R8R (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope De Piep will not mind me responding to your request. Sandbh (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead FAC[edit]

John has issued an opposition decree based on prose quality, and he quoted a very strange run-on sentence indeed. I'll fix the highlighted case, but can I ask you to help me get through his criticism? I can certainly understand a possibility of such a comment (prose has constantly changed lately), but I expect you to have a greater capacity to deal with prose problems than I do. (Myself, I can only hope that this pretentious sentence was correct.)--R8R (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can review and adjust the prose. I'll start at the main body of the article and work through it paragraph by paragraph, so I expect it will take a little while. Sandbh (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.--R8R (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've adjusted the prose, and reduced the count of John's words of concern from 31 to 3. I'll take a breather now, and see if I can look again tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I can only add how thankful I am. I have checked your edits and they seem great. This actually makes me want to rethink the need of linking words for any future writing.--R8R (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I learnt to reduce the need for linking words by watching the way John copyedited Metalloid. I'm not as good as he is but I get the idea. Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

One more question. Was the info deleted in this edit meant to be deleted and if so, why?--R8R (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Will check tomorrow. Also want to look closer at mention of the Old Testament. Doesn't seem worth a mentioning anymore than any other historical source. Sandbh (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've had this feeling all along but I decided that we could go for a historical source. I don't have a strong opinion for either having it in or out. You can remove it if you want; just note that at the FAC page.--R8R (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I turned the biblical cite into a note and to reduce citation clutter I merged two cites and separated them with a black four-pointed star. I'll see about doing that to other mutiple cites. Sandbh (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like I deleted that info you mentioned by mistake, but I see that you restored it so it should be good now. Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


FYI, re your comments at WT:FAC, pings only work if you sign in the same edit, so some of your pings will definitely not have worked. If you delete them and your signature, and then re-add them in a separate edit, they should work. Best of luck with the FAC, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead refs[edit]

  • Hello. Sorry things got off to a rough start. If you wish, I could change the referencing format to one similar to User:Lingzhi/sandbox. I believe I might be able to do it without extreme effort... But if not, then carry on!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


Thank you.

I've seen your comments after the sudden FAC closure. I stand by your words and would've said so myself. I first saw this at 6 am; now that it's almost 6 pm, I finally have my time to write a comment, even though I planned to make tomorrow the day for that.

I've seen you elegantly end the skirmish. It would be difficult for me to stop there. That was why I didn't go over to add my comments, though I see what I would add. If you, however, think it's better I do (I definitely think this was done wrong procedure-wise; FAC ending up even with no consensus for promotion would be a fairer outcome than this), I will, for the sake of that this won't happen with anyone else if nothing else.

Whatever the answer, well done anyway.--R8R (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi R8R Gtrs
I appreciate your post.
I feel that nothing productive would result if you added a comment to the FAC talk thread.
My focus is on getting the article to FA status.
Once that's out of the way I'll see if I want to revisit how our first FAC nomination was handled. Sandbh (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I get the same feeling too, which is why I have not commented there either and have kept my personal annoyance to myself. At the moment, improving the article is the main priority, and being righteously indignant is far down the list. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I expected this kind of a reply, and I think it's right; still, I felt obligated to ask.
I am still sort of uncertain about what would our next steps be. What do I do in the meanwhile? I see you do something; after a billion of re-readings, I still can't see what I could do apart from fussing. Well, I asked for more comments from those who raised some opposition. But what else is left?--R8R (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Based on the comments at the FAC talk page, we apparently need to check for (a) "tracts [of text] unreferenced"; (2) unspecified issues with referencing and prose; (3) "too many sentences lack references" and another editor said (4) some of the websites we cite were questionable. I feel (1), (2) and (3) lack validity; and there could be something to (4). I just replaced one unreliable web ref with a cite from Emsley. We did assess the reliability of all of our references, and we thought that what we had was good enough but maybe one more look to see if there have been any new cites with dubious refs. Also, (5) there was an editor who posted on my talk page about errors in refs, so I need to follow up with them. And I'm going to review all of the recent edits made to this article by other editors, and check for prose suitability.
I'm not sure if Emsley is that much better, though. The annoying thing is that while he has a bibliography in Nature's Building Blocks (for example), it is never clear what is cited to what, and there are a few things in his book (e.g. natural Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf) that don't seem to actually be corroborated by any of the sources. Still, I suppose it is an improvement. Double sharp (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
So it's (4) and (5) I reckon, and then we try again. How does that seem? Sandbh (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems pretty good and reasonable to me. Too bad I can't see myself helping you with this; yet if there's a way, please let me know. I've contacted those who left comments "lacking validity" (I agree on this assessment) to see if there is actually something; apart from this, this waiting currently seems dull to me. Hopefully there is something in that ref comment.--R8R (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, there was a chemist at the FAC talk who appeared to have some concerns, too. Agree it's dull but what can we do? Doesn't seem much point doing anything apart from what we're doing now. Short-term pain, long-term gain. And lessons learnt. Sandbh (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It's great you even turned this to your advantage by learning some lessons. But what would those be? I can't seem to find anything to learn here.--R8R (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Ensure we think the article will pass John's prose standard. Bear in mind that there seem to be unwritten closure rules. Indicate our Support earlier, even if it is a conditional support, subject to wanting to see a few improvements, or say, Lean support, subject to whatever. Make sure the article is strong enough in the first place. I have a fair idea now of what is required. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Good one about prose. As for early Support: makes sense, but how? even if we get Nergaal to do so at FAC2 here, this is hardly an universal recipe. Good to have it; but we may lack it.--R8R (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It's just something to bear in mind; like preparing for a game of football. A team of individuals will be losers. A team of team members, will be more likely to be winners. It's just stuff we can discuss among ourselves in a more inclusive manner, before we go in. Either that or try the same thing again and fail = definition of insanity.

@R8R Gtrs: Do you have access to Ullmann's? If so, pls check section 4.2 re most European smelters now using direct smelting. Does the production section of our article need to be updated? Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote: "The major process for the production of primary lead from a sulfide concentrate is the sinter oxidation – blast furnace reduction route. Older processes involving direct oxidation of lead sulfide to lead or the roast reaction between lead sulfide and the oxidation products lead oxide and lead sulfate are now of little importance. In the last two decades new oxygen metallurgy processes featuring sulfide oxidation in a flash flame or by oxygen injection into a slag bath, followed by reduction of the lead oxide slag, have advanced to industrial application." Yes, we'll need an update.--R8R (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Mine (doi:10.1002/14356007.a15_193.pub3) says, "In the past all smelting was undertaken by the smelting/sintering route followed by the blast furnace or ISF. However, although these processes are effective in producing lead, there are some major drawbacks associated with the techniques:
  • There is much opportunity for pollution to occur during the operations, and therefore extensive gas cleaning equipment is necessary
  • Operating the two separate stages is inefficient in terms of energy consumption and required plant
  • The amount of coke required can be costly
For these reasons, much research has focused on developing methods of extracting lead directly from its ore in a one-stage process [11]. The main difficulty encountered in designing such a process was that if extraction is performed in a single vessel, either the metal obtained will have an undesirably high sulfur content, or the slag would have a high lead content. However, these concerns have been overcome, direct smelting is now the most common process for primary smelting, and in Europe most primary blast furnaces and ISF processes have now closed. Direct smelting is covered in detail in Section 4.4." Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Check your email. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the oldest FAC still on the list of nominees is 8+ weeks old, whereas we were only there for about two weeks. Even though we are no longer there, the time it will take us to get the bronze star may not be any longer than 8+ weeks in total, once we get back on the FAC list. Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Old Testament[edit]

I added the mention of the book as an example of how lead was mentioned in a major literary work of the time. I wanted at best to have something like "in the Old Testament and the Iliad" to show how it was mentioned in description of everyday lives of people but I couldn't find anything. We now have biblical references, which is hardcore to me. If I had to choose between this and nothing, I would go for nothing.

Can we go back to what we had or forward to nothing?--R8R (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete the thing for now. When we have some other reliable sources to ancient references to lead, add them back in then, in slow non-FAC time. There is no FAC urgency here. mentions a couple of items but does not give any reliable sources that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

classifying the elements (your sandbox)[edit]

Greenwood and Earnshaw (1st edition, pp. 1051–1054) notes the existence of XeCl4 and XeBr2 (made from the β decay of the analogous iodine-129 interhalogen anions). So I suppose Cl and Br should both get a note about the possibility.

Xe–N bonds are known in FXe[N(SO2)F2] (Advances in Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 46, p. 78). There are also Xe–C bonds, e.g. C6F5XeCl (also containing a Xe–Cl bond). Neither of these are from directly reacting the elements, but then neither are the Xe–O bonds. If you look at p. 93 of the same reference incidentally you will find evidence for radon oxoacids in the form of [HRnO3]+ and [HRnO4] (aq), and also that the relevant species in HF solution are RnF+ and Rn2+ (actual cationic chemistry!). (But then this is non-aqueous, so you could also argue for Xe2+ in SbF5.)

(This isn't really relevant, but I wanted to include it anyway.) Calculations seem to imply also that [ArF]+ should have a stable ground state and should be stabilised with counter-anions like [AuF6] and [SbF6], and that the binding energy for [HC≡N–ArF]+ should be 160 kJ/mol (similar to the Kr analogue): opportunities for a modern-day Neil Bartlett?! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look closely at this. Sandbh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-10[edit]

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2[edit]

While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. Your CE's were excellent! I am not good at copy editing, but knew enough to know the article was in bad shape. Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I'm looking forward to the renomination. Sandbh (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne and Contraceptives[edit]

Hi Sand, I think I found the answer to reconcile your concern about acne medicamentosa (drug-induced acne) and contraceptives (helpful vs harmful) in this article This article states that the estrogen estradiol (at higher than physiologic doses and higher doses than what is found in combined oral contraceptive pills reduces sebum secretion (and would thus be expected to improve acne). In contrast, progestin (progesterone) hormones may have androgenic effects and be expected to worsen acne. This review states nearly all combination oral contraceptives are beneficial acne treatments and likely the estrogenic component offsets the androgenic part due to the progesterone component. Additionally, it depends on which progesterone is under discussion. Per the article, the progesterone drospirenone (derived from spironolactone which is also an acne treatment) (found in contraceptive products Yaz and Yasmin) has anti-androgen/anti-acne properties but progesterone norgestrel can cause acne flares. I hope this helps clarify the nuances of the relationship between COCs and acne since this was a continued concern of yours. This would mean that the initial sentence in the lead you were concerned about is still accurate (it says many types of birth control are effective as acne treatments and this is an accurate statement. For the sake of being comprehensive, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention that certain contraceptive products with offending progesterones (e.g., Norplant which has norgestrel) can worsen acne rather than help it in contrast to most contraceptive products. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

your nonmetal classification[edit]

It's acting as a good reminder for me to plan out the rewrites of phosphorus and sulfur (which will take forever again). Also, now that all the halogens are GA I might get around to doing the other homogeneous group that isn't Li–Cs ^_^ (I suppose the noble gases are pretty homogeneous too, though in a rather degenerate way). Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good one, the double line about the "other" (groan!) homogenous group. Now that you mention it, it is odd that there are more ostensibly heterogenous groups than there are homogenous groups (let's see, that would be 1, 3, 17 and 18)? (Even 1 is wobbly if you include H.) Last night I saw DePiep raised a concern about the cohesiveness of the intermediate nonmetals, a concern which is related to the hetero- v homogenous thing. This morning I was mulling upon what DePiep had said about "strong nonmetals" and that reminded me of thinking about the IN as being those in tne equivalent of a Goldilocks zone: not too rabid and not too laid back—more moderate kinds of folks. Taxonomically speaking, the nonmetals sure are an interesting bunch. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I find the idea about the Goldilocks zone very amusing, because a Goldilocks zone for us necessitates O2, which is definitely a "strong nonmetal" in your proposed classification! (Meanwhile, the hypothetical fluorine-breathing aliens are looking down at us from their observatories and thinking of us as complete wimps. ^_^)
Yes, the resemblance seems to drop off abruptly outside 1, 2, 17, and 18. (17 would be more shaky if it wasn't for the short half-life of At allowing us to sweep it under the rug; 16 looks more homogeneous too without Po.) But then again the PT was originally constructed on the basis of similar valences; N, P, and V are a hilariously bad triad if you want similarity, but they all have +5 as their maximum oxidation state (and it is not an uncommon one). I think I have previously mentioned something about trends and gradual changes being the norm, instead of similarity: I wonder if the fact that chemistry teaching tends to start with the most similar groups (because, well, they're so much easier to teach) causes many people to think of similarity as the norm instead, when it quite clearly is not? Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a good conjecture! Starting with the most similar groups is perhaps the easiest way to start teaching so, sure, the alkali metals are contrasted with the halogens, and the combination of sodium with chlorine to give salt always gets rolled out. Sodium in water is another early favourite. Trends and gradual changes being the norm is also a relevant observation; still, similarities have their place with e.g. valence, as you say. And, talking the balcony view, we see similarities that enable us to distinguish metals (basic oxides, mostly) from nonmetals (acidic oxides, mostly) etc. Odd how we never read about this line of thinking, in quite the way we have been discussing it, in chemistry textbooks. Or maybe it is discussed but not all in the one place. Sandbh (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that I learnt all of this stuff from the textbooks, and I am equally sure that I did not learn it all from the same place! ^_^ The trouble with the balcony view, of course, is that you cannot get up there at once, and you have to learn a lot of stuff before you get there, preferably in multiple different ways for each thing. Similarly, you cannot give the student a bunch of helium balloons and lift them up there instantly. (Although I suppose starting with the noble gases might not be a bad idea, describing the elements up to Ca and how they "want" a noble-gas configuration.) You even have to take several detours along the way and then confess that you lied for more effective teaching: for example, I got the d-orbital explanation of hypervalence, at least at first. And when you get up to the top of the tower, you realise that it is still under construction.
Na in water is always a fun one. (Of course, everyone shows it, and then tries futilely to stop the more immature students from doing it. There are of course other fun and irresponsible possibilities for the immature, such as making H2S. If asked, I will deny having done this. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(P.S. If it is not obvious, I would suggest that usually, the best way to reach the balcony is to take the route that past luminaries went in the past. Surely, if it's natural enough to see without prior knowledge, it should be even more natural to teach.) Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for organizing the sources so clearly on smoking and acne. It has been a big help. SarahSV (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah! I appreciate your thoughtfulness. This was an unexpected but quite welcome surprise. -- Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-11[edit]

15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead, again[edit]

Would you take a look at the new subsection? This probably could use some copyediting.--R8R (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Sandbh (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's done. I'm concerned about the last sentence: "This can be achieved by submerged fuel combustion or injection, reduction assisted by an electric furnace, or a combination of both." We should elaborate a bit as to what "submerged fuel combustion or injection" is. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

on metalloids as closer to nonmetals than metals[edit]

Thank you for quantifying my intuition at User:Double sharp#Chemistry: "So maybe the nonmetals Si, P, and S will come first. (Yes, yes, I know we colour Si as a metalloid, but you know what I mean!)" ^_-☆ 💖💖💖 (And now I finally have an excuse to use that emoji!)

Seriously, I have thought that way for most of the metalloid-ish elements for a while. They are all so reluctant to form cations...a few sections up (#redox potentials: classification of tennessine) I even discussed with you a classification for metallic behaviour in chemistry based on that, which would essentially ask the questions (1) "can it form simple cations?" and (2) "if it can also form simple anions, is their oxidation back to M0 spontaneous?" – I need (2) because of Au. (Incidentally, this would rule that At is not a metal, but that Ts should be one.)

We shouldn't forget the group similarities transcending this, though. I would note after all that Greenwood covers each of the triads {Ge, Sn, Pb}, {As, Sb, Bi}, and {Se, Te, Po} in one chapter, and it doesn't feel strained like Holleman and Wiberg's chapter on {O, S, Se, Te, Po} does. Actually this is exactly the reason why I'm not sure how I would do groups like that when the story to tell breaks up so much.

(Speaking of which, why is the Sn article so terrible? Everything around it is better and it is just a yellow island of not being up to standards. I should put it on my plate, but realistically with silicon still in the works as disorganised Notepad documents on my desktop it's never going to get done in any reasonable amount of time...) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-12[edit]

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

the current discussion on metalloids[edit]

I said it over three years ago and I don't hesitate to say it again: thank you for always making me think.

Incidentally, I've replied to your recent post, and I am very happy that you refused my Na2Te specialty. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, you're so quick! I was just dot-point summarising what Scerri says about the LST in his red book, when an e-mail came in from Wikipedia alerting me to this edit. I see I'll have to pull on my best thinking cap again, possibly augmented by some dog-walking thinking, sitting in front of the TV-mulling, and sleep-time processing. Bring it on I say and thank you for stress-testing this latest proposal. It will come out on the other side looking sparkly, spiffy, and groovy—I hope! Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)