Talk:Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals

Elements Mid‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Authors who count metalloids as nonmetals

Incidentally I intend to undo one of your recent edits, the one that changed "Some authors count metalloids as nonmetals with weakly nonmetallic properties" to "Most authors…", unless you have a citation that supports the "Most authors…" opening. The examples I provided can only be interpreted as evidence that some (rather than most) authors count metalloids as nonmetals instead of metalloids. Happy to discuss. Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: (I assume you mean me) I replaced "some" with "most" because I removed "Others count some of the metalloids as post-transition metals with weakly metallic properties.", which has been unsourced for two years now. I couldn't find any examples of authors counting metalloids as PT metals, but I could find many who count them as nonmetals. It seems like a reasonable deduction that most authors count them as nonmetals if no examples to the contrary are found. Regardless, the unsourced line should be removed. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdecl: Yes, good assumption. I've added a citation giving an example of some authors who count Ge and Sb as PTMs. Sandbh (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tables moved into templates

I have moved two tables into templates, so they are transcluded. This is very helpful for testing (sandboxing). Also, I have made two level-3 subsections with that: "Overview" and "Details". Especially since that detailes-table is so huge.

Suggestion: let's move paragraph: "Authors differ in where they divide metals ..." to above, as an introduction of the main section 'compare' (there should be text in there anyway, and this one fits fine). -DePiep (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead DePiep. Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did not do this text move. Text flow does not seem natural anyway (needed, maybe: from introduction of the properties into global remarks?). Someone else? -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the two tables. I'll leave this page for now. -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page exist?

It is a WP:SYNTH of material from other pages, mainly unsourced. I am inclined to do an AfD as I cannot see the rationale of this page as a stand alone entity, plus it would be a major effort to try and repair it. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]