Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 4
This is an archive of past discussions about Nonmetal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
How many types
@Sandbh, we had previously agreed on the wording, but you just now changed “four” to “three to four”. The list following the colon is a list of four items, no more and no less, and so imo the number in the paragraph should be four. One of my previous suggestions had been “four types of elements”, to which you inserted the word “nonmetallic”, but you can remove it if that makes the number four more acceptable. Just please don’t change it back to “3 to 4” without a discussion and agreement to change our previously agreed wording. Thank you! YBG (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Lead-in to types bullets
@YBG: I've changed the mention of number of types to read "three or four types of nonmetallic elements can be most commonly discerned". This is more consistent with the opening paragraph of the section. It also clarifies why "three to four" in that these are the most common approaches. I've used "discerned" rather "seen", as "seen" often refers to the act of visual perception, whereas "discerned" implies a deeper process of understanding, interpreting, or making out something that might not be immediately obvious. I feel this is especially appropriate given the subject matter, including the "are they?/aren't they" nature of the metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Types
@Double sharp: after a very long discussion between @Sandbh and me, I think we’ve come about as far as we can. Would you please read the last paragraph of § Types, the one just before § Noble gases dealing with metal reactivity. Is it acceptable in its current form? If not, what changes do you think are necessary? Is the article better with this paragraph or without it? Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|
More re types
@Sandbh: I’ve trimmed the descriptions in the list that also serves as a legend. In particular I’ve tried to eliminate the clumsy X-to-Y descriptions. I restored “chemically strong”, it is much crisper than “highly to moderately reactive” and seems supported in the literature. I eliminated “high to low reactivity” which seems to the casual reader (eg FAC evaluators) to be tantamount to meaningless. YBG (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination
@Graham Beards, YBG, and Double sharp: Please see below. @Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: fyi. I understand that the following items had still to be checked off: A small mention of metalloid outliers (Double sharp)
Complementary pairs (YBG) Please see the new section about this, hereunder. More tendency speak (Double sharp)
An extraction periodic table (YBG)
Double up (Graeme Beards)
--- Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
regarding "Types, metalloids"
AFAIK, semiconducting Sb is only stable as a very thin film (doi:10.1039/D3NR03536K). If we're going to include this sort of thing, then we'd presumably have to also note that B can metallise under such conditions (see borophene). Graphene also counts, though C is placed under unclassified nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Opening PT excerpt
We hashed this out before, but I’m wondering about At again. Could it be like Cn/Fl/Og with a “status unclear” legend, relegating any other info to a note? It would make the opening graphic a lot cleaner. YBG (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@YBG and Double sharp: I've boldly updated the image to show At with a blank background, and simplified the accompanying extract. Nice idea YBG. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Johnson’s NM characteristics
Can we eliminate the table in favor of expanding the numbered list with sub points?
But then I got stuck not knowing what to put under (3) If the table remains, it needs to be better coordinated with the numbered list. But I prefer removing the table On wide screens, it pushes the EN/density chart down too far :YBG (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Apparently tungsten oxides are soluable in concentrated hydrofluoric acid. The dissolution reaction presumably involves protonation of the oxide with formation of soluble tungsten fluoride complexes. I'll remove reference to the oxides and maybe say something about W's anionic aqueous chemistry. --- Sandbh (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
|
H/C/N/O/Si percentages in earth’s domains
The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph reads:
The note, based on the table in § Abundance of nonmetallic elements, says:
Wouldn’t it be nicer to say:
To do this, someone ( Sandbh?) needs to look up this data in the refs:
Is it worth doing the research? Or is it just fine the way it is? YBG (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Oxides
it is clear from the note that while metal oxides are mostly basic, some are acidic or amphoteric. But what about nonmetal (or metalloid) oxides? Are any basic? Are any amphoteric? Or are they ALL acidic? YBG (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the wording at § Chemical properties of nonmetals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Scope
List article ledes often include a clear statement of the scope of the list, that is, the inclusion criteria. This is not a list article, but it seems it might benefit from a clear scope statement early in the article. This should at minimum include the exclusion of astatine because its bulk properties are not well attested and inclusion of the metalloids for comparative purposes. Another possible addition would be explaining the use of “nonmetal” vs “nonmetallic element” if we decide to use these terms consistently. I’ve thought a bit about where to put this, and it seems there are three good choices: (1) as the last sentence of the first paragraph (2) as a new paragraph inserted between the first and second (3) as a new paragraph at the end of the top section. There are certainly other choices too. I don’t feel strongly about the location except that the earlier the better and that it should be in the top section. As it currently stands, the scope dt at statement comes much later. Thoughts anyone? YBG (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@YBG: I've further streamlined the 1st paragraph. Self-evidently, there cannot be an "exact" number of nonmetals. I submit that it is not a good idea to refer to metalloids at this point given the article is about nonmetals, and metalloids have not even been defined yet. Here's how it reads now plus the two preceding versions:
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Assuming that you objected the scope statement due to its length, I shortened it in hopes it meets with your approval:
I think an explicit scope statement early on is very important, but it should be coupled with an acknowledgment that it is not universally accepted. YBG (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I can’t think of any way to improve on the two scoping sentences that now appear in the first paragraph:
———YBG (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
|
A thought on the history
It occurs to me that there must be a missing link between Dupasquier and Dumas on the one hand, and the modern idea on the other, because they consider B and Si to be nonmetals but are not agreed on the more metalloidal elements. Dumas includes As but not Se, and Dupasquier includes Se but not As; neither include Ge, Sb, or Te. The 1911 Britannica article on chemistry thinks that B, Si, Se, and Te are nonmetals, but not Ge, As, and Sb. I assume this changed when people started using "metalloid" for an intermediate set instead, but in that case the inclusion of such elements as primarily nonmetals gets somewhat iffy, since mostly people talk about them as intermediate between metals and nonmetals. Back when there were only two categories and no intermediate ones, it does not seem as though Ge, As, and Sb were considered nonmetals that often. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you. I don't know if 49% of chemists would agree metalloids are nonmetals. OTOH, I presume > 49% know that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. Per your suggestion, the article clarifies the "sometimes" nature of metalloids, in the following places:
I count ten places in which the peculiar treatment of the metalloids is mentioned. The overall emphasis is on the seventeen elements generally recognised as nonmetals, with the six metalloids being mentioned as appropriate. The metalloid article and nonmetal article work side-by-side. The first has a much narrower focus; the second has a broader focus due to the overlap of the predominately nonmetallic chemistry of the metalloids. In response to your concerns I've add a paragraph to the Development of types section, explaining the status of B and Si, and what happened to Ge, As, Sn and Te. How is the article now looking? --- Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Definitions & lists
Consider the 2nd paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements:
Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
A side question that seems interesting but probably doesn’t enter in to determining content of the article:
——— YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I think we can close this section. YBG (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
Property comparisons
Why is § Comparison of selected properties in the § History, background, and taxonomy section? These tables that compare the chemical and physical properties of metals and the 3+1 types of nonmetals would seem to be more appropriate either in the Chemical and Physical subsections of § General properties or else at the end of § Types. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Allotropes
@Sandbh, @Double sharp: I have moved the brief mention of allotropes up earlier so that it can serve as a scoping statement describing which forms the article discusses. It also subsumes the hatnote about most stable form under ambient conditions. At the same time, I added a brief mention of hydrogen’s isotopes which seemed appropriate. I need you to verify that I listed the correct allotrope. I was not able to find information about iodine, so please add it to the list. YBG (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Double sharp and YBG: The footnote in the middle of the hatnote has been relocated to the end of the hatnote. I've adjusted the listing of stable forms, including removing the isotope reference. I've added a footnote to the end of the Definitions and applicable elements section to cater for temperature and pressure variations. I believe this thread may now been addressed. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
|