Jump to content

User talk:YBG/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

A timely question

@Double sharp and Sandbh: Question: Do they observe Thanksgiving Day in the UK? Answer: Yes, twice each year, once on January 26th and a second time on July 4th. YBG (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the YBG rules

Since you mentioned them at my talk page, I have to admit that I have not really been thinking about them when suggesting the schemes I'm currently suggesting for WP. This is mainly because the main argument I've been using for them is "well, the literature usually does this and doesn't care too much about the subtleties". If I was colouring something off-WP, then that is a different story. Double sharp (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The literature. That is what we lost sight of in 2012-2013, particularly the primacy of secondary and tertiary sources. What I think would be very helpful is a literature search akin to Lists of metalloids that would list the category schemes, the number of categories, and the names and membership of each of category. I should probably devote some time to making a start of it. By the way, I have come to believe that because of our WP commitment to follow WP:PSTS, my rules have next to nothing to contribute to WP decision making. This is not pessimism, as some might say, just a recognition of where they might be helpful. YBG (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this about the "YBG rules for enwiki PT categorisation"? Then I'd like to follow & learn more. Is there a single +/- 1 discussion place ? -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: They're at User:YBG#Criteria_for_categorization_(the_so-called_"YBG_rules"). Well, probably not so relevant for what we're doing on WP anymore, given what YBG just said. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding how far the scientific view goes for WP

Sometimes I think it might be interesting if all of us drew and coloured a PT the way we'd personally prefer. And then just showed it, without critiquing each others' forms. I made one myself a while ago, based on the nicer PT poster of Droog Andrey. No doubt, Sandbh's would look extremely different. I think that would serve as a good illustration for a point I've been making above: you can't argue on WP for the best scientific view because no one will agree what it is, neither in the literature, nor among us, and it will go in circles with no result. The only way we can make a change that will be agreed on is if the literature or some body with generally recognised authority moves unarguably in that direction. (Which is why, among other things, I am waiting for the IUPAC group 3 project before raising that again.) Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the new legend

Title.

Although I guess I should say that theoretically there might be a d block nonmetal, as predictions vary for Cn. However the latest line of theory seems to change every few years on it and therefore I decided to be conservative. Like DA I believe in 6d expansion. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I can ask you something regarding how to better graphically display something I'm trying to show: I currently do not think it is wise to make statements like "element X is a metal". The properties we normally think of as indicating metallicity change with temperature and pressure (hence tin pest and metallic hydrogen), and that's not similar to absolute properties like atomic number, but rather to things like phases. So I'd want to make it clear somehow that it's not that Br is intrinsically a nonmetal any more than it's intrinsically a liquid; these are all "valid at STP" things. So I'd like to somehow make it clear in the presentation and legend – but I don't know if lightening the colour and saying "light colours indicate elements that are nonmetallic at STP" is the best way to clarify it to the average reader. Maybe you can help. ;) Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Let me have a look at User:Double sharp/Periodic Table and see what I come up with. YBG (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've tweaked the legend, and the period labels also. YBG (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey that's really nice, thanks! I guess I just need to add the usual occurrence and state-of-matter-at-STP legends for it to be totally self-sufficient :) Thanks for your help! Double sharp (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Tweaked it a bit more. YBG (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Even nicer. ^_^ And I added the extra legends I wanted too! Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about H/C, He/Be etc.

You inspired me to a further rewrite Periodic table#Period 1 which discusses the H-He placement problems. I think I got closer to DUE and pruning to just what I could get from at least 2ARY sources. Your thoughts requested, of course.

He-Be has been cut out entirely, as have H-B and H-C. The reason is that I cannot find a single well-regarded chemistry textbook or poster actually using any of these as its default placement. For the specific article helium, He-Be is there in just a footnote (written by me also), though noted as surpassingly rare (I mentioned that He-Ne is near-universal). All based on my understanding of the Jimbo dictum, of course. Maybe not the right one, which is why your view would interest me. Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, the periodic table article did not mention H-B and H-C so there was nothing to cut out here.
There is quite a bit of scholarship in RS about He over Be. As higher level sources, these are more reliable than chemistry textbooks. This scholarship merits inclusion. Recall what Jimbo actually said: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then_whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article."
And consider the context for Jimbo dictum, which was an OP saying, "You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the WIKI SR [special relativity] article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2." Now, that's what I call fringe.
Not that it matters, since textbooks are less RS in this regard: find any textbook that shows the LSPT (I recall there are a few) and you'll find He over Be. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It used to mention H-C not long ago. At least before I cut it out.
I don't see how the main article on the periodic table could possibly count as ancillary. And indeed, He-Be is still discussed, in a footnote at helium. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Living POTUS &c

Roughly prioritized to-do list for my userspace draft (15:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC))

Implemented (and documented) at User:YBG/Living officeholders YBG (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Implement |fmt= to allow alternate date formats
  •  Done Improved parameter counter
  •  Done Add check for subpage existance
  •  Done Add /doc subpage
  •  Done Implement as two alternatives: full-table template and table-row template
  •  Done Implement /Row2 alternative with Drdpw's format, making a list of design differences
  •  Done Implement /Row3 alternatives with vertical list only
  •  Done Implement /Row4 alternatives with vertical list additionally
  •  Done Implement /Row5 with starting/ending events in separate columns instead of separate rows
  •  Doing... Implement checked boxus-p, checked boxusvp, checked boxaupm, checked boxnzpm, Question?ukpm
  • Announce at Talk:Living presidents of the United States
  • Seek comments on alternatives

Collaborations

Recent collaborations
    Status     My 1st edit Collaborating with Latest edit Discussion location
 
 Done 2017-02-29 DePiep et al 2017-03-05 User:YBG/sandbox, talk:Living Presidents of the United States/Archive 2 § Colorized list with
 Done 2016-11-23 The usual suspects 2017-01-31 talk:Living Presidents of the United States/Archive 2 §§ More format discussion​ and Request for comments on proposed changes
 Done 2016-10-22 Drdpw, Neve-selbert, GoodDay, JFG 2016-11-08 Talk:List of Presidents of the United States/Archive 8 §§ President Elect​ and Prior service
 Done 2016-07-27 2016-08-21 Talk:Periodic trends § Merge trends+law
 Done 2016-07-02 Zyxwv99 &al 2016-07-15 Talk:Dietary element § Article should be Dietary mineral
 Done 2016-07-08 Sandbh &al 2016-08-22 Talk:Heavy metal (chemical element) § FAC comments by YBG
2016-05-31 2016-07-11 Talk:Presbyterian Church in America § Two churches that have recently moved to PCA
 Done 2016-07-08 2016-07-18 Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 4 § Map showing nations using either American or British English
c:commons:Deletion requests/File:American and British spelling differences.png
 Done 2016-06-01 2016-07-15 Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 4 § "This article is written in American English"
 Done 2016-07-01 2016-07-01 Talk:List of proposed states of Australia § Bias around New Zealand becoming an Australian State
 Done 2016-06-25 2016-07-16 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 23 § Etymology templates
WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 8 § Chemical elements named after ...
 Doing... 2016-06-27 DePiep (talk · contribs) 2016-07-03 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 23 § Revised etymology article
Draft:Etymology of names of chemical elements § Table setup
 Done 2016-05-09 Golfeditor1 (talk · contribs) 2016-08-21 User talk:YBG/Archive 3 § Golf editing

Notes to myself

Completed

Incomplete or recently complete

Useful WP stuff

This is a collection of useful wikipedia forms.

WP links are well described at Help:Link

  • [[Article name]]: ... a WP article
  • [[Article name|{text}]]: ... a WP article with alternate text
  • [[Talk:Article name]]: ... a talk page
  • [[Article name#Section]]: ... a section within an article
  • [[:Category:Category name]]: ... a WP category, e.g., Category:Indian hill stations
  • [[User:{User}]]: ... User page, e.g., User:YBG
  • [[User Talk:{User}]]: User talk page, e.g., User Talk:XYZ
  • [[Special:Contributions/{User}]]: User contributions, e.g., Special:Contributions/YBG
  • [http://{URL}]: ... any URL, e.g., [2]
  • [http://{URL} {text}]: ... any URL with alternate text, e.g., google

WP-related URL's are described in Help:URL

  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid={version}]: ... for a specific old version, e.g., [3]
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid={version}]: ... for changes made by a specific version, e.g., [4]
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=curr&oldid={version}]: ... for differences to the current version, e.g., [5]
  • {{diff|[prefix]:[page]|prev|[version]|label}}: ... for differences made by a specific version, e.g.this edit
  • [[Special:Diff/version-number]]: ... for differences introduced by a version, e.g., Special:Diff/650954321
  • [[Special:Diff/ver-1/ver-2]]: ... for differences between two versions, e.g., Special:Diff/646776217/650954321
  • [[Special:Permalink/version-number]]: ... for a specific version, e.g., Special:Permalink/660364853#Compare2b
  • Help:Special: ... for a list of other special pages

More syntax

wiki markup result 
{{flatlist|
* Item 1
* Item 2
}}
  • Item 1
  • Item 2
{{collapse top|Header}}
collapsed text
{{collapse bottom}}
Header

collapsed text 

{{hr}}
<hr>
<hr width=75%>

Templates &c.

Style

MOS

  • Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. MOS:LISTBULLET
  • Use straight quotes and apostrophes, not the curly typographic form. MOS:STRAIGHT 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tools

Commas in numbers

(This is a draft; I'm not sure where to post it

  • On the MOS talk page -- but this avoids reaching a local consensus first
  • On the project talk pages -- but then India, Pakistan or both?

Should South Asian articles insert commas for thousands and millions (12,345,678) or for thousands, lakhs and crores (1,23,45,678)? MOS:COMMONALITY seems to lean to millions but MOS:TIES to lakhs/crores. MOS:TIES is quite explicit on the corresponding question about date formatting, but WP:NUMERAL doesn't seem to be as helpful. It seems to say that if commas are used for lakhs/crores, the first instance should include a parenthesized explanation commas for millions. This seems unhelpful, particularly for tables and infoboxes.

I am wondering if any South Asian projects (WP:Pakistan, WP:India, etc) have developed a project style that speaks to this. If not, I think it would be good to develop a consensus within these projects and then perhaps make the Manual of Style as explicit in this question as it is for dates.

Here are the relevant sections of from WP:MOS:

WP:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality (MOS:COMMONALITY)
'tens of millions' is preferable to crore (Indian English).
WP:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:TIES)
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation.
WP:Manual of Style#Internal consistency (WP:CONSISTENCY)
While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently.
WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:TIES)
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation.
WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words (WP:NUMERAL)
  • Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may call for the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the South Asian numbering system is conventionally used in South Asian English. In those situations, link the first spelled-out instance of each quantity (e.g. [[crore]], which yields crore). (If no instances are spelled out, provide a note after the first instance directing the reader to the article about the numbering system.) Also, provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity, and provide conversions for subsequent instances if they do not overwhelm the content of the article. For example, write three crore (thirty million). Similarly, if you write 3,00,00,000, also write (30,000,000) or (30000000). (Note that the variety of English does not uniquely determine the method of numbering in an article. Other considerations, such as conventions used in mathematics, science and engineering, may also apply, and the choice and order of formats and conversions is a matter of editorial discretion and consensus.)
WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Delimiting (grouping of digits)
  • Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or greater) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a comma (,) every three digits (e.g. 12,200, 255,200, 8,274,527). A full stop (.) should not be used to separate thousands (e.g. 12.200, 255.200) to avoid confusion with the decimal point.
  • The style of delimiting numbers must be consistent throughout an article.

I plan to invite members of those projects to contribute to this discussion. YBG (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for categorization (the so-called "YBG rules")

These criteria were originally summarized as a part of the long discussion about categorizing nonmetals, but I believe they are just as easily applied to any categorization effort.

I first added these three points in April 2013 in a discussion later archived here:

1. Clear. The criterion for division should be easily explained
2. Unambiguous. It should be (relatively) obvious which category each element fits into
3. Meaningful. The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing.
There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopedia article

In November 2013, Sandbh (in a discussion archived here) named these the 'YBG rules', but I think they were really just summarizing the thoughts of others.

Other criteria mentioned in that discussion, not previously summarized, include these:

4. Referenced. Categories and their names are supported by reliable sources
5. Specific. Catch-all, none-of-the-above terms like 'Other X' are avoided (unless properties are not sufficiently known)
6. Unique. The categories are mutually exclusive (a bit stronger than Unambiguous)
7. Complete. The categories are jointly exhaustive (a bit stronger than Specific)’

I am writing this here to have it for reference and perhaps application in other areas. YBG (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Added links to original edits. YBG (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Grid example

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
a0 a1 a2 a3
b0 b1 b2 b3
c0 c1 c2 c3
d0 d1 d2 d3
   
   
a0 a1 a2 a3
b0 b1 b2 b3
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Poor man's interactivity

Instructions:

  1. You can try to answer the question without seeing any of the possible answers
  2. Click [show] to reveal the possible choices (like a multiple-choice test)
  3. Hover over the letter of your chosen answer to see if it is right and why or why not

Venn diagrams from Commons

Venn_00_.svg Venn_10_.svg Venn_01_.svg Venn_11_.svg
0__0
Venn0000.svg
Venn0100.svg
Venn0010.svg
Venn0110.svg
0__1
Venn0001.svg
Venn0101.svg
Venn0011.svg
Venn0111.svg
1__0
Venn1000.svg
Venn1100.svg
Venn1010.svg
Venn1110.svg
1__1
Venn1001.svg
Venn1101.svg
Venn1011.svg
Venn1111.svg
Venn_0000_0001.svg
Venn_0000_0010.svg
Venn_0000_0100.svg
Venn_0000_1000.svg
Venn_0001_0000.svg
Venn_0010_0000.svg
Venn_0100_0000.svg
Venn_1000_0000.svg
A periodic table with section links
H  #H He #H
Li #H Be #H B  #H C  #H+e N  #H+e O  #H§ F  #H Ne #H
Na #H Mg #H Al #E Si #H P  #S+e S  #S+e Cl #H Ar #H
K  #E Ca #H Sc #H Ti #H V  #H Cr #top Mn #H Fe #E Co #H Ni #H Cu #H§ Zn #H§ Ga #H Ge #H As #H Se #H Br #H Kr #top
Rb #H Sr #H Y  #H Zr #H Nb #H Mo #H Tc #H§ Ru #H Rh #H Pd #H Ag #H Cd #H In #H Sn #E Sb #E Te #H I  #H Xe #H
Cs #H Ba #H 1 asterisk Hf #H Ta #H W  #top Re #H Os #H Ir #H Pt #top Au #E Hg #E Tl #H Pb #E Bi #H Po #H At #H Rn #H+e
Fr #H§ Ra #H 2 asterisks Rf #Nc Db #Nc Sg #H Bh #H§ Hs #H Mt #N Ds #N Rg #N Cn #N Uut #N Fl #N Uup #N Lv #N Uus #N Uuo #N
1 asterisk La #H Ce #H Pr #H Nd #H Pm #H§ Sm #H Eu #Hs Gd #H Tb #H Dy #H Ho #H Er #H Tm #H Yb #H Lu #H  
2 asterisks Ac #H Th #H Pa #H U  #D Np #D Pu #D Am #H Cm #H Bk #H Cf #H Es #H Fm #D Md #D No #D Lr #H  
Code Section name # Elements whose name/etymology is in this section (usually in addition to the lede)
#H History 75 elements: (The vast majority of the elements)
#N Naming 10 elements: 109:Mt, 110:Ds, 111:Rg, 112:Cn, 113:Uut, 114:Fl, 115:Uup, 116:Lv, 117:Uus, 118:Uuo
#E Etymology 8 elements: 13:Al, 19:K , 26:Fe, 50:Sn, 51:Sb, 79:Au, 80:Hg, 82:Pb
#D Discovery 6 elements: 92:U , 93:Np, 94:Pu, 100:Fm, 101:Md, 102:No
#H+e History and etymology 3 elements: 6:C , 7:N , 86:Rn
#S+e Spelling and etymology 2 elements: 15:P , 16:S
#Nc Naming controversy 2 elements: 104:Rf, 105:Db
#top (only in the lede) 4 elements: 24:Cr, 36:Kr, 74:W , 78:Pt
#H§ History subsection 7 elements:
8:O (Lavoisier's contribution)
29:Cu (Antiquity and Middle Ages)
30:Zn (Early studies and naming)
43:Tc (Official discovery and later history)
87:Fr (Perey's analysis)
107:Bh (Proposed names)
61:Pm (Discovery and synthesis of promethium metal)
#Hs History of study 1 element: 63:Eu

SQL Null

p q p OR q p AND q p = q
True True True True True
True False True False False
True Unknown True Unknown Unknown
False True True False False
False False False False True
False Unknown Unknown False Unknown
Unknown True True Unknown Unknown
Unknown False Unknown False Unknown
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
(True dominates)
p OR q q
True False Unknown
p True True True True
False True False Unknown
Unknown True Unknown Unknown
(False dominates)
p AND q q
True False Unknown
p True True False Unknown
False False False False
Unknown Unknown False Unknown
(Unknown dominates)
p = q q
True False Unknown
p True True False Unknown
False False True Unknown
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
p NOT p p IS True p IS NOT True p IS False p IS NOT False p IS Unknown p IS NOT Unknown
True False True False False True False True
False True False True True False False True
Unknown Unknown False True False True True False

TWA

YBG on what led up to his wikibreak

For details, please see special:permalink/997721164 § Comments by YBG (diff). Comments that do not directly apply to ANI are welcome here. Please note that I am only checking my pings weekly; if you wish, you may contact me directly by email YBG (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why metallicity has always given a problem

I thought this was too long for the project page, so I write you here. This is my try at explaining with as little jargon as possible

  • Physically, we kind of expect a metal to be a simple substance characterised by metallic bonding. What that means without jargon: the atoms all let go of their outer electrons and share them. So they let them freely move around, and that is why metals conduct heat and electricity. The metals themselves are pulled from all directions by the electron sea they have contributed to making, and end up jostled into a very closely-packed structure. That is why metals are so dense (and that helps, because that only thickens the electron sea!). And because even deforming the crystal doesn't stop this electron sea from holding the atoms together, metals tend to be malleable: you can bend them without breaking them. This electron sea is also responsible for why metals have their shiny lustre.
  • Chemically, however, we also expect a metal to be electropositive. What that means without jargon: a metal should be not too unhappy to give up its outer electrons. When you bond it to a nonmetal, it should let the nonmetal have more custody of its electron, because the metal wants it less.

This normally gives the same idea because the two ideas are correlated. Well, if an atom is willing to give up its outer electrons, then that's precisely what's needed for metallic bonding. If it's not so willing, then it will keep a hold on its electrons; they won't become a sea, they'll just be bonded tightly to one other atom. Ergo, electropositive elements form metallic structures; electronegative ones form nonmetallic covalent structures. And we can even go further and say that usually, metals prefer to lose electrons, and nonmetals prefer to gain them. So it seems irresistible to conflate them. As seems to be done here.

The problem is, they are not 100% correlated, particularly around the boundaries. Most obviously, noble gases are clearly nonmetals, but they don't want to lose or gain electrons; they would really rather just be left alone. But also, some "borderline" elements end up as metals despite poor electropositivity because they are large. I guess that makes it hard for them to fit in the expected covalent arrangements. But even as metals their bonding is pretty weak, their atoms are not closely-packed, they are brittle, etc. This is the not-that-great situation elements like antimony and polonium find themselves in; they form metallic structures thanks to their large atomic radius, even though they are less electropositive than nonmetal silicon. (Request to Droog Andrey to check what I said. This is a situation basic texts tend to ignore. And I want to get it right. XD)

Add in a fresh cocktail of people not wanting to separate groups where there is a gradation of electropositivity (e.g. Se < Te < Po) and more specialised areas where atoms near the boundary pattern with the wrong crowd, and you have a recipe for the confusion between sources.

I admit that the criterion of metallic bonding is probably the best one if you just want to answer the question "is it a metal". It is the one I think of when writing for myself. And really I think it is close to a formalisation of the one people would think of when they see the elements (antimony is shiny like a metal in way that germanium and tellurium are not). And I would probably use it as an illustration even for WP as it is the only clearly definable one. But I would probably describe it as "elements whose simple substances form structures characterised by generally non-directional metallic bonding" or some obfuscation like that and make it clear that that is not quite what everyone means by "metal", though it is usually pretty close.

P.S. Looking at the pnictogen group, I think you can justifiably get around the problem with As. Yes, it has metallic bonding, but somehow it seems definitively more directional than that in Sb and Bi, what with the longer distances to some atoms than others. As doesn't have a liquid range at standard pressure, Sb and Bi do. This is a point made in the Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry volume on As, Sb, and Bi.

I admit that this makes me quite inclined to agree with DA: I cannot believe Og as a semiconductor. I see the calculation but I still can't believe it, because its atomic radius is more than that of Sn and Po! Although I see the supporting information gives for PBE (SR) calculation <0.01 eV for band gap of Og. So, maybe it is a metal after all! ;) Time to worry about Cn then. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. To just have some fun gawking at the elements and seeing why I think the metallic-bond definition fits intuition most soundly: Metallium. Also some more photos here and here. Then have fun spotting the fake metals. ;)
I note for those who want some fun that this provides some good ideas for personifying the elements. Element Girls was not enough! XD Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I had proposed a simple criterion long ago. Droog Andrey (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Droog Andrey: Well, I like yours, but I feel the need to refer to something closer to what the texts give for WP. ;) I can probably make an excuse for the "metallic bonding" definition because most texts will speak of metallic bonding as something metals do (you know, something like this); this one, I am not so sure I can make an excuse for.
Though with yours I have a couple of questions. First, hydrogen presents a purely formal problem (it has only one neighbour; H–H is covalent bonding, H–He is bond absence). Could be fixed by tossing in lithium to break the tie (which is also a neighbour anyway). Second, what happens to copernicium? If recent calculations are correct and Cn is bounded by dispersion forces, and such was also for interactions of Cn with Au, then it seems plausible that the same thing would happen for Cn–Rg and Cn–Nh and we would end up with a noble liquid. I guess the keyword here is "if recent calculations are correct". Maybe I also would prefer to have something that only involved the element itself, but it may be asking too much. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The last word on Sb, from Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry: "Attempts to prepare modifications corresponding to yellow or orthorhombic arsenic do not seem to have been successful, but several amorphous forms of antimony have been made. "Yellow" and "black" antimony, from liquid stibine and oxygen at low temperatures, appear to contain some hydrogen, and "explosive antimony", made by the electrolysis of antimony trichloride in hydrochloric acid, always contains residual chlorine. Both these forms are more reactive chemically than rhombohedral antimony and are rapidly and exothermically transformed into the stable form, often as a result of slight heating or mechanical stress." So they are probably not even pure and not even stable.

Whereas black As is metastable.

Which makes me think that one could weasel one's way out of this by defining "a metal has a Fermi surface in every stable or metastable form at STP", using black arsenic and diamond to helpfully get rid of those annoying cases. Just define the warmer STP to avoid excluding tin. But maybe something will be found to mess this up too. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A good idea, really. Most of russian sources use 298,15 K and 1 bar as STP. Droog Andrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Droog Andrey: Yay, thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

PT Quiz

Produced by https://flashcard.ethz.ch/ using parameters Periodic table and "Introduction"

---YBG (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Behold hydrogen the metal! (Come to think of it, I'm not all that sure that the seventh row will have any nonmetals at all.) ^_^
I have to revisit the lede at User:Double sharp/Periodic table (redraft), I see. Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: You've lost me. I cannot figure out how your comment is related to the quiz I just posted. YBG (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It's because of Q3, where the software seems to have misinterpreted the article. It was written in the article that the PT has 7 rows, and generally has metals on the left and nonmetals on the right. But it seems the quiz has actually interpreted that sentence to mean that every row has metals on the left and nonmetals on the right. Which, thanks to row 1 (and probably row 7 too), is probably false. (Also, Q7 is subtly wrong too.)
I linked to my own redraft, since it also has a lede that might be useful to run this on to see if similar misinterpretations can happen. Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I needed it!! YBG (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YBG/Archive_6&oldid=1025941950"