Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 5
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
1st paragraph § Classification of metalloids
So what are the metalloids after all? Are they the Andorra of the periodic table? Or the Alsace–Lorraine? Or the Czechoslovakia? I have renamed this section and copy edited its 1st paragraph, pulling the first note into body text so the reader sees how impurities have complicated classification in several cases. I thought about mentioning this in the new topic sentence, but in the end decided not to. I haven’t tackled the other paragraph, which seems to subtly emphasize two related ideas: (1) (non)metal classification should properly be based primarily on chemistry and (2) the metalloids should properly be considered nonmetals, not an in-between category. Reading between the lines, it seems that when chemical properties are emphasized, the metalloids naturally align themselves with the nonmetal bloc, but when physical properties are emphasized, they assert their independence. Could RS be found to support this idea? If so, could we restructure this paragraph to treat the alternates (3rd super category vs. nonmetal subcategory) more NPOV-ly? ——— YBG (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Pics for § Classification of metalloids
I’ve reused the two boron pics in § Allotropes. For this section, I’d like pics contrasting the metallic appearance of pure silicon (or boron) with its nonmetallic appearance when it has impurities. I will look in commons to see if I can find anything; failing that, we can leave the boron pics here and drop them above, leaving only the graphite and diamond pics under allotropes. YBG (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
|
2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids
@Sandbh and Double sharp: I have rephrased the 2nd paragraph (diff, result) to eliminate the subtle emphasis I perceived. Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
|
More re 2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids
@Sandbh: Sorry for the revert and unrevert. Somehow I’d missed seeing that you’d adopted my suggestion. The final text …
… is ok but I still think it could be improved. But if nothing occurs to me in a week or so, I’ll close this whole == section. YBG (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Oustanding issues check
@YBG and Double sharp: Are there any remaining matters of concern? A week has otherwise passed and there have been no new additions to this page. I have yet to do a final quality check on article prose and flow, and still need to check there are no redunant references in the list of same. I also intend to look into the feasibiity of changing the footnote tags from { {#tag:ref|...|group=n}} to { {efn|...}}.
|
Article style
Should the style of this article be adopted as follows:
- Paragraph construction in this article follows the topic sentence method. The first sentence of a paragraph—the topic sentence—summarises what is elaborated in the rest of the paragraph. It should be possible to follow the logical flow of the article by reading only its topic sentences.
To enforce such a style decision without raising WP:OWNership issues, this should be adopted by consensus. Editors are invited to express their opinions here. YBG (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I feel this would do:
-
- The following note is offered as non-binding guidance on the structure of the article. It is not intended as a binding requirement for future contributions. The article was structured using the topic sentence method to enhance clarity and coherence, with each paragraph starting with a topic sentence that summarizes its main content. This approach was designed to facilitate understanding of the article's logical flow and improve readability by allowing readers to grasp the main points via these opening sentences.
- — Sandbh (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh Two points
- I would call this the 'topic-sentence-first' method, as a paragraph can have its topic sentence placed anywhere.
- I still think it would be good to adopt this by consensus
- —— YBG (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh Two points
Peer review or FAC
@YBG: I feel this article is now good to go to PR or FAC. Do you concur? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Perhaps. Let me take a global look first to see if anything jumps out. YBG (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- See related topic at § Oustanding issues check below. @Sandbh, should we close this section or come back to it later? YBG (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh? YBG (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- One suggestion might be to run the article by some of the editors who opposed the past FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was only suggestion that we don’t need both this section and § Oustanding issues check open. I've been dribbling my issues out a few at a time as I don’t have the bandwidth for multiple open discussions. YBG (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG, Double sharp, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I intend to proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage as set out above, and then ask some of the editors who opposed past-FACs. — Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will continue my slow pace of working through the article. YBG (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Foornotes have now been switched to efn --- Sandbh (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Redundant ref check completed. Final read through to follow; hopefully tomorrow. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Foornotes have now been switched to efn --- Sandbh (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will continue my slow pace of working through the article. YBG (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG, Double sharp, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I intend to proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage as set out above, and then ask some of the editors who opposed past-FACs. — Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Density & electronegativity
The 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements says My question: does this emphasis reflect the literature? If this emphasis is not the clear consensus reflecting the preponderance of the literature, I think our readers would be better served by working from what they know to what they do not. So I suggest that in both cases the paragraphs be recast by placing the sentence about density and electronegativity last or at least later in these paragraphs. YBG (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Nonmetal(s) vs. Nonmetallic (chemical) element(s)
@Sandbh, do you use these terms synonymously?
- nonmetal(s)
- nonmetallic element(s)
- nonmetallic chemical element(s)
When I read this article, I cannot tell whether these are used synonymously or if they are intended to convey some slight distinction. YBG (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I use "nonmetallic" in preference to "nonmetal", as the first has more wriggle room i.e. it better accomodates the metalloids. What Oderberg said about nonmetals relates i.e. if something is not a metal than it must be a nonmetal. But I don't want to go to too far down that rabbit hole. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: since you prefer nonmetallic, I wonder, where just plain nonmetal is used, does it mean the same thing? Or something slightly different? YBG (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- My intention is to use "nonmetallic" when referring to anything including a metalloid, and "nonmetal" otherwise. I haven't however checked for my consistency of usage. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a good rule. Now that I know it, I will try to enforce it when it is needed. After we do a thorough review, it might be good to explicitly state this someplace in the article. YBG (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: As you read through the article, have a look at the use of "nonmetallic element" vs. "nonmetal". YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Vast/Overwhelming majority
@Sandbh, I think the article was better before you removed "vast" and "overwhelming".
The revised lead gives the reader no clue of the superlative nature here - it could just as easily be a bare 51%. I think it would be better to express this superlative in both places, but especially in the lead. YBG (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Some more thoughts re § Abundance of nonmetallic elements:
I think everything in this section has been resolved. YBG (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
Abundance chart
I’ve tweaked the chart in § Abundance so the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most common elements are in separate cells. This allows easy comparison. I did this after the 3% nitrogen was removed by @Sandbh from the biosphere row. Some other ideas for improvement occur to me:
- Add a 4th cell to each row
- Remove the inner vertical borderlines from the table
- Add some color to the table by coloring the cells, either
- (a) either using the four nonmetal types with the colors used in the previous section, plus a gray for metals
- (b) or else using just 3 colors, one for the elements that dominate the visible structures of the earth, one for other nonmetallic elements, and one for metals.
These are independent of each other. Any thoughts as to which (if any) should be implemented? YBG (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the topic on this Talk page "Abundance, extraction, and use" seems like synthesis.". Unless you have a reference that discusses the role of "nonmetal" in abundance of elements, the chart is not appropriate here. The origin of the abundance of elements in the universe, atmosphere, etc, are long and deeply studied, with hundreds of scientific papers. The section is creating an impression of a relationship by cited sources focused on various elements, rather than citing source that explore the root causes of the relative abundance. I claim "nonmetalness" has no role in the root cause. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have read that section, which I understand to be an argument to delete the entirety of § Abundance, extraction, and use. Your ideas are thought-provoking, but as my thoughts have not jelled, it seems inappropriate for me to respond at this point. In the meantime, i initiated this thread to suggest improvements to the abundance section, not to advocate for its retention. YBG (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I’d be interested to know what you (and any other editor) think about improving the abundance chart by (1) adding the 4th components, (2) removing inner vertical borders, and (3) adding color. YBG (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This talk page is massive
See title. Are there any objections to upping the frequency which lowercase sigmabot III archives this page? I'd suggest something in the realm of 30–90 days, as opposed to the two years at present. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: I’ve changed the algorithm from 730d to 200d which will leave everything related to the current FAC preparation effort. YBG (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
What is a nonmetal in physics?
Any thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since "This article is about the chemical elements", the topic is not appropriate here. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- It’s relevant in the context of the 32 properties, some of which have relied on physics-based notions, invoked in attempts to distinguish between metals and nonmetals. —- Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Table of distinguishing criteria
I suggest that the three lists be combined into a single chronological list with the property types distinguished by background color and/or an icon, say, a flask for chemical, hammer for physical and an atom for atomic or electronic. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
More re Table of distinguishing criteria(section header added because I started this comment in the wrong section. YBG (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)) (section changed from == to === and moved into appropriate == section YBG (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the help page).