This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 7 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals to Post-transition metal. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I think that the labeling poor metals is at least confusing. I am also pretty sure that post-transition metals is the term used allover academia. Therefore I think we should switch all the legends also away from poor metal nomenclature. Nergaal ( talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of section one is copied word-for-word from http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/poor_metals.html Jhalkompwdr ( talk) 13:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you should remove Zn, Cd, and Hg off of the side, unless... there is a reason to leaving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Since poor and post transition metals are the same set now, we could get rid of the second graph right? - DePiep ( talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know Why they are called Poor metals and the history behind it? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar ( talk • contribs)
On 17 August 2013 I moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal, as part of a technical move request. Due to WP:Parallel histories the move was not simple. The old content of Poor metal has been preserved in Talk:Poor metal/Old article copy and the old talk page is at Talk:Poor metal/Poor metal old talk page. A couple of paragraphs of content were taken from the old article to the new one by cut-and-paste in 2008 and these old copies should be kept around to maintain attribution. The {{ Copied}} template is sometimes used to flag these cases of copying within Wikipedia. The details of the cut-and-paste move can be seen at [1] and [2]. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think not. Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course you get confused by the idea of post being after!) The lede is a brave but unreferenced and probably unreferencable attempt to classify these metals by their properties. Aluminium stands out as being further from the lede definition than the rest. For example it has a close packed structure and good electrical conductivity, but the unusually high interatomic distance does not indicate covalency. According to Chemistry by Holman and Stone aluminium is called a poor metal because its oxide is amphoteric. This isn't a good criterion either - the wikipedia article on amphoteric oxides says "Some other elements which form amphoteric oxides are chromium, gallium, copper, antimony, bismuth, indium, silicon, titanium, vanadium, iron, cobalt, germanium, zirconium, silver, tin, and gold" and some of the metals in the list aren't usually considered to be poor metals. I can see why IUPAC deprecate this grouping. Axiosaurus ( talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Does the term p-block metals have significant usage as a synonym for poor metals? If so, we could mention this synonym in the article. Dirac66 ( talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I updated the content of this article today. It used to comprise a redirect to poor metal. That redirect is gone and replaced with new content about the other metals. The content that was previously in the poor metal article been replaced by a redirect to this article.
Basic reason for doing so is that there is no widely recognised label for the second string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids. Wikipedia should reflect this, with individual writers and teachers being free to use more specific names of their choice, multiple examples of which are given in the article, as is the rationale for the descriptive phrase 'other metal'. See also here. Sandbh ( talk) 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
My dictionary defines the word other as meaning Not the same as one or more of some already mentioned or implied .... Here the word is used as the first word of an article title, so nothing has been already mentioned or implied, and the word is meaningless in this context. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled Other molecules, Other reactions, Other countries, Other presidents etc. etc.
If I understand correctly, this name was chosen because it was felt that none of the other synonyms considered is entirely satisfactory. My solution would be to choose the least unsatisfactory synonym and to mention its shortcomings. My own choice would be P-block metals, which also means Groups 13-16 of the periodic table. Dirac66 ( talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that Sandbh is rewriting this article in their sandbox as post-transition metals. Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the author of the periodic table excerpt or the maintainer of the article correct the position of Silicon and Sulphur? Silicon has the atomic number 14, situated in the group of semiconductors between Carbon and Silicon. Sulphur has the atomic number 16, situated in the group of chalcogens between Oxygen and Selenium. It should also be verified if similar pictures in other articles contain the same blunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pia novice ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I fixed 14Si and 16S. Double sharp ( talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my unencyclopedic edit summary here. We cannot compare temperatures like this unless they are absolute temperatures. -- John ( talk) 11:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the observation that anybody melting pure lead have made "(but hardens close to melting)". Is there anybody who know the reason? Seniorsag ( talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added these; references are to follow. Many of them are listed on WT:ELEM#Meitnerium through oganesson and in the element articles themselves. Double sharp ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, boron and silicon should be added as they are often treated as "metals" in organometallic chemistry. Double sharp ( talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals → Post-transition metal – This title is a description of what post-transition metals are, but not what it is. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: could you please consider withdrawing your oppose in light of the following information?
"Post-transition metal" would seem like a good descriptive phrase and more convenient than “Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals”, given the transition metals occupy groups 3 to 12 or sometimes to 11. It is the most common technical term and could sustain an article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the leftover metals and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership.
Nyholm, a leading figure in inorganic chemistry in the 1950s and 1960s, referred to the properties and structure of transition metal to post transition metal covalent bonds (1966).
Kepert & Vrieze, in chapter 47 of the classic Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry (1973, p. 313), refer to bonds between transition metal and post-transition metal atoms.
Greenwood and Earnshaw (1998, p. 548) mention that "bismuth is a typical B sub-group (post-transition-element) metal like tin and lead."
Driess and Nöth, in their book Molecular Clusters of the Main Group Elements (2008, p. 19) write that, "Extensive definitive structural information on anionic post-transition metal clusters was obtained by Corbett only in the 1970s."
FA Cotton in Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 8 (2009, p. 115) refers to eight-coordinate post-transition metal radii.
Kalantar-Zadeh et al. (2021) refer to the use of low-melting-temperature (LMT) metals and alloys based on post-transition metals.
A search of Google Scholar for post transition metal/s yielded about 9,000 hits, of which 6,000 date from 2013.
Until today I wasn’t aware of how extensively “post transition metal/s” was/is used.
I suggest that if the term was used by such luminaries as Nyholm; Greenwood & Earnshaw; and Cotton, and it has appeared in notable chemistry-related publications, and numerous other publications, then it is good enough for an article title.
Thank you, —- Sandbh ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: thank you.
None of the authors of the six PBM examples provided have the reputation of a Nyholm or a Cotton; or Deming who first used the PTM term AFAIK.
G&E’s reference to Bi as a post-transition element is quite accurate; the nonmetals in the p-block are likewise post-transition. The set “B-subgroup metals” is a redundant expression following the introduction of the 1-18 group numbering scheme in 1988.
Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for post transition metal/s or post-transition metal/s yielded about 15,300 hits, and for PBM about 6,500 hits.
Searching ACS Journals and RSC Journals gave 1,541 results for PTM and 845 for PBM.
I hadn’t previously appreciated these metrics.
p-block metals by definition, and as you note, cannot accomodate group 12. Post-transition metals can accomodate the group 12 metals given IUPAC notes the transition metals are sometimes regarded as finishing at group 11.
Post-transition metals accommodates Al, as a group 13 metal. Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals.
p-block metals can be regarded as a subset of post-transition metals in a manner somewhat similar to the refractory metals being a subset of TM.
I’m not asking you to support the proposal; I’m only requesting you to withdraw your oppose.
—- Sandbh ( talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: No, these categories do not have to somehow, necessarily cover every element—unless an individual author chooses to do so, as some do and some do not.
The Principles of Chemical Nomenclature: A Guide to IUPAC Recommendations 2011 edition that you mention, are guidelines only. As noted at p. 4, the colour books remain the principal nomenclature documents. The Red Book comment that the transition elements span Groups 3 to 12 or 11 thus remains extant.
I mentioned Deming since he appeared to be the originator of the term. His reputation does not hurt.
At no time have I claimed that post-transition metals is a “decisive” categorisation.
I have instead claimed that post-transition metals is the most common term for the metals in question and could sustain an encyclopaedic article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the subject metals, as per the G&E example, and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership. --- Sandbh ( talk) 07:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metalsdoesn't necessarily hold: an author might well decide that Al is out of scope, or that it should be treated with some other set (possibly not even given a name).
Further to the previous discussion (above), and as flagged, I' ve updated the image in the lede showing the location of the post-transition metals.
Some adjustments to the main body of the article to follow. --- Sandbh ( talk) 04:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It turns out, unless I have missed something, that I will not have to make any adjustments to the main body of the article, since this is where all of the extras have already been mentioned. --- Sandbh ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 7 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals to Post-transition metal. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I think that the labeling poor metals is at least confusing. I am also pretty sure that post-transition metals is the term used allover academia. Therefore I think we should switch all the legends also away from poor metal nomenclature. Nergaal ( talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of section one is copied word-for-word from http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/poor_metals.html Jhalkompwdr ( talk) 13:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you should remove Zn, Cd, and Hg off of the side, unless... there is a reason to leaving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Since poor and post transition metals are the same set now, we could get rid of the second graph right? - DePiep ( talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know Why they are called Poor metals and the history behind it? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar ( talk • contribs)
On 17 August 2013 I moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal, as part of a technical move request. Due to WP:Parallel histories the move was not simple. The old content of Poor metal has been preserved in Talk:Poor metal/Old article copy and the old talk page is at Talk:Poor metal/Poor metal old talk page. A couple of paragraphs of content were taken from the old article to the new one by cut-and-paste in 2008 and these old copies should be kept around to maintain attribution. The {{ Copied}} template is sometimes used to flag these cases of copying within Wikipedia. The details of the cut-and-paste move can be seen at [1] and [2]. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think not. Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course you get confused by the idea of post being after!) The lede is a brave but unreferenced and probably unreferencable attempt to classify these metals by their properties. Aluminium stands out as being further from the lede definition than the rest. For example it has a close packed structure and good electrical conductivity, but the unusually high interatomic distance does not indicate covalency. According to Chemistry by Holman and Stone aluminium is called a poor metal because its oxide is amphoteric. This isn't a good criterion either - the wikipedia article on amphoteric oxides says "Some other elements which form amphoteric oxides are chromium, gallium, copper, antimony, bismuth, indium, silicon, titanium, vanadium, iron, cobalt, germanium, zirconium, silver, tin, and gold" and some of the metals in the list aren't usually considered to be poor metals. I can see why IUPAC deprecate this grouping. Axiosaurus ( talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Does the term p-block metals have significant usage as a synonym for poor metals? If so, we could mention this synonym in the article. Dirac66 ( talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I updated the content of this article today. It used to comprise a redirect to poor metal. That redirect is gone and replaced with new content about the other metals. The content that was previously in the poor metal article been replaced by a redirect to this article.
Basic reason for doing so is that there is no widely recognised label for the second string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids. Wikipedia should reflect this, with individual writers and teachers being free to use more specific names of their choice, multiple examples of which are given in the article, as is the rationale for the descriptive phrase 'other metal'. See also here. Sandbh ( talk) 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
My dictionary defines the word other as meaning Not the same as one or more of some already mentioned or implied .... Here the word is used as the first word of an article title, so nothing has been already mentioned or implied, and the word is meaningless in this context. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled Other molecules, Other reactions, Other countries, Other presidents etc. etc.
If I understand correctly, this name was chosen because it was felt that none of the other synonyms considered is entirely satisfactory. My solution would be to choose the least unsatisfactory synonym and to mention its shortcomings. My own choice would be P-block metals, which also means Groups 13-16 of the periodic table. Dirac66 ( talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that Sandbh is rewriting this article in their sandbox as post-transition metals. Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the author of the periodic table excerpt or the maintainer of the article correct the position of Silicon and Sulphur? Silicon has the atomic number 14, situated in the group of semiconductors between Carbon and Silicon. Sulphur has the atomic number 16, situated in the group of chalcogens between Oxygen and Selenium. It should also be verified if similar pictures in other articles contain the same blunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pia novice ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I fixed 14Si and 16S. Double sharp ( talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my unencyclopedic edit summary here. We cannot compare temperatures like this unless they are absolute temperatures. -- John ( talk) 11:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the observation that anybody melting pure lead have made "(but hardens close to melting)". Is there anybody who know the reason? Seniorsag ( talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added these; references are to follow. Many of them are listed on WT:ELEM#Meitnerium through oganesson and in the element articles themselves. Double sharp ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, boron and silicon should be added as they are often treated as "metals" in organometallic chemistry. Double sharp ( talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals → Post-transition metal – This title is a description of what post-transition metals are, but not what it is. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: could you please consider withdrawing your oppose in light of the following information?
"Post-transition metal" would seem like a good descriptive phrase and more convenient than “Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals”, given the transition metals occupy groups 3 to 12 or sometimes to 11. It is the most common technical term and could sustain an article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the leftover metals and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership.
Nyholm, a leading figure in inorganic chemistry in the 1950s and 1960s, referred to the properties and structure of transition metal to post transition metal covalent bonds (1966).
Kepert & Vrieze, in chapter 47 of the classic Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry (1973, p. 313), refer to bonds between transition metal and post-transition metal atoms.
Greenwood and Earnshaw (1998, p. 548) mention that "bismuth is a typical B sub-group (post-transition-element) metal like tin and lead."
Driess and Nöth, in their book Molecular Clusters of the Main Group Elements (2008, p. 19) write that, "Extensive definitive structural information on anionic post-transition metal clusters was obtained by Corbett only in the 1970s."
FA Cotton in Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 8 (2009, p. 115) refers to eight-coordinate post-transition metal radii.
Kalantar-Zadeh et al. (2021) refer to the use of low-melting-temperature (LMT) metals and alloys based on post-transition metals.
A search of Google Scholar for post transition metal/s yielded about 9,000 hits, of which 6,000 date from 2013.
Until today I wasn’t aware of how extensively “post transition metal/s” was/is used.
I suggest that if the term was used by such luminaries as Nyholm; Greenwood & Earnshaw; and Cotton, and it has appeared in notable chemistry-related publications, and numerous other publications, then it is good enough for an article title.
Thank you, —- Sandbh ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: thank you.
None of the authors of the six PBM examples provided have the reputation of a Nyholm or a Cotton; or Deming who first used the PTM term AFAIK.
G&E’s reference to Bi as a post-transition element is quite accurate; the nonmetals in the p-block are likewise post-transition. The set “B-subgroup metals” is a redundant expression following the introduction of the 1-18 group numbering scheme in 1988.
Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for post transition metal/s or post-transition metal/s yielded about 15,300 hits, and for PBM about 6,500 hits.
Searching ACS Journals and RSC Journals gave 1,541 results for PTM and 845 for PBM.
I hadn’t previously appreciated these metrics.
p-block metals by definition, and as you note, cannot accomodate group 12. Post-transition metals can accomodate the group 12 metals given IUPAC notes the transition metals are sometimes regarded as finishing at group 11.
Post-transition metals accommodates Al, as a group 13 metal. Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals.
p-block metals can be regarded as a subset of post-transition metals in a manner somewhat similar to the refractory metals being a subset of TM.
I’m not asking you to support the proposal; I’m only requesting you to withdraw your oppose.
—- Sandbh ( talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: No, these categories do not have to somehow, necessarily cover every element—unless an individual author chooses to do so, as some do and some do not.
The Principles of Chemical Nomenclature: A Guide to IUPAC Recommendations 2011 edition that you mention, are guidelines only. As noted at p. 4, the colour books remain the principal nomenclature documents. The Red Book comment that the transition elements span Groups 3 to 12 or 11 thus remains extant.
I mentioned Deming since he appeared to be the originator of the term. His reputation does not hurt.
At no time have I claimed that post-transition metals is a “decisive” categorisation.
I have instead claimed that post-transition metals is the most common term for the metals in question and could sustain an encyclopaedic article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the subject metals, as per the G&E example, and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership. --- Sandbh ( talk) 07:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metalsdoesn't necessarily hold: an author might well decide that Al is out of scope, or that it should be treated with some other set (possibly not even given a name).
Further to the previous discussion (above), and as flagged, I' ve updated the image in the lede showing the location of the post-transition metals.
Some adjustments to the main body of the article to follow. --- Sandbh ( talk) 04:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It turns out, unless I have missed something, that I will not have to make any adjustments to the main body of the article, since this is where all of the extras have already been mentioned. --- Sandbh ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)