Talk:Post-transition metal

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know about moving the content of Poor metals here but I do agree that we should deprecate the use of the term from our infoboxes and lists. 'Post-transition metal' seems to be a good replacement but let's wait for others to comment before anything is done though. --mav (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Support merge. The term poor metal can refer to different groups of metals that, for the most part, overlap the same group of metals in this article. Even this article points out that there are differing definitions of "post-transitional metals", so I don't see why poor metals couldn't be worked in. It's also a subtle way of depreciating the term "poor metal". Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Plenty of notice has been given. I consider the issue closed in favor of a merge and think that anybody can go ahead and do it. --mav (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 3 years late, but I am wondering how one can call aluminium a post-transition metal when there are no transition metals before aluminium. Or have I missed something? Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Count me in too as being confused about why we call aluminum a post transition metal. I'm also somewhat confused about why the term 'poor metal' was deprecated. What we call the post transion metals are better called poor metals, which would include aluminum. The post transition metals then become a subset of the poor metals. Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving [[poor metals]] here

message: 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)
replies: text: Hrm, first, the first sentence is different. After a small bit of research it appears the second sentence is completely legit. The oldest copy of your weblink is from January 2007 (here), so the last edit before January 2007 of the Wikipedia article has the sentence (here). That means the webpage copied it from Wikipedia. The third sentence looks like it could have been copied from the webpage, because it was changed in February 2007 (here). So, if perhaps the last sentence ought to be reworded. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plaigarism?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zinc, Cadmium, and mercury are transition metals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor and post transition the same, so 

message: Anyone know Why they are called Poor metals and the history behind it? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for naming? -poor metals

message: 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  template is sometimes used to flag these cases of copying within Wikipedia. The details of the cut-and-paste move can be seen at  and . EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The move was part of "option 10" changes (diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals) WT:ELEM#Implementing_option_10. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, there is an expanded proposal to include group 12 (d-block) into the poor metals. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Make_the_group_12_elements_poor_metals.3F. So the synonym is in doubt. Then there is also the "post-transition metal" group to keep in mind. -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, near-synonym then. I think that whatever is decided for poor metal, the relation between the three terms (poor metal, post-transition metal, p-block metal) should be explained. Now the relation between poor metal and post-TM is explained although they are not exact synonyms, and this is good since it will reduce reader confusion, but the third term p-block metal is ignored at the moment.Dirac66 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Dirac66. I believe the relationship between p-block metals, post-transition metals and poor metals has been covered in the proposed rewrite of the poor metals article. If not, please let me know, before the 'p' key on my poor keyboard pops out from being pressed so many times. Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this rewrite is a much improved version of the article which does include my point. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  p-block metals as synonym? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why the name change from poor metal to other metal?

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi  Sorry I missed your post. Nergaal is talking on this topic, here. He has already changed the article from other metals to post-transitional metals without prior discussion. I think my response there covers off on your quite interesting suggestion. Happy to chat right here or at WikiProject Elements. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other is an undefined word here. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Great point, thanks. Author  will surely correct it asap into 14S sulfur and 16Si silicon. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from correcting the picture (or even "instead of"), I would suggest asking WP:Graphic Lab to vectorize the image (that is, to re-draw the image as a .svg file, which can be done for a table like this and is generally considered good for such pictures).--R8R (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So Nergaal agrees, then? Or are you speaking for yourself/by yourself? -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this comment is necessary. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be not necessary, but clarifying it is. It separates an edit request from a command to edit. And also from the afterward, backward, backhanded editwar. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Excellent! Sandbh (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :-) Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements Silicon and Sulphur are swapped in the periodic table excerpt 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi John. Steel often melts at 1370 C = 1643.15 K. Al melts at 933.5K = 56.8% of 1643.15. Does this not support saying the mp of Al is just over half that of steel? Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew, so it wasn't as bad as I thought. This would only be of use if we were in the business of heating metals up from absolute zero until they melted. For most purposes, we are starting off around 298K. I think either give the temperatures or say "much higheJust over half the temperature doesn't seem to add much to me.  --John (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that using multiplicative terminology like 'twice' or 'half' with temperature scales is inherently misleading to the reader, even in the one case where it would make sense - the thermodynamic behavior of gasses. For melting points, it makes absolutely no sense at all. I think it would be helpful to have a WP:MOS policy forbidding the use of multiplicative terminology with temperature scales. YBG (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to this article, a proposed mechanism is that temperature produces a "ductility trough" and a ductile to brittle transition behaviour in the solid metal. If so, this phenomenon may be observable across all of the post-transition metals, given their relatively low melting points. Nice pick up. Sandbh (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead hardness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blurbs on the transactinides 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updated image in lede