Talk:Poor metal/Poor metal old talk page

This article is being used as a method of private communication. It has been deleted many times. To the posters: please find a more appropriate method of communication. You may both create user accounts and use your user talk pages if you wish. As it is, we will have to block you if you keep it up.

At least they're not speaking Malay. That was annoying. -- Tim Starling 09:03, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the "Discuss article" link in the main article coloured to say there is no talk page yet? -- SGB 2003-09-17

A very good question! Seems to be a bug somewhere. I've tried reloading the page & shift-reload, doesn't make any difference. Tannin

For me it is blue as it should be - I would think it is a classical case for Wikipedia:Clear your cache. But, you said you already did that. andy 09:26, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This time round it seems fixed. (Could this be because page is now protected?) -- SGB

Fixed for me too. Maybe my hardware firewall's cache? But that is not usually a problem, and SBG got it too. Whatever. Tannin

Why the name?

Does anybody know why the poor metals are so-called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.177.23 (talk • contribs) 02:17, September 14, 2004 (UTC)

Where does this term come from? I've some little research in bismuth, and never heard it referred to as a "poor metal" other than in the context of it having a low conductivity. Isn't this more of a casual term rather than a genuine one? And the true metal entry lists these same materials. If nothing else, there's a bit of a conflict here. -- Eric 22:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bismuth tends to have less than remarkable properties as a metal, it is kind of dull, brittle, and a mediocre conductor of heat and electricity. It's oxides are mildly alkaline. These properties are still metallic enough to keep it from being an metalloid.

I am wondering how poor metal is defined. What makes a metal 'poor'? Low conductivity? Aluminum is a really good conductor of electricity, about 60% that of copper. It has a bright metallic luster (isolated from oxygen), it is malleble and ductile, about the only non metallic property is it's tendency to be indifferent in forming acid/alkaline oxides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk • contribs) 13:28, September 20, 2005 (UTC)

Judging from the article, a "poor metal" is defined by its position in the periodic table, which gives a general idea of its properties. The properties are a side effect of the position, rather than the other way around.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be it, I wonder what is 'poor' about it? If Aluminum were dropped out, it would make sense as the others have less than classic metallic properties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk • contribs) 13:41, September 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's probably a historical reason... the curious nature of the term certainly begs for its inclusion, if anyone can reference it. 69.49.44.11 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a good article! It implied the term had some sort of rigour too it. It does not. I'm not sure why "poor metals" have been given such prominence in wikipedia's periodic table template. I have made some edits to the article to indicate that the term is an informal, loosely defined one.--feline1 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent picture w.r.t. element list

The list of elements that are poor metals doesn't include Aluminum, but it's referenced as such in the picture and in the page for Aluminum. Stifynsemons 02:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the colors so that there are only 3 instead of about 17 (some were only slightly different than others, so you could only identify about 8 different ones), and they are grouped according to what the article claims are the poor metals. One is for the poor metals, one is for the elements sometimes considered poor metals and the last is for all of the other elements. Also, the "other elements" are faded. -- Kjkolb 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the reversion of my change to the article and requested that the editor, 69.238.129.55, explain his or her reasoning for such coloring on this talk page. The coloring I came up with identifies the elements that are usually thought to be poor metals as green, those that are not as light blue and those that are sometimes considered poor metals as light green. The other coloring, appeared to be colored according to relative electronegativity. It was rather confusing since this coloring was not acknowledged and it is difficult to identify the precise color of the elements in the "faded" section. Also, I think that a clear presentation of what is and is not a poor metal and what is sometimes considered a poor metal is more important than identifying electronegativity. Finally, using the "faded" look alone with the electronegativity coloring does not allow the elements that are sometimes considered to be poor metals to be put in their own group. -- Kjkolb 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult. There were still three intensities, and they follow a clear band about the poor metals, which you drew wrong. -lysdexia 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor?

Aluminium has a resistivity of(20 °C) 26.50 nΩ·m, compared to copper (20 °C) 16.78 nΩ·m, which is why is is often taken as a cheaper alternative for conductive wires. Could somebody please explain how that makes Aluminium a "poor" metal?? This is really ridiculous and my reason for disputing the page. I think there are good reasons for IUPAC not to endorse this totally misleading name. Jcwf (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of aluminum used in this context either, but it's in the first reference provided. I think the term is colloquial rather than authoritatively defined. eaolson (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless putting a "disputed" tag on the article: the article is not making specific factual claims, so it is not possible to have a dispute about such claims! I agree the merge could be a good idea.--feline1 (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower boiling points than transition metals?

Really?

"Poor"

Al 2792K

Ga 2477 K

"Transition"

Zn 1180 K

Cu 2835 K

Jcwf (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual text of the article is, " Their melting and boiling points are generally lower..." And if you'll notice, Al and Ga are both considerably lower than Cu. You've also got the rather canonical metals of:

Fe: 3134 K

Ni: 3186 K

Pt: 4198 K

Au: 3129 K

So I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, as a rule of thumb, these materials have lower melting and boiling points. It's not true across the board, but it's generally true. eaolson (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zn is a very exceptional transition metal... Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]