Talk:Nonmetal

Density and electronegativity chart

Resolved --- Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

1. With 7-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3 Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V Al, Ga Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 2. With 7-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3     Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V Al, Ga Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 3. With 4-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3     Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V Al, Ga     Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 4. With 4-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3     Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V Al, Ga     Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 5. With 4-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3     Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V, Al, Ga     Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 6. With 4-color PT Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3 Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V, Al, Ga Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po 7. With 4-color PT Electronegativity < 1.9 and Density < 7 gm/cm3 Electronegativity ≥ 1.9 and Density < 7 gm/cm3 Electronegativity < 1.9 and Density > 7 gm/cm3 Electronegativity ≥ 1.9 and Density > 7 gm/cm3 (I've removed my previous confusing comment and replaced it with this, as a picture is worth 1,000 words) I've added a periodic table to illustrate the four quadrants of the electronegativity/density distribution. I did this mostly because the long lists of metals are pretty unintelligible to me, even though I can translate the symbols into element names fairly easily. Seeing them in the PT allows me to see things in context. There are basically two ways to present the PT: 4-colors, one color for each quadrant 7-colors, with blue/yellow/white/red for the NG/HN/ON/Md like elsewhere in this article. For each, there are several options for how the 4 quadrants could be formatted, shown in the accompanying table. The two forms of the PT can be viewed here: 7-color PT with quadrants as shown in option 1 4-color PT with quadrants as shown in option 3 I recognize that whatever form is chosen, the color scheme must be re-thought. And I am not tied to having a PT; if you think it is too much clutter, reverting the whole thing is fine with me. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Personally, I'd rather At and Fr be uncoloured like all other elements not seen in bulk (Fm onwards). Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC) @Double sharp: Good point. I’ll fix it here and in the article. Do you have any thoughts about whether to include the periodic table, and if so, how many colors it should use and which form of the four quadrants is best? YBG (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Something like this may be easier on the eyes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪Sandbh‬ (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 8. Metals and nonmetals by density and electronegativity Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale) < 1.9 ≥ 1.9 < 7 gm/cm3 Groups 1 and 2 Sc, Y, La Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb Ti, Zr, V Al, Ga Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te > 7 gm/cm3 Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re Platinum group metals Coinage metals Hg, Sn, Bi, Po, At H He Li Be B C N O F Ne Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra                                                                                                                                                 La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es I’m all for being easier on the eyes, but I don't think greyscale is sufficient to distinguish the four different classes; it certainly cannot express the two-dimensionality of the quadrants. If we ditch blue-yellow-white-pink, then I’d use blue/red for electropositive / electronegative, and lighter/darker for lighter/denser. YBG (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Thinking this through, I think I’ve decided in favor of a blue/pink 4 color scheme, which leaves me with options 5, 6, and 7. YBG (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Please check out this colorbrewer scheme. What would you think about the two lightest reds and the two lightest blues?</nowiki> YBG (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Blue is ordinarily associated with metals; red with nonmetallic elements. So red and blue won't do. Is the updated image, with the nonmetallic elements "exploded off", better? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Regarding your two points: I was going for blue:red :: positive:negative. I get that blue can be associated with metals, but I’ve never ever heard about red being associated with nonmetals. ”Exploding” the PT clearly distinguishes the NM, but provides no way for a legend to indicate which part of the PT goes with which quadrant. I am not tied to red and blue; although it us significantly better than the hideous colors I have now, there are lots of other choices. Whatever color scheme is used, I maintain that it should be a two dimensional one, with lighter shades for the less dense upper quadrants and darker shades for the denser lower two quadrants, and similar hues for the two less electronegative left quadrants, and similar hues for the two more electronegative right quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Building on your code, I've boldly replaced the table with table 8 as I feel it has the right balance of grey's and colours. Fell free to revert or adjust. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I still think a two dimensional color scheme would work best. It keeps the focus on these two properties, electronegativity and density. YBG (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I think the variegated nonmetal colors aren’t necessary and to some extent distract from the main point of this table: showing that metals fill up 3 of the 4 quadrants of this 2-dimensional property space, and the nonmetals as a whole fill the last, upper right quadrant. If you don’t like the red-blue color scheme from color brewer, please pick one of the other diverging color schemes that suits your fancy. Let me know. YBG (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I've reconsidered the RB colour scheme. Upon reflection it will be OK to colour the higher EN metals red, as this denotes more nonmetallic character. I've implemented the scheme in the main article. How does it look to you? Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Looks very nice. Another question: with the PT, is it necessary to have the lists of elements in the quadrants? What we have is like my option (6) (except for having decent colors); should we change it to option (7)? In other words, are the lists of element symbols in the quadrant helpful or useful? YBG (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh? YBG (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) @YBG: No. Top idea. Have gone ahead and implemented. Feel free to adjust. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

New issues

resolved YBG (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: More issues have cropped up with the legend. The legend no longer has any indication that one quadrant has only nonmetallic elements and the other three have only metallic elements. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. Added a note underneath the legend. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) There is an unsightly line between the upper right and lower right quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) The density and electronegativity labels have unnecessary line breaks. This makes the legend narrower, but leaves the whole chart taller but just as wide. The chart is wide enough to accommodate the density and EN labels without newlines. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) EN:  <1.9   ≥1.9  (revised Pauling electronegativity): Density (gm/cm3):  <7     All nonmetallic elements: EN≥1.9 and density<7        All metals: EN<1.9 or density≥7 or both ≥7  @Sandbh:: There are still problems. I propose this legend with these advantages Less vertical space (Reduced from 5 to 3 lines.) Wider legend (Still fits within the table.) Density properly aligned vertically (Added invisible subscript.) Clear metal/nonmetal separation (Added detail to note. Varied width of cell borders.) Note focused on content (Added values and removed unnecessary term 'quadrant'.) Col headers clearly separate from adjacent text (Removed space after </≥ which was almost the same as space around headers.) Quadrant rows/cols clearly defined (Removed dividing line clutter by changing from {{legend inline}} to full-cell coloring.) Consistent formatting (Bolded property names; italicized units of measure.) Throughts? YBG (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I like your coding work. I've streamlined the table and posted it the mainspace. How does it look now? --- Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Nice. Did you recently move H over F? Or has it always been that way in this PT? Whichever, it looks good with all of the light blue together. YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: AFAIK H has always been shown above F in this image. This is consistent with the PT extract in the lede. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Then it must be that I just noticed it. YBG (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) I moved the units out of the header (where they are too much detail) into the legend (where they are adjacent to the numbers being described). YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) I’m contemplating rearranging the notes to something like this: D<7 and EN≥1.9    all nonmetallic elements D≥7 or EN<1.9 or both        all metals This puts the Ds and the ENs above each other, which I think is pleasing, though the color boxes in the middle is a bit unusual. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I looked at your suggestion but the color boxes in the middle have the affect of unduly appearing to stretch out, and cluttering, the legend; it's not a good look. While I was there I adjusted the spacing, and removed the collapse borders from the four legend boxes. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC) The thinsp works ok. I added "(EN)" to the header, which I think is very important if the full word "electronegativity" is absent from the legend. I also changed the title to something shorter and to the point: Density and electronegativity (EN) in the periodic table instead of Periodic table shading elements by density and electronegativity (EN). YBG (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Looks good. I removed some of the thinspaces as they weren’t showing on my iPad. —- Sandbh (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I realized I needed to add "(D)" also. YBG (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) I might come up with another idea. YBG (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC) I’ve revised the legend again. Let me know what you think. YBG (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Colorize distinguishing properties?

resolved YBG (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

1956 Acid-base nature of oxides C[242] 1957 Electron configuration A[243] 1962 Sonorousness P[244]  P / C / A :  physical / chemical / atomic  property 1956 Acid-base nature of oxides  C [242] 1957 Electron configuration  A [243] 1962 Sonorousness  P [244]  P / C / A :  physical / chemical / atomic  property @Sandbh: What do you think of these ideas, either with or without the divider? Or possibly just coloring chemical and atomic? YBG (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) I note that full-row coloring might seem heavier due to the greater use of color. But the {{colorbox}} template takes up more vertical space. Right now I’m leaning toward the full-row option with the divider, perhaps coloring only the chemical and atomic properties. @Sandbh What do you think? YBG (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Since the table already include entries using black, red, and blue fonts I feel that the addition of further colouring would produce a jarring result. —- Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Properties suggested to distinguish metals and nonmetals Year Property and property type 1803 Density and electrical conductivity P 1821 Opacity P 1906 Hydrolysis of halides C 1911 Cation formation C 1927 Goldhammer-Herzfeld metallization criterion P 1949 Bulk coordination number P 1956 Minimum excitation potential C 1956 Acid-base nature of oxides C 1957 Electron configuration A 1962 Sonorousness P 1966 Physical state P 1969 Melting and boiling points, electrical conductivity P 1973 Critical temperature P 1977 Sulfate formation C 1977 Oxide solubility in acids C 1979 3D electrical conductivity P 1986 Enthalpy of vaporization P 1991 Liquid range P 1999 Temperature coefficient of resistivity P 1999 Element structure (in bulk) P 2000 Configuration energy C 2001 Packing efficiency P 2010 Electrical conductivity at absolute zero P 2010 Electron band structure A 2017 Thermal conductivity P 2017 Atomic conductance A Physical / Chemical / Atomic properties: P/C/A (←) @Sandbh: I think with the right pastels, this isn’t a problem. And, it would be nice to create some stubs to get rid of the red links. ————— YBG (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I find the tricolour scheme to be garish. It's inconsistent with the lack of colour schemes used in other list-like tables in the article. The yellow and green shades are hard to distinguish upon a quick scan. For all of the work done on this table we could have gone back to the original version which nicely and clearly separated out the P/C/A properties into their own subtables, and left it at that. No new information is conveyed by arranging all the properties into one long list and then indicating which is P, which is C etc.--- 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Would it appear less garish to you if (a) only the atomic and chemical rows were colored, or (b) only the P/C/A codes were colored, or (c) if only the C/A codes were colored? Or any of these with a different color scheme? If it seems possible that one of these might appear to be less garish to your eye, I’ll gladly mock up another version. The goal is to simultaneously accentuate the P/C/A categories of properties within the chronological context of a single list, just as the goal of the colored PTs is to accentuate element subtype (or extraction source or …) within the PT context of a single table of periods and groups. Let me know re (a)/(b)/(c). Thanks. YBG (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) PS, I have figured out how to color just the letters without taking up extra vertical space. YBG (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I don't see the point in colouring the rows. They're already distingsuishable by their P, C or A codes. Colouring them doesn't reveal any trends, underlying or otherwise. Sandbh (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Here are some factoids easily see with the color bands, but much less so without them. Physical properties (1) account for a clear majority and (2) are spread throughout the entire time range. Chemical properties (3) are a significant minority but (4) seem to be decreasing in frequency. Atomic properties (5) are a small minority and (6) are mostly quite recent. I had been working to present another version of this table, background coloring only the P/C/A letters, thinking it might be a compromise acceptable to you. But your challenge forced me to look at the table in a different light, and so now I am much less willing to give up on the color bands. YBG (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Sorry I forgot to ping you, so you probably did not see the six factoids I listed above that are readily apparent with color bands. In this respect, other formats mask some or all of these: the original version showed frequency (1/3/5) but did not clearly show anything related to chronology. adding years clearly showed chronology within types but not overall chronology. the current combined-list shows overall chronology but masks chronology within types and overall frequency (easy to see that P predominates; but not so clear that C is more frequent than A). The proposed color band version is the only one that clearly shows both chronologies (overall and within types); it clearly shows frequency of types (1/3/5); and is the only version that shows frequency trends (2/4/6). I have separated the header and footer in the proposal. I like your recent change of moving the citation out of the type column; it makes the types clearer, but still not as clear as the color-band proposal. I will modify the proposal accordingly. YBG (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Please reconsider colorbands in view of the above comments. If the issue is garishness, please suggest a different more subtle color scheme. YBG (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I can tolerate a monochromatic scheme as I've just posted to the main space. Sandbh (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Seems out of character with the rest of the article, but I can live with it. I’ll call this resolved. YBG (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) refs&notes References Notes ————— YBG (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Chemistry of arsenic

For reference, I post here some mentions in the literature as to to the nonmetallic chemistry of arsenic, 1917−2012:

• "Arsenic is in the main, however, an acid-forming element and plays the part of a non-metal in its compounds."

--- Schrader FC, Stone RW & Sanford S 1917, Useful minerals of the United States, Bulletin 624, United States Geological Survey, Washington

• "…arsenic, antimony and tin are decidedly nonmetallic, particularly in their higher valences…" (Agassiz & McLaughlin 1919, p. 62)

--- Agassiz L & McLaughlin HM 1919, Notes on qualitative analysis, Ginn and Co., Boston

• "The nonmetallic nature of arsenic and antimony is shown by the formation of complex anions during the reaction of the elements with nitric acid." (Brinkley 1945, p. 370)

--- Brinkley SR 1945, Introductory general chemistry, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York

• "When non-metallic elements react with the oxidizing acids, acidic oxides or acids are formed…The trisulphides of arsenic and antimony are acidic, forming salts with yellow ammonium sulphide and alkali, while that of bismuth is typical of a metal." (Moody 1969, pp. 267, 321)

--- Moody B 1969, Comparative inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., Edward Arnold, London.

• "Negative electron affinities of nonmetallic elements…we will restrict ourselves to the elments O, N, S, P, Se and As…" (Pearson 1991, p. 2856)

--- Pearson R 1991, "Negative electron affinities of nonmetallic elements", Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 2856–2858

• "Incorporation of the nonmetallic/metalloid element As into the trinuclear Mo^IV₃ incomplete cube [Mo₃S₄(H₂O)₉]⁴⁺ has been achieved for the first time…" (Hernandez-Molina at al. 1998, p. 2989)

--- Hernandez-Molina R, Edwards AJ, Clegg W & Sykes G 1998, "Preparation, structure, and properties of the arsenic-containing corner-shared double cube [Mo₆AsS₈(H₂O)₁₈]⁸⁺:  Metal−metal bonding and a classification of different cluster types", Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 2989–2994

• "Arsenic…its appearance is not clearly metallic or nonmetallic, it is an electrical conductor (not a semiconductor), and its chemistry resembles that of nonmetals." (Hawkes 2001, p. 1686)

--- Hawkes SJ 2001, "Semimetallicity", Journal of chemical education, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 1686–1687

• "Arsenic, for example, possesses many of the physical properties of a metal, but chemically it is much more like a non-metal." (Pascoe 2012, p. 3)

--- Pascoe KJ 2012, An introduction to the properties of engineering materials, 3rd ed., Von Nostrand Reinhold (UK), Wokingham, Berkshire

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate Notes

This article is awesome! But it has a ridiculous number of Notes, most of them are inappropriate. For examples:

• These six (boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium) are the elements commonly recognized as "metalloids", a category sometimes considered to be a subcategory of nonmetals and sometimes considered to be a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.

This comment is core to the topic, should not be in a note, and should be referenced.

• "The most stable forms are..."

No reference.

• At higher temperatures and pressures the numbers of nonmetals can be called into question. ...

Core to topic.

• The absorbed light may be converted to heat ...

Off topic, omit.

• Solid iodine has a silvery metallic appearance...

Off topic, omit.

And so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Thanks Johnjbarton for your kind words, and assessment.

1. The first note clarifies why the elements shaded grey in the lede image are only sometimes counted as nonmetals. I've now added two cites to it. The content of the note is elaborated in the main body of the article.

2. For the most stable forms, I've added five cites. I was not able to find a single list.

3. Higher temperatures and pressures are not core to the topic since the article refers to nonmetals in ambient conditions.

4. The context for the note about absorbed light is given by the preceding text, "For example, chlorine's "familiar yellow-green colour ... is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum".

5. Iodine is not usually regard as having a silvery metallic appearance hence the footnote clarifies that this is indeed the case.

The nonmetal article is currently undergoing an FAC assessment if you may be interested; there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. Just for example, the lede caption:

• sometimes counted as a nonmetal [hidden info]

could read

• metalloids, sometimes counted as nonmetals.

In my experience 90% of the rest of the footnotes can be handled similarly. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: The lede captions reads that way for consistency with the preceding caption, "usually/always counted as a nonmetal". So, the two legend boxes are, "always/usually" and "sometimes". --- Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll check the rest of the footnotes and let you know. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hydrosphere?

In the table in Abundance we see a line labeled "Hydrosphere". I guess this is Hydrosphere and thus 100% water. Water is H₂O, O is 16amu, H is 1au, so mass ratios are 1:8 right? How can Hydrogen be 33% by weight of the hydrosphere? Seems more likely that Hydrogen atoms make up is 33% of atoms in the hydrosphere. This makes me question the rest of the table. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Hydrosphere entry was for the relative numbers of atoms of each element present, rather than presence by weight. I fixed this entry and updated the rest of the table. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Abundance, extraction, and use" seems like synthesis.

See § Abundance, extraction, and use

The section "Abundance, extraction, and use" is not, as far as I can tell, about "nonmetals". Rather it is a section about elements restricted to the category nonmetals. The section does not summarize knowledge in verified references about the abundance of nonmetals, their extraction as nonmetals, nor the use of nonmetals. Rather it summarizes articles about elements selected by wikipedia editors based on the element being one discussed in the article. The concept of abundance, extraction and use of "nonmetals" is synthesized from these references.

I don't believe that one can have a section on the abundance, extraction, and use of nonmetals because the characteristics that define the category "nonmetal" do not predict unique abundance, extraction or use issues. It's easy to prove me wrong with a reliable reference. If one exists it is not cited in the section AFAICT. (To be sure I think this was well intended and not designed with an agenda other than creating a good article.) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Thanks. Most of Wikipedia represents information synthesized from multiple sources—in an encyclopedic manner—there being no single article in which all the information in the article is set out in one reference.

While it's somewhat true that the characteristics that define the category "nonmetal" do not predict unique abundance, extraction or use issues, this is not an issue.

Rather, all the information about the abundance of nonmetals, their extraction, and uses is supported by reliable sources. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree with your characterization of what Wikipedia represents. Yes, multiple sources are cited in (hopefully!) every article. But the sources are in support of a concept described in the sources. That is not the case here. These sources do not describe "abundance extraction or use of nonmetals" because the characteristics of "nonmetal"-ness does not affect the abundance of nonmetals, extraction or use of nonmetals. The section is just places the information in conjunction and cites it. The information is not related to the concept of "nonmetals".

Just to give examples:

• "The nonmetals hydrogen and helium dominate the observable universe"

What about "nonmetal" relates to the domination of the observable universe? If nonmetal-ness causes domination of the universe, why is Xe rare? (I expected to read about nucleosynthesis of nonmetals here)

• The Earth's mantle and core...

mentions facts with references, but says the composition is split between nonmetals and metals. That is referenced fact but it is not about nonmetals, it's about the Earth. The paragraph is devote of information about "nonmetal" ness. In fact the Goldschmidt classification of elements according to their geochemistry, is a well developed science and it does not rely on "nonmetal" as described in this article.

• Nonmetals and metalloids are extracted from a variety of raw materials

Nothing in this section relates the content to the article topic. It is just a laundry list of raw materials, with no connection. Is there anything special about nonmetals that uniquely or commonly alters how they are extracted? Not according to this section. Per the point about geochemistry, I suspect no such connection is known to science. This section creates the impression of a connection, there is none.

Now let me contrast this with other sections. Earlier in the article, in "Chemical", we learn that nonmetal oxides are acidic never basic. This is fact about "nonmetals". Compounds of nonmetals and metals are ionic: a fact about nonmetals. The multiple references in this section are about nonmetals as a category of elements.

I hope this is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@John: Tx for your detailed feedback. While the section on "Abundance, extraction, and use" doesn't strictly connect these aspects to the defining characteristics of nonmetals, I feel there's value in presenting this information collectively.

Aim of the section: The aim is to provide a consolidated overview of relevant information about nonmetals.

Value of a comprehensive overview: An encyclopedic article benefits from summarizing key facts and data points about a topic. The "laundry list" approach allows us to cover various facets of nonmetals in one place, making it easier for readers to grasp the broader picture without needing to consult multiple sources.

Supporting information with references: The information in the section is supported by reliable references. This ensures that the content is verifiable and based on established knowledge.

Concluding thought: The section provides a useful overview that enhances the general reader’s understanding of these elements. I feel that this approach aligns with the goal of creating a comprehensive and informative encyclopedia entry.

All that said, I've added some contextual material in an attempt to meet you half-way. So the abundance of H and He is explained, there is now a link to stellar nucleosynthesis, and Xe gets a look in. There is some elaboration of the crust, and why the CHONPSSe nonmetals feature so much in the biomass. The extraction section makes reference to the physical and chemical properties of the elements concerned and gives some examples. A similar start has been added to the Uses section.

How does it look now?

BTW: You wrote earlier, "[The article] summarizes articles about elements selected by wikipedia editors based on the element being one discussed in the article." Not so; I developed the article based on the literature, rarther than WP articles on individual nonmetals. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(Just a minor point to clarify: by "selected by wikipedia editors" I meant "developed based on inappropriate selections from the literature". In my opinion literature in "Nonmetal" should be about "non metal", not randomly selected facts). Johnjbarton (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"How does it look now?" Sorry, I think you are missing my point. Adding more random facts unrelated to the topic is not meeting me half way, it's going further away.

What these sections need is references that connect "nonmetal" to abundance, extraction, or use. Even one reference in the entire section that discusses "nonmetal" would be a start.

Now there is a strong connection between "metal" and abundance:

• "So all the chemical elements produced in stars are considered metals."

Consequently using the term "nonmetal" in the context of cosmic abundance means only H and He, and in my opinion discussing stellar abundance of "nonmetals" without mention this fundamental difference is confusing. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Uses

Uses of metals and nonmetals

How many	Metals	Nonmetals
Nearly all	Electronics Medical Metallurgy	Household goods Lighting and lasers Medicine and pharmaceuticals
Most	Automotive Ceramics Glass production	Agrochemicals Dyestuffs Smart phones

In the context of the nonmetal article, this table compares the main uses of metals and nonmetals. Frex, nearly all metals have uses in electronics and metallurgy. The table is based on the elements up to uranium.

For the metals, "Metallurgy" includes any application where metals are used in their primary form or processed into alloys, components, or structures for various industrial purposes.

Still on the metals, "Medical" covers implants and prosthetics; surgical instruments; diagnostic equipment; dental applications; medical devices (pacemakers, stents, defibrillators); radiation therapy; pharmaceuticals; orthodontics; biomaterials; laboratory equipment (centrifuges, incubators, autoclaves).

In terms of the broad contours of the situation, there are no surprises that I can see, with metal uses being based on their conductivity and structural strength; and the nonmetals being used for their semiconducting properties, and their biogenic properties. I guess the frequency of uses of metals in ceramics and glass production includes the capacity of transition metals to form coloured compounds.

I intend to update the nonmetal article accordingly, in due course. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Johnjbarton that these are not relevant sections on the topic of nonmetals, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Use of metallic elements and nonmetallic elements is almost exclusively in compounds. When we use this then "uses" becomes everything manufactured. No short list like this on uses is encyclopedically relevant here, and also it will never be correct enough.

Similarly "abundance" is not a property, it is a geological and nuclear consequence. Information on this could go into articles on those topics, it does not belong here.

Finally extraction does not belong, that should be in a mining page and is probably already in metallurgy. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Astrophysics

@Bruce1ee^{s/b Johnjbarton} added this section

==Other uses for the term==

This article focuses on the use of "nonmetal" in chemical and electrical fields. In astronomy, the term "metals" refers to elements creating in stars, so only hydrogen and helium are considered nonmetals.

References

I believe the hatnote at the top of this article explains that this article does not cover astrophysics:

This article is about a class of two dozen or so chemical elements. For the use of the term nonmetal in astronomy, see nonmetal (astrophysics). For nonmetallic substances, see materials science.

However, it may be that the hatnote could be worded better Thoughts? —— YBG (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I added that content. Sorry I did not see the About template content. It reads fine to me and removing the section is ok. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! I misread the history and pinged the wrong person. @Johnjbarton, please accept my apologies! YBG (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

NP Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal elements?

On first glance this article seems quite comprehensive and finely honed. As I read more and learned more about the topic I became more confused. To me the article content is a combination of two topics at the expense of a third. In part it reads like Nonmetal elements, in line with other articles on collections of elements, like Pnictogen, Chalcogen, and so on. As such it is outstanding. In part it reads like Nonmetal (chemistry), but I could agree that this content fulfills the "characterization" for an article named Nonmetal elements. What's missing is content one might read in Nonmetal (physics) and what is conflictingly present are topics like abundance that are driven by physics not chemistry.

I suppose renaming the article to Nonmetal elements would be a possibility but it looks like this name was selected to fit in with other articles.

I don't know that adding a bunch of physics here would be the best fix. Rather I think a section named "Physics" with few short summaries of other articles would greatly improve the balance. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton This idea has promise. It would clearly eliminate uses such as User talk:YBG/Archive 4 § Re nonmetals. Such a distinction would be even more critical in the corresponding metal article. It might even be good to use nonmetallic elements; that would mean that the metalloids are included. And I note that these titles comply with WP:PLURAL as they fall under the first exception to the general rule. YBG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton and YBG: Your ideas might be able to be accommodated by wording the lede para. as:

This article is about a class of two dozen or so chemical elements. For the use of the term in astronomy, see nonmetal (astrophysics). For its use in physics see absolute zero. For nonmetallic substances, see materials science.

A nonmetal is a chemical element that is not regarded as a metal. Conceptions of nonmetals differ in astrophysics, physics, and chemistry. In astrophysics, only hydrogen and helium are counted as nonmetals, with all other elements regarded as metals. In physics, a nonmetal is defined as an element that does not conduct electricity at a temperature of absolute zero. In chemistry, nonmetals are more loosely regarded as elements that mostly lack distinctive physical or chemical metallic properties, such as high electrical conductivity or a tendency to lose electrons in chemical reactions.

In chemistry, nonmetals range from colorless gases like hydrogen to shiny crystals like iodine. Physically, they are usually lighter (less dense) than metals; brittle or crumbly if solid; and often poor conductors of heat and electricity. Chemically, nonmetals have high electronegativity (meaning they usually attract electrons in a chemical bond); and their oxides tend to be acidic.

Seventeen elements in chemistry are widely recognized as nonmetals. Additionally, some or all of six borderline elements (metalloids) are sometimes counted as nonmetals.

--- Sandbh (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh As you say "conceptions of nonmetals differ", so why should the topic "nonmetal" be devoted to one conception? Why isn't it the name of a disambiguation page?

As I read your (well written!) paragraphs the problems with the concept of nonmetals in chemistry pile up: "loosely regarded", "tendency", "borderline", not to mention hidden inconsistencies like "high electronegativity" (see Caesium, an alkali metal with the highest electronegativity). The reason is simple: "metalness" is a bulk characteristic, not an elemental one, ergo "nonmetalness" is the lack of a physical property that is only indirectly related to chemistry. Of course I can't dispute that chemistry refs talk about nonmetals and thus an article about nonmetals in chemistry is absolutely legit. But we don't seem to have an article about nonmetal physics and "material science" is not even close. Thus, to me, a core concept under the topic "nonmetal" is not covered.

A related issue is the focus of the article on 'elements' rather than nonmetal compounds. The majority of all "nonmetal" substances is excluded by focus on elements. Again the refs are clear that there are nonmetal elements, but I venture that if we choose to look there are refs on nonmetal compounds as well.

Renaming to Nonmetal elements instantly solves these issues. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Thanks. The nonmetal article is devoted to one conception to maintain clarity and focus. This is made clear in the hatnote at the top of the article...

This article is about a class of two dozen or so chemical elements. For the use of the term nonmetal in astronomy, see nonmetal (astrophysics). For nonmetallic substances, see materials science."

...and the first sentence of the lede:

"A nonmetal is a chemical element that is not regarded as a metal."

That said, in an article on nonmetal elements, it is useful to clarify the different conceptions in astrophysics and physics.

Chemistry often involves fuzzy definitions, which is why terms like "loosely regarded," "tendency," and "borderline" are used to reflect the varying characteristics of nonmetals.

Regarding your point on caesium, it is not a hidden inconsistency. Caesium has the lowest electronegativity among the elements, which aligns with its classification as a metal. This contrasts with nonmetals, which generally have higher electronegativities.

You raise an interesting point about metallicity being primarily a bulk characteristic. While metallic properties are indeed more apparent in bulk materials, individual atoms also exhibit properties that can hint at their metallic or nonmetallic nature. For example, the low ionization energy of a cesium atom is characteristic of metals.

The absence of an article specificlly on nonmetal physics and the perceived inadequacy of the "materials science" article are valid observations but they do not pertain directly to the scope of the nometal article. For example, we have an article about absolute zero in which the behaviour of metal and nonmetals can be clarified. The article on materials science refers to "metals and alloys" and another five classes of materials. Presumably the latter are not metallic substances. Wikipedia encourages such cross-referrals in order to spur the further development of the articles referred to.

There are probably references on nonmetal compounds, but nonmetal compounds are not within the primary scope of the article. Oxides are however mentioned several times in the article, since the inclination of nonmetal elements to form acidic compounds is well recognised trait.

Changing the title to Nonmetal element won't clarify things. Nonmetal elements are also referred to in e.g. physics, and materials science. Sandbh (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have reverted @Sandbh's recent addition of absolute zero to the hatnote as that article contains nothing about the meaning of "nonmetal" in physics. The link to materials science is likewise flawed, but not nearly as much. I suggest the hatnote be changed to this:

This article is about a class of two dozen or so chemical elements. For the use of the term nonmetal in other fields, see Nonmetal (astrophysics), Nonmetal (physics), or Nonmetal (materials science).

But of course, we need to create stubs as redlinks are not allowed in hatnotes. YBG (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: I've adjusted the footnote so that it now only refers to the term nonmetal in astrophysics, and physics. It seems that there isn't a separate conception of a "nonmetal" in materials science. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sandbh.

I think there is another concept of "nonmetal" - the non-technical use of the term which includes wood, paper, cloth, concrete, plastic, and just about any element, compound, or mixture that is not a metal or alloy. This is even broader than nonmetal (materials science) as that term would only include engineered materials — specifically, the other five of the six categories: biomaterials, ceramics, semiconductors, polymers, and composites, ie, all but the category of "metals and alloys". As this broader category is what most people commonly mean when they say "nonmetal", it might even be the primary topic for the term nonmetal. It is the one referred to in User talk:YBG/Archive 4 § Re nonmetals. YBG (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the role of nonmetal (disambiguation)? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page, a common thing in WP when the same term is used in multiple disciplines, each with its own article. For more information, see WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. YBG (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Neville Mott's definition

I've removed this from the Suggested distinguishing criteria section, for two reasons. First, this defintion is already included as a 2010 entry in the "Properties suggested to distinguish metals from nonmetals table". Second, it is just another one-criterion definition. As Emsley asserted, no single property alone can unequivocally assign elements to either the metal or nonmetal category. And Jones emphasized that classification systems typically rely on more than two attributes to define distinct types. There is nothing so special about the Mott criterion that merits a further separate mention. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the original idea of that table was to list single properties that have been suggested as distinguishing characteristics between metals and nonmetals. At least that’s what I understand from the lede’s summarization: … over two dozen properties have been suggested as criteria for distinguishing nonmetals from metals. YBG (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: Yes, that's right. It explains why Mott remains on the "Properties suggested to distinguish metals from nonmetals" table. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH

Sentences like:

• Metals are generally denser than nonmetals, which caused more of them to sink towards the core during Earth's early molten state.

use the word "nonmetal" in a geochemical sense, but the article, per considerable discussion, is about a list of elements called "nonmetal". In the the context of a list of elements, this sentence makes no sense. Geochemistry does not rely on elemental density. See Abundance of elements in Earth's crust. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Geochemistry is branch of chemistry. It is well known that, metals being denser than nonmetals, more of the former sank towards the core. Sandbh (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say is true, but:

• "This article is about the elements which are not metallic when solid. "

The nonmetals that do not sink are not elements. This sentence, in the context of the article, implies the opposite. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

John is correct. As an example in terms of density there is Fe > Fe3O4 > O2, which is their distribution, but Fe3O4 is nut a non-metallic element. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

GA status needs reconsiderstion

After carefully reading this article, as an expert I will say that it fails GA/Peer review. I have added some tags, and done some cleaning.

• It has duplicate content, which needs removal
• Quite a lot of inaccurate statements, some I have removed.

I will let those currently editing it address these issues instead of jumping to a GAR. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I welcome whatever expertise you can bring.

The article was previously the subject of an abortive GA review, in Feb 2022, with the result being "Speedy keep and close". It has been improved since that time.

I have reverted this edit of yours, for which you commented "Metalloids: diamond is not brittle, neither is graphite". Here:

(i) the article says, "Unless otherwise noted...[it] describes the most stable form of an element in ambient conditions"; and

(ii) the elements examined as metalloids in the article are those most commonly recognised as such.

For item (i) diamond is not the most stable form of C; and for item (ii) graphite is not commonly regarded as a metalloid.

I'll review your other edits in due course.

Looking forward to your further thoughts. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The question of whether diamond or graphite is the thermodynamic form has been debated for decades, please check the literature. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I'd already done so. There's some discussion that diamond may become the more stable form at temperatures close to absolute zero. If you have evidence suggesting diamond is the more stable form in standard conditions I'd be delighted to learn of it, as would the scientific world generally. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Read the literature on CVD diamonds. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: No need; diamond is diamond regardless of whether it's natural or CVD. Time for you to put up or (politely) shut up, so to speak --- Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

N.B., note that the para above where you say C is not a metalloid in fact implies that it might be. There are many places where the article is internally inconsistent. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Brittle nature of graphite and diamond

@Ldm1954: As noted in this thread, you asserted: "Metalloids: diamond is not brittle, neither is graphite".

Consider:

1. "Because of the strong covalent bonding which prevents easy glide on all possible planes, diamond is hard and brittle."

— Jenkins GM & Kawamura K 1976, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char, Cambridge University Press, Cambrige, p. 8

2. "As well known...graphite is a brittle material."

— Ishihara et al. 2004, Principle design and data of graphite components, Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 233, nos. 1-3, pp. 251–260, doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2004.08.012

3. "Graphite is a brittle material with some defects and holes in its microstructure. Fracture occurs suddenly and propagates rapidly in it."

— Shahani AR & Nejadi MM 2015, Investigation on the mechanical properties and fracture toughness of graphite, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, vol. 38, no. 10, pp.1209–1218, doi:10.1111/ffe.12300

--- Sandbh (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sections for deletion

• Uses. They are so vast that no section is going to be representative and pedagogically useful
• Other sections on uses buried elsewhere such as in the "unclassified" section
• The corrosion in the "unclassified". You are lumping together phenomena which are so different it is scientifically misleading, for instance SCC & oxidation.
• The rest of the "adverse" part. For instance hardness has nothing to do with atomic size, it's dislocation trapping.
• Reactivity of metals -- not relevant
• Sentences/sections which deal with compounds as these are not elemental nonmetals.

Add/Change

• Proper inclusion/explanation of spin-orbit & exchange correlation terms. The current Coulomb + shielding is old quantum, pretty much obsolete.
• Discuss metalloids once only, it is there multiple times
• Be careful with sources/science. For instance you use Pu to dispute the T/R behavior, ignoring the phase transition -- very wrong. The T/R behavior is ONLY legit at low T where phonon scattering dominates for metals, and carrier concentrations if there is a gap.

...more.. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Your expertise, once again, has let you down, as was the case with your assertions that (i) As is an insulator; and (ii) graphite and diamond are not brittle; not to mention (iii) your unfounded perception that graphite may not be the most stable form of carbon in ambient conditions is under discussion.

Now there is (iv), a supposed phase change in Pu. There is no phase change in Pu at ambient or near ambient conditions, in which α-Pu is the stable form. As the article says, and with a supporting citation, "When plutonium (a metal) is heated within a temperature range of −175 to +125 °C its conductivity increases." There is nothing "very wrong" here. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Almost impossible to analyse consensus in a very chaotic discussion that spans multiple sections. In any case, there doesn't seem to be enough consensus to move. Also, I assume the proposal includes moving the current disambiguation page Nonmetal (disambiguation) to the base name Nonmetal, although that is not explicitly stated. This should be included in a future move request. Please consider the above if creating a new move request. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Nonmetal → Nonmetal (chemistry) – There is currently a mess of "Nonmetal" pages, with this one, a stub Nonmetal (physics) for the conventional energy band approach, one Nonmetal (astrophysics) and there are other uses of the term such as in Metallurgy and also it is related to topics such as Ceramics, Semiconductors and many more. This page deals with the term when used for pure elements. That is fine and textbook chemistry (although the page meanders a bit), but that is not the sole use of the term, just one of many. Looking at the history this page was renamed from Nonmetal (chemistry) so it could be nominated for a FAR -- that is not a great rationale. I am proposing moving it back so it is an equal partner, not the king. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Nonmetal (physics) currently redirects to Nonmetallic compounds and elements, a title which does not clearly distinguish it as a physics article as opposed to a chemistry article. I think the situation is a bit of a mess. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is because the term "Nonmetal (physics)" was a misnomer. The text was standard metal as having states, which is used everywhere. However, "Nonmetal (everywhere except chemical elements and in stars)" while accurate would be silly. I am trying to clean a mess in steps, this is one. Note that most chemists use the states at E_F for a metal in compounds etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Oppose Nonmetal (chemistry) would then have links to (i) Metallicity, which explains the different treatment of metals and nonmetals in astrophysics; and (ii) Nonmetal (physics), which explains how metals and nonmetals are regarded in physics. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've struck out my support and now oppose this proposal. Taking a leaf out of the books of YBG and Ldm1954, I've I'll set out a consolidated proposal below, in a new thread. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Ldm1954: Your changing of the name of the Nonmetal (physics) article to Nonmetallic compounds and elements has made the situation even more of a mess. I'll follow up my concerns in this regard on that other talk page. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support move but oppose target. Nonmetal (chemistry) is a bad choice as this article attempts to restrict itself to the elements on the periodic table rather than all nonmetallic substances from a chemistry perspective, as would be implied by the proposed target. IMO better choices would be Nonmetal (periodic table) or Nonmetal (chemical element) or Nonmetallic element or Nonmetallic chemical element. I think each of these is preferable to the proposed target, and while I prefer the first, I could happily live with any of the four.

  I believe the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Nonmetal (and hence what should be at the undisambiguated Nonmetal) is the everyday, nontechnical use of the term. Your average WP reader is not technically or scientifically minded, so we who are should put aside [a scientist, so we who are technically minded should put aside what first comes to [our] mind and stifle the urge to say WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT. I think that the page formerly known as Nonmetal (physics), currently called Nonmetallic compounds and elements seems like it could be a good start at that provided it is not restricted to technical matters. With this caveat, I would support moving that article to the unmodified Nonmetal title.

  ——— YBG (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I support both proposals by @YBG Ldm1954 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you also prefer Nonmetal (periodic table) over the other three alternatives I listed? Or do you see one of the others as superior? YBG (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I also prefer the first. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Sandbh what do you think of Nonmetal (periodic table)? YBG (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @YBG: Tx. @Ldm1954: Tx for starting the discussion. I find the nomenclature situation to be quite difficult to untangle, once the fields of physics and metallurgy enter the picture, not to mention the notion of nonmetals as "elements or substances with nonmetallic properties". Renaming Nonmetal (physics) to "Nonmetallic compounds and elements", while no doubt done with good intent, has compounded the situation in my view. That there is a field of science called metallurgy, but not for nonmetallurgy, doesn't help. "Nonmetal (periodic table)" looks interesting. But I would like some more time to think all of this through, again. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @YBG and Ldm1954: Please correct me if I'm wrong:

  A nonmetal is a nonmetallic element or substance.

  Uniquely in astrophysics, hydrogen (H) and helium (He) are counted as nonmetals, with all heavier elements being regarded as metals.

  In physics, nonmetallic elements and substances are either semiconductors or insulators.

  In chemistry, nonmetallic elements are characterized by low density and high electronegativity, while nonmetallic substances are semiconductors or non-conductors.

  Other branches of science will use either the physics- or chemistry-based definitions of nonmetallic elements and the physics-based definition of nonmetallic substances. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Sandbh, sorry but that is not quite right. When discussing only pure elements in chemistry there is a demarcation based upon where they sit in the periodic table -- which is why @YBG's suggested renaming makes sense. Beyond single elements scientists (including chemists) use the more general definition in terms of states at the Fermi energy, except astronomers (and they themselves joke about their useage according to a friend). Why, I just added to the "physics page".

  A big topic in solid-state chemistry was high-temperature superconductors (metallic oxides) and more recently new materials for batteries. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ldm1954: Hmm. A demarcation based on where they sit in the periodic table can be rather contentious. And the traditional postion of H at the far left of the periodic table is less than helpful. Beyond single elements, bearing in mind Wikipedia articles are aimed at general readers, a reference to semiconductors (e.g. in solar cells) and insulators (e.g. in the form of glass) would be optimal. This would also be consistent with the more specialised definition in terms of states at the Fermi energy. BTW, what is this latter definition, and in what conditions does it apply? I further note that, according to Google Ngram, the term "semiconductor" is about 20 times more common in the English corpus than the term "Fermi energy." And the term "semiconductors" yields about 7 times more hits than "Fermi energy", in ACS Journals. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  The current nonmetal (chemistry) article is periodic table based, the basis for @YBG's suggestion.

  The definition in terms of E_F is standard and necessary. It is mildly technical, but only at the level of 1st year science undergrads. The figure I added about 30 mins ago should help.

  NB. Unfortunately terms such as glass won't work, look up Metallic glass for instance. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ldm1954: Sigh.

  No, speaking as the lead editor of the subject article, it is not PT-based per se. Rather, the article shows where nonmetals, as chemical elements, are located (approximately) in periodic table terms, noting chemistry is replete with fuzzy definitions. The article then discusses nonmetals in terms of their physical and chemical properties.

  No, the definition in terms of F_E​ (Fermi energy) is by no means "standard", nor is it necessary in an article about nonmetals from a chemistry-based perspective. While band structure definitions of metallicity are useful, they only strictly apply, as I understand it, at absolute zero, which has little relevance in chemistry as it is ordinarily practiced. Further, as Dowben noted, "No single definition will be completely successful": Dowben PA, The metallicity of thin films and overlayers, Surface Science Reports, vol. 40, nos. 6–8, pp. 151–247.

  Complicating matters, Dowben adds:

  "At finite temperature T, a nonmetal has a gap between the occupied states and the unoccupied states greater than 3_kBT. Between these two extremes there is a "gray" region of metallicity that is not very well defined. This difficulty in defining what is a metal and what is not becomes particularly difficult when the gap between valence and conduction bands becomes very small. With a small gap, one is often limited by finite resolution of the measurements or temperature."

  No, it is not true that glass, or plate glass if you will, which is commonly understood as an insulator, will not work.

  --- Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'm in favor of some change. However, names with parenthesis are, I believe, very unlikely to be typed directly by users. Please consider Nonmetal (per @YBG intro level), Nonmetal elements (current), Nonmetal physics (could be an overview), and Nonmetal chemistry. In searches these perform the same, but are easier to type. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnjbarton, I think there are four uses:

  1a. Non scientific, i.e. gentle intro

  1b. Physics=Chemistry=Materials Science=Metallurgy=Mechanical Engineering=General Science, no states at Ef

  2. Periodic table, a special case for high school

  3. Astronomy, a historical artifact

  1a would be an intro to 1b; 2. should have a reduced version of the current and 3. already exists. Both 2. and 3. should be mentioned in 1, and 3. already is.

  I strongly oppose having a different term for chemistry & physics as they are not different in their uses, so that is just wrong. Remember that the Nobel Prize for DFT was in chemistry. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ldm1954: Your strong oppose is baseless. Wikipedia aims to reflect representative ideas found in the literature, not personal views. In chemistry, the term nonmetal is generally conceived based on the physical and chemical properties of the elements, rather than primarily on the physics-based Fermi level distinction, which only strictly applies at absolute zero—a temperature at which chemistry is not generally practiced. The distinction between chemistry and physics perspectives is well-documented and serves to clarify the different contexts in which the term 'nonmetal' is used. Walter Kohn's 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for Density Functional Theory does not negate the fact that chemistry and physics often employ different criteria and terminology. Once again, I remind you that Wikipedia is aimed at the general reader, not specialists with doctorates. King of Hearts, Johnjbarton and YBG are much closer to the mark in this regard. Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

This WP:RM proposal has done an excellent job of generating thoughtful discussion, but it seems that it has not attracted good support, and all expressed supporters - including the proposer - prefer a different move target. The proposer @Ldm1954 may wish to withdraw this request. YBG (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consolidated proposal for article names

@Ldm1954, King of Hearts, YBG, and Johnjbarton: I suspect the following proposal could sort out the current mess, having regard to the general reader:

---

1. Nonmetal (disambiguation)

• Existing article; I propose links to articles #2, 3, 4 and 5 hereafter

---

2. Nonmetal (astrophysics)

• Existing article
• In astrophysics refers to hydrogen (H) and helium (He), with all heavier elements considered metals. This classification is used for practical and observational purposes in studying cosmic phenomena.
• This article currently redirects to Metallicity, which is a rather hard name to find but there it is.

---

3. Nonmetal (chemical element)

• Article exists as Nonmetal; name change required, per YBG's suggestion
• In chemistry, a chemical element generally characterized by low density, and high electronegativity (manifested as a tendency to gain or share electrons). This definition is based on properties and behaviour in ambient to near ambient conditions.
• Note that C in its most stable form as graphite has the electronic band structure of a metal (along its planes) yet is regarded as a nonmetal in chemistry.
• While As and Sb have the electronic band structures of metals in their most stable forms, they behave chemically like nonmetals and are mundanely recognised as metalloids or nonmetals i.e. not as metals.

---

4. Nonmetallic substance

• Article exists as Nonmetallic compounds and elements; name change required.
• In physics, materials science and other fields: a semiconductor or an insulator, including those metallic glasses that are semiconductors.
• With care, there should be scope to include some discussion of the relevance of Fermi levels, per Ldm1954.

---

5. Nonmetallic conductor

• Doesn't currently exist
• Water with dissolved electrolyte can be considered a nonmetallic conductor because it allows electrical current to pass through due to the movement of ions.
• I'm not sure about the status of graphite.
• I presume this topic would include those conductive polymers that show metallic conductivity.

---

Comments

This structure helps clarify the different contexts in which the term "nonmetal" is used, making it easier for readers to find the specific information they're looking for. I believe it caters for all views as expressed in the preceding Requested move 12 June 2024 thread.

Please list any further comments hereafter. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think all of the proposals here and above has some great points. I want to make a more modest suggestion.

I believe 1 and 2 are agreed. 4 and 5 don't exist, but of course someone could develop them. So I focus on 3.

Four references cited in Nonmetal have "nonmetal" in the title. Three are about elements: "Nonmetal elements" are clearly a thing. I prefer "Nonmetal elements" because the parenthesis are unnatural and "chemical" is extraneous.

And yet the fourth ref, "Metal-to-Nonmetal Transitions", demonstrates that not all uses of "nonmetal" fit in to "Nonmetal elements". A name change for the current article "Nonmetal" -> "Nonmetal elements" would go a long way to reduce the slope that attracts topics to the article that are not about elements. That is why I agree that we should rename this article and remove some content not directly related to nonmetal elements.

If we removed content in this article that is not about the nonmetal elements, where would it go?

We don't have to have an article about "nonmetal substances" or "nonmetal states" or "nonmetal phases" or "nonmetal compounds" etc, because in all these cases it maybe (and like is) more natural to discuss the topic without the "non". The solution adopted for Nonmetal (astrophysics) is a good example, and works well. To answer the "where would it go?" question:

• move non-element content into existing articles like Mott insulator, Metal, etc.
• adjust the target article to include something about "nonmetal" to the extent supported by the refs.
• add a line to Nonmetal (disambiguation) for each target, eg
  • Nonmetal (astrophysics) refers only to the elements hydrogen and helium
• Redirect "Nonmetal" to Nonmetal (disambiguation).

This solution makes Nonmetal (disambiguation) a (very compact) overview that directs reader to the topics. It does not force the creation of a bunch of "Non-this", "Non-that" articles and yet it leaves open the possibility of creating new articles about nonmetal topics. Most important, it solves the current problems with "Nonmetal". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Replying to Johnjbarton -- his comment lost the signature.

I think we are coming closer to consensus. Please look at Nonmetal (physics) which is now a longer version of a disambiguating page. Note that Nonmetal (astrophysics) is already a redirect, and according to my friends is "astronomy". I personally think that a slightly longer article is better, where we reserve the details to other pages. It includes a few topics that are not in the current disambiguation page but are relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@ Ldm1954: Apologies. It was my fault that the signature got lost. I’ve moved your answer to the right place. Feel free to revert this edit for any reason. YBG (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Replying to Johnjbarton:

• You wrote: "4 and 5 don't exist." Not so. 4 currently exists as Nonmetallic substance.
• You wrote: "Four references cited in Nonmetal have "nonmetal" in the title." Misleading. The See also section refers to List of nonmetal monographs. This list has 15 monographs with the term nonmetal in the title, appearing over the period 1849 to 2020. The 2020 monograph, Chemistry of the Non-metals: Syntheses - Structures - Bonding - Applications is an updated translation of no less than the 5th German edition of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019.
• You wrote: "If we removed content in this article that is not about the nonmetal elements...". That would be like removing all mentions of "legs" from Table (furniture). Context matters. Please see Feature Article Criterion 1b: "It is…comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context."

--- Sandbh (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Where do we agree re moves?

@Johnjbarton, @Sandbh, @Ldm1954, @King of Hearts: IMO we might move forward better by concentration on what we agree on, and implement that first and tackle the remaining issues after implementing what we all agree on.

Reading the previous two discussions, it seems to me that most if not all participants agree that (a) nonmetal should redirect to nonmetal (disambiguation), and that (b) the current nonmetal should be moved. However, there is disagreement on (c) what the best move target would be and (d) the number and content of other related nonmetal* articles.

Questions for participants (and any other interested editors):

(1) Do you agree with this assessment of where we agree and disagree? (Yes/No only please; discussion in the sub-section below please) YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes YBG (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(2) Are you willing to try this approach of seeking a smaller consensus first and leave the other questions for afterwards? (Yes/No only please; discussion in the sub-section below please.) YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes YBG (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(3). What are your top 3 preferences (in order) for the move target for nonmetal? (article titles only please; discussion in the sub-section below please.) YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(1) Nonmetal (periodic table); (2) Nonmetallic elements (3) Nonmetal (chemical element) YBG (talk) YBG (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of answers to the above questions

Please expand on your answers to the above questions here. YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Repeating my comment. I think we are coming closer to consensus. Please look at Nonmetal (physics) which is now a longer version of a disambiguating page. Note that Nonmetal (astrophysics) is already a redirect, and according to my friends it is "astronomy". I personally think that a slightly longer article is better, where we reserve the details to other pages. It also includes a few topics that are not in the current disambiguation page but are very relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

1) agree. 2) agree. 3) "Nonmetal elements" Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

1) agree 2) agree 3) either of the first two Ldm1954 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I’m not sure which ones you mean. YBG (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Either "Nonmetallic elements" or Nonmetal (periodic table) are fine. Maybe the first is better to avoid brackets. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The basis for my No + No, is set out in the next section. — Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Friends (@Johnjbarton, @Ldm1954, @Sandbh) - can we please be careful to use the expression "primary topic" in the sense it is used in WP policies like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where it says Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. Thus it makes sense to ask what is the primary topic of the term "nonmetal", but talking about the primary topic of an article causes confusion. Thank you. YBG (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

OTOH, there are WP article title conventions

Notwithstanding everyone's good intentions, and while it may seem novel to consult Wikipedia policy, there is WP:TITLEDAB, as follows:

"As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:

1. If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.

2. If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated."

Now, the term "Nonmetal" is most frequently understood in the context of chemistry and the periodic table of elements. This being so, Nonmetal becomes the primary topic, as is currently the case. All other nonmetal-related articles must be disambiguated, including (where appropriate) via the use of brackets.

There's no need to type in brackets. Entering "nonmetal" into the Search Wikipedia box gives the following drop-down list:

Nonmetal	Nonmetal (disambiguation)
Nonmetallic compounds and elements	Non-metallic inclusions
Nonmetal mining	Non-metallic cable
Nonmetal (astronomy)	Non-metalliferous deposit
Nonmetallic cable	Non-metalic cable

As far as the Nonmetal article goes, I will have edit[ed] the hatnote to read:

This article is about the chemical elements. For other uses, including in astronomy, materials science, and physics, see Nonmetal (disambiguation).

— Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The primary topic of this article is not "nonmetal", it is "nonmetal elements". The adjective "nonmetal" is used as a shorthand when the context is clear. This issue is the root of the problem with this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be time to cross post to WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics to have other comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia articles and WP:TITLEDAB, the current article at []Nonmetal]] is NOT the primary topic for the English word "nonmetal". The current nm article focuses on elements. To a lesser extent in mentions in passing the chemical compounds formed by those elements. But if you were to ask a man on the street to name examples of nonmetals, I suspect that among the most common examples would be wood, paper, water, and the like, substances that are not mentioned in the current article. In the kitchenette in my workplace there is a sign that says No non metal items on top of the hot Toaster Oven. This is the use of the term in the common vernacular, and this is the sense of the word that should be considered the primary topic. YBG (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wishful thinking and misconceptions are abounding here.

@Johnjbarton and Ldm1954: The primary topic of the article "Nonmetal" is most frequently understood in the context of chemistry and the periodic table. The latter, as an icon of science, commonly features a zig-zag line marking the fuzzy boundary between metals and nonmetals.

Nonmetal is already precise, widely understood, and appropriately concise for its context. There is no intrinsic demonsttated need to change it to the tautological "nonmetal elements", given the existing title effectively communicates the intended meaning without redundancy.

@YBG: I got offended when you used the expression "man on the street" and would prefer you use non-gender specific language.

The iconic status of the periodic table, and its associated concepts of metals and nonmetals, TRUMPS the field.

While the properties of nonmetals are studied in the context of chemistry, and this has been the case since Lavoisier in 1789, there is no single discipline encompassing the study of wood, paper, water, etc.

The sign in your workplace kitchenette is an instance of imprecise language. It should ideally read "No non-metallic items on top of the hot Toaster Oven" to accurately convey the intended meaning.

--- Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The sign at my workplace may be imprecise in the context of science, but it is using language in the way the term is most commonly used in the English language. The more restricted sense of referring to one of the 20+ elements on the periodic table is admittedly more common in scientific literature. Please keep in mind that WP is a general encyclopedia, not a science encyclopedia.

"Nonmetallic elements" may be a tautological article title in a science encyclopedia, but is not tautological in a general encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems we are at an impass. @Johnjbarton, @YBG and I all consider nonmetals to be a general term which includes both elements and compounds. The later does include wood etc, but we don't need that broad an article. This is, we argue, how it is used everywhere, including in chemistry. The overview name Nonmetallic compounds and elements is just a placeholder which we all agree will change.

In contrast @Sandbh has been arguing that the only use of the term in chemistry is for the periodic table. All other uses are for special cases. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Notabilty of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" article disputed

Here. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you feel it is not notable then do an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

See:

• article Nonmetallic compounds and elements
• talk: Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements § Article notability disputed

YBG (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I've reinstated the Notability template, there being insufficent sources referring to "Nonmetallic compounds and elements". The article does not cite any sources using this term. There is no field that studies it. Google Books has scanned over 40 million titles. Google Scholar indexes nearly 100 million scholarly documents. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar yields a mighty three hits(!) out of 140 million documents/books. The notability of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" is laughable.

I will thank you to leave the Notability template in place until the longer-term status of the Nonmetallic compounds and elements "article" is resolved. --- Sandbh (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that everyone else views the title "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" as a temporary choice pending conclusion of the discussions on the name of this article. If you have a suggestion for a better name, please add that to Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton. Yes, this is my understanding. My personal choice for a naturally disambiguated title would be Nonmetallic substances, but that would also involve expanding the scope to include substances that are neither elements nor compounds, such as wood, paper, and the like. YBG (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for clear air during article review

I intend to shortly review and edit the nonmetal article in light of its turbulent revision history during the period 10 to 12 June 2024. I'll summarise the results here. While I work on the article I'd appreciate some calm space to do so. While anyone can edit the article at any time, attempting to review and edit a moving target is impractical, as I'm sure can be appreciated. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Results of edit review

As mentioned I've reviewed the edits made to the article during the period 10 to 12 June 2024 by Ldm1954, a self-proclaimed "expert".

Of 18 edits, just 1½ checkout. The rest have various issues including: nonsense being not so; clumsy less than suitable wording; MSU (making stuff up), without adding content without providing citations; ignoring disregarding extant citations; ignoring disregading FAC criteria; ignoring disregarding WP policy; and ignoring disregrading the fact that the article focuses on the most stable forms of elements in ambient conditions.

That's a fail by any standard.

I now intend to proceeed with cleaning up the mess copy-editing. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries and assessments

Italics = summary; A = assessment Edits 1–5 [1] Chemistry is not just about elements, so the disambiguating before was inaccurate. The current form is more accurate +26 This edit changed the hatnote from "This article is about the use in chemistry..." to "This article is about the elements which are not metallic when solid." A: Clumsily put; no support in the literature for such a notion. [2] Correcting some science inaccuracies in lead +59 This edit added that nonmetals have high EN; and removed mention that they were brittle or crumbly if solid. A: No, non-metals do not have high EN; some metals have higher EN than some nonmetals. In fact, nonmmetals in their most stable forms are in fact, brittle or crumbly when solid. [3] Typo –5 A: Is good [4] Cleaning the lead, for instance biosphere was mentioned twice (life) and the nonmetals are typically in compounds in the core. –162 This edit was concerned that biosphere was mentioned twice; remove "widely" from the expression seventeen elements are "widely" known as nonmetals; added a mention that non-metal are compounds in the Earth; and that “the” classification of elements as metallic or nonmetallic emerged only in the late 18th century. A: Yes, the biosphere is mentioned twice once for occurrence, once for uses, in order to match the main body of the article; yes, seventeen elements are widely known as nonmetals; no it it is not necessary to say that nonmetals are compounds in the earth: that is a given; no, "the" classification of elements as metallic or nonmetallic emerged only in the late 18th century. [5] Cleaned up, removed some mistakes particularly on plasticity which has very little to do with electrons. +82 Addition of "standard temperature and pressure" (A: unnecessary); "Often" added to (being brittle or crumbly) (A: unnecessary); plasticity clarified to include, "which depends upon the movement of dislocations" (A: looks good). Edits 6–10 [6] ‎Physical: Removed the last paragraph which was already covered better earlier, and was wrong. The sources are probably right, just not how they have been interpreted. –717 A: Unjustified removal of cited content [7] ‎Physical: Not all nonmetals are brittle +6 A: They are in their most stable forms in ambient conditions, which is the focus as the article make clear [8] ‎Property overlaps: Brittleness of W is temperature dependent +10 A: Irrelevant given focus of the article is most stable forms in ambient conditions, [9] Added {Very long} and {Excessive examples} tags: There is extensive duplication of material, for instance comparisons of metals/nonmetals, weak descriptions of bonding. I estimate it should be 30% shorter. +89 A: Unsubstantiated nonsense. Readable prose size is 6088 words. Per WP:LENGTH: > 8,000 words May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size. < 6,000 words Length alone does not justify division or trimming. See also FAC criterion 1b: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." [10] ‎Metalloids: diamond is not brittle, neither is graphite –12 A: Nonsense. See: Brittle nature of graphite and diamond. Edits 11–15 [11] Section on history does not need para about sources -- just history –342 This edit deleted 342 words of main body text. A: The section is on the discovery of nonmetals; the deleted contet provides context. See FAC Criterion 1b: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. [12] First para was not relevant, material already there – 341 This edit deleted 341 words of main body text from "Origin and use of the term" A: Unsubstantiated. See FAC Criterion 1b: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." [13] Plasticity & not brittle – 23 A: Plasicity: good; not brittle: nonsense [14] ‎First row anomaly: Partial repair incorrect quantum +41 A: Unsubstantiated; ignored an extant source. [15] ‎Unclassified nonmetals: H in TM is common ±0 A: Unsubstantited edit' ignored extant source. I understand that ten to twelve of the thirty period 4 to 6 transition metals form alloy-like hydrides in ambient conditions. That's not “many”. Edits 16–18 [16] Nil comment +6 Changed "Metalloids are brittle and poor-to-good conductors of heat and electricity" to "Metalloids are often [italics added] brittle and poor-to-good conductors of heat and electricity." A: Poor sentence construction in that all elements are poor-to-good conductors of heat and electricity. [17] ‎Physical: Ductility etc are NOT elasticity, they are plasticity. –21 A: Checks out [18] Being clearer about term. +13 Changed "Nonmetals or non-metallic elements are chemical elements..." to "Nonmetals in chemistry [italics added] or non-metallic elements are chemical elements..." A: Eh?

Updating Nonmetal (disambiguation)

​​​​ I've updated the Nonmetal (disambiguation) page to accomodate five senses of "nonmetal":

1. Nonmetal, a chemical element characterized by relatively low density and high electronegativity such as silicon, phosphorus, chlorine and argon
2. Nonmetal (astronomy), the elements hydrogen or helium, with all others being regarded as metals
3. In chemistry, a chemical substance or mixture lacking a predominance of metallic properties, such as water (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), or table salt (NaCl)
4. In materials science, all substances which are not metals or alloys, including biomaterials, ceramics, composite materials, polymers, and semiconductors
5. In physics, a substance with an electronic band gap; or which would not conduct electricity at a temperature of absolute zero; or the insulator in a metal-insulator transition.

The first sense is the primary topic. Nonmetal (astronomy) redirects to Metallicity. I believe items 3 to 5, listed in alphabetic order, address the other conceptions, recalling that list disambig items should usually have not more than one blue link. The actual disambiguation page has the See also links.

I believe this addresses previous concerns.

The Nonmetal hatnote has been updated concomitantly.

The next step will be the review of recent edits [19] to the Nonmetal article. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, Thank you for your work on the DAB page. I have built on this, attempting to make it conform better to MOS:DAB YBG (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on meaning of nonmetal

Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table? For details see discussions above and also at Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Editor Sandbh is arguing that this is the case, with some other additions. Editors Johnjbarton, Ldm1954 and YBG have questioned this, and both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 have questioned the scientific accuracy. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We should consider the state at standard conditions, so that liquid mercury is a metal, but mercury vapour is not a metal. But under high pressure most elements become metals, but that should not stop some elements being considered to be nonmetals. Some compounds are metallic, but I would not call them metals. If they have metallic lustre, conduct electric and heat then they would be metallic. Other compounds would be non-metallic. Eg sodium sulfate contains a metallic element, but is not a metal. But also would not be called a nonmetal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, to clarify what about TiN -- a metal; GaAs a nonmetal? If there are electrons at the Fermi energy there is always a metallic lustre. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In my world, "metal" refer to electrical/electronic properties of materials (condensed of course). --Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954: Titanium nitride is a ceramic conductor or electroceramic rather than a metal per se. Gallium arsenide is compound semiconductor rather than a nonmetal. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with the above TiN is metalic but not a metal. Also cementite by itself is not a metal, not called a nonmetal, but is a component of the alloy, steel which is counted as a metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Very minor clarification, cementite in ferrous steels (there are non-ferrous steels) is a second phase, not an alloy component. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

In a nutshell, nobody (I think, certainly not me) has questioned the usage of "nonmetallic elements" in the context of discussing/describing the periodic table or sometimes dopant/impurity types. However, beyond that specific usage, everyone (including chemists) uses states at the Fermi energy as the definition, as evidenced by some of the responses to this RfC. In that sense, and in most of their applications, TiN is a metal, as is cementite. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954: "Everyone", eh? Unsubstantiated; nonsense not so. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia based on reliable and notable sources found in the literature, not flawed personal views. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 and Graeme Bartlett: I understand that TiN and cementite are referred to as metallic conductors, where TiN is a nitride and cementite is a carbide. Polythiazyl, (SN)_x, is another metallic conductor. — Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Compounds are not one thing and nothing else -- in materials science we often use Ven Diagrams or similar. TiN is all of a metal, a nitride, a ceramic, a cermet (ceramic metal) as well as a few others such as a cubic material. Similarly cementite is a carbide, a ceramic, a metal etc. Properties also are not just due to composition, microstructure can change everything. The classic intro text is Callister, William D. (1997). Materials science and engineering: an introduction (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-13459-6. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Metal starts with the colloquial usage, but "nonmetal" doesn't really have one. Nonmetallic compounds and elements says "In everyday life it would be a generic term for those materials such as plastics which are not typical metals such as the iron alloys used in bridges," but I don't think I've ever seen it used colloquially in this sense; people normally refer to the specific nonmetallic material (or class of materials). Even for e.g. microwave safety, the phrasing I usually see is "don't use metal" rather than "use nonmetal", even if the two phrases are more or less interchangeable. Of course, plural of anecdote isn't data, and it might be dialectical.

In the absence of a colloquial definition, it's down to whether any particular formal definition has general dominance over the others in popular science (i.e. the IAU definition of "planet" versus the geophysical definition), but I don't think that's the case for "nonmetal". A disambiguation page might be the best approach? Fishsicles (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fishsicles: Tx. The notability of the term, "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" is effectively non-existent. There is no field that studies such a consolidated notion. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar for the term "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" yields a mighty three hits(!) out of c. 140 million documents/books. The notability of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" is laughable.

The general dominion of the term Nonmetal arises from:

1. the periodic table as an icon of science;
2. the associated two great classes of metals and nonmetals; and
3. the common inclusion of a zig-zag line marking the fuzzy boundary between metals and nonmetals.

A disambiguation page, Nonmetal (disambiguation), is a commendable solution.

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, please do not misrepresent other editors, that is inappropriately. As has been said many times, the name Nonmetallic compounds and elements is a temporary one while these issues are resolved politely.

Please also be careful about the sources you quote. For instance, taken from Metal

"A metal may be a chemical element such as iron; an alloy such as stainless steel; or a molecular compound such as polymeric sulfur nitride.

In physics, a metal is generally regarded as any substance capable of conducting electricity at a temperature of absolute zero. "

Please note that (ignoring superconductors) conducting electricity at 0K is a consequence of partially occupied states at E_F, it is not a fundamental property. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954:

• Strong objection: If you have evidence that I "misquote other editors", please provide the details, or remove your statement. With regard to the word "politely", how about walking the talk, rather than making unqualified assertions?
• Irrelevance: This nonmetal talkpage is not the place to raise concerns about content in the Metal artice, an article I haven't worked on at length, for quite some time. Doing so compounds the exisiting mess initiated by the Nonmetallic compounds and elements article.
• Out of context quotes: If you have concerns about article content attibuted to me please include the accompanying supporting citations rather than doing so out of context. In this case, the citations you left out are:

1. Chiang, CK (1977). "Transport and optical properties of polythiazyl bromides: (SNBr0.4)x". Solid State Communications. 23 (9): 607–612. Bibcode:1977SSCom..23..607C. doi:10.1016/0038-1098(77)90530-0.; Greenwood, NN; Earnshaw, A (1998). Chemistry of the Elements. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 727. ISBN 978-0-7506-3365-9.; Mutlu, H; Theato, P (2021). "Polymers with sulfur-nitrogen bonds". In Zhang, X; Theato, P (eds.). Sulfur-Containing Polymers: From Synthesis to Functional Materials. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. pp. 191–234 (191). ISBN 978-3-527-34670-7.
2. Yonezawa, F. (2017). Physics of Metal-Nonmetal Transitions. Amsterdam: IOS Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-61499-786-3. “Sir Nevill Mott (1905–1996) wrote a letter to a fellow physicist, Prof. Peter P. Edwards, in which he notes... I've thought a lot about 'What is a metal?' and I think one can only answer the question at T = 0 (the absolute zero of temperature). There a metal conducts and a nonmetal doesn't."

• The irrelevance of personal views: Your personal view of the status of conducting electricity at 0K is irrelevant, unhelpful, and out of context from the cited source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, not personal views.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful, and read the article on Fermi-Dirac statistics. This was one of the early successes of QM and remains key. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as "misquoting other users", I would specifically note that at no point did I say the page itself was not notable; I merely took issue with one specific sentence referencing a potential colloquial usage (the phrasing "in everyday life it would", rather than "it is", to me scans as speculative) I was unfamiliar with - explicitly anecdotally.

My suggestion of a disambiguation page was regarding the posed question in this discussion - "primary use of the term nonmetal" in general - rather than a judgement on that specific page, which is entirely notable under the definition of nonmetal it is using (I.e. materials with their Fermi levels in band gaps). Fishsicles (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The word "nonmetal" is context dependent. It has different technical meanings in chemistry, physics, and astronomy. In non-technical settings it classifies materials. An article on "nonmetal", if any, should reflect this usage. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton: The context of the Nonmetal article is set out in its hatnote:

This article is about the chemical elements. For other uses, including in astronomy, materials science, and physics, see Nonmetal (disambiguation).

The focus of the article happens to be, appropriately enough, on the conception arising from the iconic status of the periodic table. AFAIK the periodic table is these days often introduced at the primary school level. The article is about this primary topic sense.--- Sandbh (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh The article should be renamed to match its content, "nonmetal (periodic table)" or "nonmetal elements". The primary topic of 'nonmetal' is not the periodic chart. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Nope. I will say it again. We follow Wikipedia policy rather than your personal preference. How many times do I have to repeat that? I explained this in the OTOH, there are WP article title conventions section.

Here it is again:

"Now, the term "Nonmetal" is most frequently understood in the context of chemistry and the periodic table of elements. This being so, Nonmetal becomes the primary topic, as is currently the case. All other nonmetal-related articles must be disambiguated, including (where appropriate) via the use of brackets."

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh No editor agrees with you. Normal people in normal conversation do not discuss "nonmetal" as elements. I really do not understand why you are making a huge fuss over this. The article would be better with a clearer title. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Tx for staying the course. Some context and clarification follows.

The nub of the problem is the "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" article. I'm not referring to its title but rather its confusing overlap with the "Nonmetal" article and other extant articles, and its lack of notability. There is no unified concept in the literature of the notion of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements", howsoever referred to.

OTOH, in literature and scientific contexts, the term "nonmetal" primarily refers to chemical elements that lack metallic properties.

This understanding is reinforced by the iconic status of the periodic table, including the commonly seen zig-zag line marking the fuzzy boundary between metals and nonmetals. In the conceptual landscape, comparing "nonmetal" with the "nonmetallic compounds and elements" is like comparing a fully operating power station to a flat battery. The term "nonmetal" resounds abundantly due to its association with the periodic table, whereas "nonmetallic compounds and elements" does not even get out of the starting blocks.

Regarding the title of the "Nonmetal" article, from 2013 to date, 46 editors have reviewed the article in the course of one GA nomination, two peer reviews, and nine FAC nominations (attracting 11 supports). Not one of these editors raised any concern about its title.

I've been editing the article since 2013, during which time it may have been viewed approximately 1,000,000–1,500,000 times. During this period, no concerns about the article title have been raised.

In this context there is no "out of the blue" sudden renaming requirement, as if all previous editors and viewers were asleep at the wheel.

It’s also worth noting that normal people typically don't use the term "nonmetal," and certainly not in normal conversations. Wikipedia’s responsibility is rather to provide clear, accurate information based on established scientific usage.

The obvious solution is to retain the "Nonmetal" article as it stands, given the availability of sources and established usage.

To address the context-dependent nature of the term, we should use the "Nonmetal (disambiguation)" page to clearly differentiate its use in other fields, linking to relevant articles where these uses are discussed (e.g., "Metallicity" for astronomy).

The content of the "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" article should be merged into other applicable articles to avoid redundancy and confusion.

My interest here is in abiding by WP policy and respecting the primary use of the term nonmetal, which is widely recognized and used in the context of chemical elements.

You wrote that you really do not understand why I'm making a huge fuss over this. I've attempted to explain myself above.

In turn, I'm baffled that so much effort appears to be going into justifying or maintaining the concept of "nonmetallic compounds and elements" when such an omnibus concept—covering physics, metallurgy, chemistry, and astronomy—has no presence in the scientific literature. I'm also baffled as to why you seemingly feel it's appropriate to ignore WP policy in terms of aricle titles and notability.

--- Sandbh (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

While you write "Some context and clarification follows", what follows is a repeat of your previous arguments. I don't see any discussion of possible compromises that would include other points of view. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The current RFC question/statement is not clear, please see WP:RFCOPEN.

Currently, I see Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table, but there is no question mark at the end, and this question/statement seems to be malformed. Can you please clarify? spintheer (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the RfC slightly. IMO it is important also to view the talk pages, for instance the effort by YBG to find a compromise which both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 accepted but Sandbh rejected. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ldm1954: Objection. Do not attribute actions to me without including the context. I rejected the compromise, and proposed an update of the Nonmetal (disambiguation) page. I further added:

"I believe this addresses previous concerns...The Nonmetal hatnote has been updated concomitantly." [20]

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The primary use is clearly the one about electrical properties. Metallicity is a property of substances, and you cannot sensibly apply it to abstract elements (which are really classes of atoms having the same Z). What we really precisely mean when we say "aluminium is a metal" is that "at standard conditions, Al forms a metallic phase". This is implicit when we say things like "iodine becomes a metal at 160 kbar": metallicity is not an inherent property of the abstract element, but rather changes when we go through that phase change.

It's just that when it comes to teaching the periodic table to kids seeing it for the first time, people are often loose about this distinction. At that level one mostly focuses on absolutely obvious cases like alkali metals or halogens; therefore, allotropy and phase changes tend to get brushed aside, since such elements don't undergo phase changes that change metallicity until we get to temperatures and pressures outside the concern of such first courses. And since so much of the periodic table is getting skipped over, metallicity gets conflated or bundled with chemical properties common to what elements you see in a first course do. Naturally it is completely incorrect to say that all metals must form basic oxides: anyone working on heavy transition metals obviously understands this. But even though the whole periodic table is being illustrated in such elementary textbooks, nobody is giving any information about things like rhenium in them, because then they wouldn't be elementary anymore. What we have here is a lie-to-children simplification of the real definition, since you cannot explain all of this to people first seeing the periodic table without most of their heads exploding: and I think it is somewhat of a mistake to treat it as an actual, independent definition. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As Graeme noted, "We should consider the state at standard conditions." The nonmetal article says the same thing at the top of the Definition and applicable elements section: "Unless otherwise noted, this article describes the most stable form of an element in ambient conditions." The notion of abstract elements is therefore not applicable.

On primary use, it may rather be fair to say that the term "metal" is associated with electrical properties. Maybe from as early as Stephen Gray's work in 1729, it was known that metals are good conductors of electricity. OTOH the primary use of the term nonmetal dates from Lavoisier's 1789 conception of "elements", including metals and nonmetals, which later morphed into the idea of a periodic table of elements. Of course, there are other notions of nometals, as acknowledged in the disambig hatnote at the top of the nonmetal article.

--- Sandbh (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then why does the article start by saying that nonmetals are chemical elements that have high electronegativity? Electronegativity is a property of atoms, not simple substances. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a property that was discovered about nonmetals, rather than a definition. So it should not be the lede sentence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Double sharp and Graeme Bartlett: The way the article currently starts wasn't my doing. We can thank Ldm1954, here [21], for the current shemozzle. I would've revereted that edit by now except that it forms part of a raft of ill-considered 12 June edits by Ldm1954, which I've only just finished reviewing. I'll add the results of my review to the Request for clear air during article review section. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary meanings

Extended content

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2024) Defines a nonmetal as a chemical element that lacks the characteristics of a metal. Collins English Dictionary (2024) Refers to chemical elements that form negative ions, have acidic oxides, and are poor conductors. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus (2024) Defines a nonmetal as a chemical element that is not a metal. The Chambers Dictionary (1998) States that a nonmetal is an element that is not a metal. MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2012) Defines nonmetals as chemical elements that are not metals, specifically mentioning that they are solids and gases and poor conductors. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2001) Defines nonmetals as elements like carbon or nitrogen, and mentions their inability to form simple positive ions. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2022) States that nonmetals lack the physical and chemical properties of metals. Oxford English Dictionary (1989) Defines nonmetals as non-metallic elements. Webster's New World College Dictionary (2014) Refers to nonmetals as elements lacking the characteristics of a metal. Oxford English Dictionary (2003) Includes non-metallic elements or substances, but this broad definition is not consistently supported by the historical quotes provided: Historical quotes set out in the Oxford English Dictionary 1857. "In Prussian blue..iron in part acts as a metal, in part acts as a non-metal, as if it replaced both the sodium and the chlorine of common salt." G. Wilson in Edinburgh Essays 340 1866. "The chlorides of the metals, like those of the non-metals, must also be divided into monochlorides." W. Odling, Lectures on Animal Chemistry 14 1871. "The number of the metals is much larger than that of the non-metals." Roscoe Elem. Chem. 6 1933. "The earliest attempts to measure the conductivity of the non-metals showed that it is about fifty times less than that of the metals." A. W. Barton, Text Book on Heat xiv. 325 1966. "One aspect of importance is the occurrence of many of the true non-metals in these two short periods." C. R. Tottle, Science of Engineering Materials i. 14 1995. "Some meteorites—‘stony-irons’—contain metal and non-metal components." Focus August 54/4 Five of six of the quotes refer to non-metal elements rather than non-metallic elements or substances.

Conclusion
A sizeable majority of dictionary definitions (close to 10 out of 10) support a primary use meaning of “nonmetal” as an element that is not a metal.

Per special:diff/1230540753: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary meanings (metal)

The context for this section is that to understand nonmetals one must also understand metals.

Extended content

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2024) Metals are opaque, fusible, ductile, typically lustrous, and good conductors of electricity and heat. They form cations by losing electrons and yield basic oxides and hydroxides. A metal is often a chemical element, as distinguished from an alloy. Collins English Dictionary (2024) Metal is defined as a hard substance such as iron, steel, gold, or lead. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus (2024) Metals are chemical elements like iron or gold, or mixtures such as steel, that are generally hard, strong, and conduct electricity and heat. The Chambers Dictionary (1998) Metals are numerous opaque elementary substances possessing a peculiar luster, fusibility, conductivity for heat and electricity, and a readiness to form positive ions. MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners Metals are hard, usually shiny elements that exist naturally in the ground or rock, such as lead, gold, or iron. They are good conductors of heat and electricity and are used to make tools, machines, and weapons. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2001) Metals are elementary substances like gold, silver, or copper, crystalline when solid, characterized by opacity, ductility, conductivity, and unique luster. They can exist in pure states or as alloys and yield positively charged ions in aqueous solutions of their salts. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition (2022) Metals are electropositive elements with shiny surfaces, good conductors of heat and electricity, and can be melted, hammered into thin sheets, or drawn into wires. They form salts with nonmetals, basic oxides with oxygen, and alloys with each other. They can also be alloys. Oxford English Dictionary (1989) Metals are substances like gold, silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin, originally defined by high specific gravity, density, fusibility, malleability, opacity, and metallic luster. The class has expanded to include substances with most but not all of these properties. Metals are a division of elements in modern chemistry. Webster's New World College Dictionary (2014) Metals are chemical elements like iron, gold, or aluminum, generally characterized by ductility, malleability, luster, and conductivity of heat and electricity. They act as cations in chemical reactions, form bases with hydroxyl radicals, and can replace hydrogen in acids to form salts. Oxford English Dictionary (2003) Metals are hard, shiny, malleable materials like gold, silver, and copper, especially used in manufacturing objects, artifacts, and utensils.

Observations
The list of meanings indicates that the primary use of the term "metal" is grounded in the general physical properties of the applicable elements and their alloys, and to a lesser extent, the chemical properties of the metallic elements (rather then a niche meaning of a metal having at least one partially occupied band at the Fermi level). These properties include being opaque, hard, shiny, good conductors of heat and electricity, and (as elements) forming positive ions. These meanings provide an accessible understanding that is applicable in everyday contexts.

Concomitantly, the term "nonmetal" is primarily used and understood as a chemical element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties.

These general understandings are crucial for maintaining clarity and accessibility in encyclopedic content for a wide audience. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant meanings

I'm posting this for discussion, having for some time worked on it in the background. I feel it's now in a form that's suitable for further consideration.

My impression is that there are three types of relevant and distinguishable meanings associated with the term "nonmetal": 1. metal (inc. in physics); 2. nonmetal; 3. nonmetallic material. These three types seem to imply the existence of an undocumented type: 4. nonmetallic substance.

Types
1. "Metal", in the general use meaning of the term, refers to a class of elements and their alloys generally characterized by high electrical and thermal conductivity, malleability, ductility, and lustre, and their capacity, as elements, to form positive ions. This general meaning is what most people understand and use in everyday language and in many practical applications. I appreciate that "postive ions" is not what most people would understand about metals. That said, in the ten dictionaries I looked up the definition of "metal", six of them included a reference to chemical properties.

There are some niche meanings of the term metal, in physics and in astronomy, but apparently not in metallurgy (strangely enough):

a. In physics, a metal is a solid with a Fermi surface at zero temperature. Only metals conduct electricity at this temperature.

b. In astronomy, the situation is complicated:

Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand, photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines.

See: Jaschek C & Jaschek M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 22

c. In metallurgy, one would think there would be a generally agreed meaning or definition of a metal, but there isn’t, from what I could find.

2. "Nonmetal", in the general use meaning of the term, is a chemical element mostly lacking distinctive metallic properties.

a. In 1996, the physicist Nevill Mott said that at T = 0, a nonmetal doesn't conduct (whereas a metal does). The earliest reliable source mentioning this seems to be Davis EA 1998, Nevill Mott: Reminiscences And Appreciations, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 255.

b. One would think that in physics—given the widely-recognised trichotomy of metal, semiconductor, and insulator—that there would be a generally agreed meaning or definition of "non-metal" as a semiconductor or an insulator, but there isn’t from what I could find.

3. "Nonmetallic materials", in materials science, are substances in the condensed state (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends. Gases are generally not included here unless designed or manipulated etc. An explanation for the exclusion of gases is given by the Aims & Scope statement for Nature Materials:[22]

Nature Materials is a monthly multi-disciplinary journal aimed at bringing together cutting-edge research across the entire spectrum of materials science and engineering. Materials research is a diverse and fast-growing discipline, which has moved from a largely applied, engineering focus to a position where it has an increasing impact on other classical disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. Nature Materials covers all applied and fundamental aspects of the synthesis/processing, structure/composition, properties and performance of materials, where "materials" are identified as substances in the condensed states (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends."

So, there it is: gaseous substances are out of scope of "materials", unless they are "designed or manipulated for technological ends". The term "nonmetallic material: then becomes somewhat of an artificial distinction, rather than a properties-based one.

Eleven extracts from the literature illustrating the use of the term "nonmetallic materials" can be found here.

4. "Nonmetallic substances" are solids, liquids and gases, other than metals. Curiously, there is no unified notion of such a type in the literature, from what I could find. It includes the type 2a non-extant meaning of semiconductors and insulators; and the type 3 meaning of nonmetallic materials.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Manual reversion of edit of very long and excessive examples tags

I've manually reverted this edit [23] by Ldm1954:

The summary was: Added {Very long} and {Excessive examples} tags: There is extensive duplication of material, for instance comparisons of metals/nonmetals, weak descriptions of bonding. I estimate it should be 30% shorter. +89

The basis for adding the tags represents is unsubstantiated nonsense. Readable prose size of the article was 6,088 words. Per WP:LENGTH:

> 8,000 words May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size.

< 6,000 words Length alone does not justify division or trimming.

See also: FAC criterion 1b: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." --- Sandbh (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Outstanding issues ahead of next FAC nomination

These are the issues I intend to work on next, subject to RL obligations and ongoing discussions on this talk page:

From FAC 9

• Abundance, extraction and use section, raised by YBG
• Comment by Esculenta re:

Yao et al. 2020, Metals and non-metals in the periodic table, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A., 37820200213, doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213

@Johnjbarton: From Yao et al., I've added the Mott parameter to the list of distinguishing criteria.

In their concluding remarks, the authors mention that, "We hope to have illustrated that the classification 'metal or non-metal'—although used universally in terms of the periodic table—is not an inherent and unchanging property of any particular element." The interesting aspect is their notion of "metal or non-metal" being used universally in terms of the periodic table. @Ldm1954: What do you make of of this? --- Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh My interpretation is this: the authors have illustrated that no element is inherently and unchangingly a nonmetal element despite the use of this distinction in the description of regions of the periodic chart. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Room temperature electrical resistivity of various materials

Sandbh, please look at Figure 16 in doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213 , which clearly uses the term "metal" for certain oxides. The same authors in doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0282 published the Figure I have included here (under CC). When they say universally they mean that everyone uses the terms "metal or non-metal" when describing elements in the periodic table. (I don't think anyone has contested this.) What they clearly do not say is that those terms can never be used elsewhere. And, of course, "non-metal" is the same as "nonmetal" which is also the same as "not a metal". Ldm1954 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And, as an addendum, they make the point that whether an element is a metal or nonmetal depends upon the environment (T,P,crystallography), which is of course common for both elements and compounds. This is similar to what @Johnjbarton said above. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Results of edit review

• As posted above, here.

--- Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I will oppose the FAC based on the name of the article alone. I was confused when I read the article and after much discussion I am now convinced that the article title is the primary source of this confusion. I think this ambiguous name contributes to the 9 rounds of FAC: editors are unsure how to evaluate the article because the name is confusing. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I second Johnjbarton's opposition. This appears to be a case of WP:1AM, WP:CIR, WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, Lie-to-children with a bit of WP:HTBC, WP:SENIORITY and WP:FALLIBLE thrown in for good measure. Quoting ancient papers and dictionaries is not going to convince anyone, please stop repeating your arguments.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I base my support for the title of the nonmetal article, namely Nonmetal, on the authoritative literature and contemporary usage, rather than on unsubstantiated personal opinions and misunderstandings of established terminology.

None of the seven wikilinked items cited represent official Wikipedia policy. The closest is WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, which is part of the broader guideline WP:TECHNICAL aimed at making technical articles more understandable. Such guidelines, as noted in WP:GUIDES, should be applied with common sense.

"Age does not automatically disqualify scientific work; the earliest paper I cite in dated 1858."

Bond GC 2005, Metal-Catalysed Reactions of Hydrocarbons, Springer Science, New York, p. vii

The relevance of sources is not solely determined by their age. Dictionaries, even older ones, provide insight into the contemporary and historical meanings of words, which is pertinent when determining the primary use of the term "nonmetal". The consistent dictionary meanings of "nonmetal" underscore its clear and accepted meaning in both historical and contemporary contexts.

In this case, the term "nonmetal" has a well-documented and specific meaning in scientific literature and educational resources. The title reflects this established usage and aligns with common understanding as evidenced by multiple reputable dictionaries.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In my view, Johnjbarton, it’s not reasonable to expect the article to be renamed due to a personal misunderstanding of its name.

The article was created in Oct 2002, some 22 years ago! At no point during these 1,000 or so weeks were any concerns raised about its title, including by any of the 30 editors involved in the nine FAC rounds. Those nine rounds furthermore accrued 11 supports.

This speaks to a historical precedent and community acceptance of the title.

Consider further that the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 8th ed. (2019) defines nonmetal in the same way as set out in the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 8th ed. (2020):

An element [my emphasis] that is not a metal. Nonmetals can either be insulators or semiconductors. At low temperatures nonmetals are poor conductors of both electricity and heat as few free electrons move through the material. If the conduction band is near to the valence band (see energy bands) it is possible for nonmetals to conduct electricity at high temperatures but, in contrast to metals, the conductivity increases with increasing temperature. Nonmetals are electronegative elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulphur, and the halogens. They form compounds that contain negative ions or covalent bonds. Their oxides are either neutral or acidic.

Exactly the same set of words were used in the 2009 6th edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, p. 357. Ten years on and nothing has changed.

On the preceding bases, I haven't discussed possible compromises. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, you have an opinion. However, others do not share your opinion, and this has been stated multiple times. You can call my opinion "unsubstantiated nonsense" as you already have, however that will change nothing. Wikipedia does not run on the vote of one person, it runs on a consensus. If you are not willing to compromise there is no route forward for a FA, and I personally will question GA status as well Ldm1954 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I used the expression "unsubstantiated nonsense" prompted by your self-identification as an expert. I found it impossible to accept your claims that:

• The article was "Very long" and had "Excessive examples", in contradiction to WP:LENGTH and FAC criterion 1b.
• Everyone (including chemists) uses states at the Fermi energy as the definition, given Wikipedia is an enyclopedia based on reliable and notable sources found in the literature, not flawed personal views.

However, I recognize that the words "nonsense" and "flawed" were less than civil, and I apologise for using them. Mea culpa.

I agree Wikipedia operates on consensus rather than the opinion of any single editor. My efforts have been aimed at promoting the article to FA status based on its quality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards, not at "running" the article.

As regards a change to the article title, which I understand is the compromise being referred to, there is no basis in Wikipedia article title policy for doing so.

Evidence from authoritative sources and historical usage shows that "Nonmetal" has a well-documented and specific meaning in scientific literature and educational resources, aligns with standard terminology, and is thus reflective of primary use.

Regarding the article’s GA status, it has garnered 11 supports over the course of its nine FAC nominations, demonstrating significant backing from the community for its quality.

Please note that I attempt to base my approach on Wikipedia policy and established, citable literature, reflecting historical and contemporary conventions, rather than personal opinions.

On a wry note, the nonmetal article has never gained as much interest as it has now. While I sometimes think, "Great God, what now?", I also recognise, that such attention (in a round about way) and by testing its mettle, can only be a good thing. My knowledge of things nonmetal has also benefited from the associated research I've had to undertake. Thanks to you and Johnjbarton for both of these.

--- Sandbh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh what you keep ignoring is the expertise and sources mentioned by others.

• When I included the Fermi energy you claimed it was "too complicated", you claim this is my personal view and ignore textbook such as Ashcroft and Mermin in favor of a letter from Mott that was not peer reviewed.
• You have multiple times said it should be simple, ignoring analyses such as that on lie-to-children by @Double sharp who clearly has extensively worked on chemistry education and says this is inappropriate.
• You ignore statements by @Johnjbarton who spent his career working in this area.
• There were vast areas where the sources and information was incorrect. Some I have corrected by what you call "nonsense", others remain and have been pointed out by multiple people.
• You call my views personal of zero relevance, ignoring that I have spent decades teaching, researching and publishing papers.

You are not going to move professional scientists for whom telling the true and being scientifically rigorous is everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ldm1954. I'll give some consideration to your thoughts and attempt to provide a civil response, based on what I've posted and what the literature says. I intend not to use perjorative langauge. I feel that's the best way forward. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I’ll attempt to address your concerns sequentially.

0. Re, "Sandbh what you keep ignoring is the expertise and sources mentioned by others": The expertise of others is relevant and helpful as far as it is consistent with what is established in the literature and consistent with reliable sources and citations. AFAICR, and with no disrespect intended to the well-meaning endeavours of others, there have been few relevant sources mentioned by others. Based on a quick can I can see maybe 2 or 3 sources. OTOH I have posted about three dozen.

1. I've checked the thread but cannot see where I am supposed to have said inclusion of Fermi energy was "too complicated". Where did I say that?

2. Great care needs to be taken wrt solid state physics texts, such as Ashcroft and Mermin (1976), as this field is confined to solids and liquids. So the gaseous nonmetals H, N, O, F, Cl, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, and Rn are ostensibly out of scope. Ditto gases such as CO₂ and SF₆.

Here are some observations about Ashcroft and Mermin:

• In 856 pages, the terms nonmetal/s; non-metal/s; nonmetallic; or non-metallic are used only 4 times, or about once every 200 pages.
• In contrast, the terms metal/s and metallic are mentioned 846 times or about once every page, on average.
• On page 2 they write that:

"Metals are...excellent conductors of heat and electricity, are ductile and malleable, and display a striking luster on freshly exposed surfaces. The challenge of accounting for these metallic features gave the starting impetus to the modern theory of solids.

Here, mention of metals being ductile and malleable is wrong given a sizeable number of metals are brittle, in ambient to near ambient conditions. As well, mercury is neither ductile nor malleable in such conditions. Mention of "the modern theory of solids" is another warning sign i.e. never mind the gases.

• On page 726 there is a periodic table (a concept borrowed from chemistry) showing the status of the elements as either superconducting: superconducting under high pressure or in thin films; metallic; nonmetallic; and those with magnetic order. The design of this table is less than well-considered. The only elements depicted as nonmetallic are H, He, B, C, N, O, P, S, As, Po, the halogens, and the noble gases. Se, which is usually regarded as a nonmetal is instead shown as being superconducting under high pressure or in thin film form. The status of Si, Ge, Sb, Te and Bi, in a metal or nonmetal context, is not apparent.

3. Mott's letter of 1996 appeared in the 2010 peer-reviewed article doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0282, which has since been cited 56 times. It also appeared in the reliable source (with 13 citations), Davis EA 1998, Nevill Mott: Reminiscences And Appreciations, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 255.

4. Checking the thread, I couldn't find any evidence of multiple times I am supposed to have said it should be simple. Lie-to-children is start-class article that failed a GA nomination. As to Double sharp's perception of a lies to children situation, I responded to his concerns here and here.

5. AFAIK I've responded to all of Johnbarton's statements, rather than ignoring them per se. I respect the fact that he has spent his career working in this area. That said, Wikipedia articles rely on coverage set out in the literature, as supported by citations.

6. Saying "There were vast areas where the sources and information was incorrect" is inconsistent with the 11 supports the article garnered over the course of 9 FAC nominations. If others remain then so be it and I would expect these to be corrected or confirmed, according to coverage in the literature and reliable sources, over the course of preparting the article for FAC nomination.

7. Re, "You call my views personal of zero relevance", I acknowledged that at least one of your views was on the mark, and that another was partly right. The rest of your views were not supported by coverage in the literature and reliable citations. That you have spent decades teaching, researching and publishing papers is a respectable achievement. By itself this does not mitigate the need to demonstrate coverage in the literature via reliable citations.

8. I agree with you on the importance of telling the truth and being scientifically rigorous. However, even among professional scientists, there can be disagreements about what is considered true and scientifically rigorous. Hence Wikipedia relies on what is established in the literature and emphasizes the use of reliable sources and citations to ensure that information is representatively represented, so to speak.

9. To this end I've been attempting to establish what the representative situation is viz-à-viz the primary use meaning of the term nonmetal, and what is meant by the term "nonmetallic material". There is some more work to do here as far as seeing if there is some kind of view in physics as to what a nonmetal is. I've been asking around and intend to post something in due course. Any contributions or thoughts in this regard are of course most welcome.

10. I've attempted to maintain civility in this post. Any feedback in this regard will be welcome.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, too many of your comments have been you versus multiple others. You comments about Ashcroft and Mermin are you against the world, a Gish gallop approach which is unfortunately an example of Brandolini's law. @Sandbh, you have to read and understand, counting mentions and claiming that means anything is beyond credibility.

It seems clear that nothing anyone says means anything -- you are right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps time to think about WP:TNT. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thank you. My comments are attempted responses to others, and based in or on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. My comments about Ashcroft and Mermin are matters of fact that can be confirmed by checking their book. These aspects of their book are not representative of the primary use of the term nonmetal, nor is the rest of their book representative of this primary use. Since their book is instead about solid state physics, that makes sense. Of course, counting mentions means nothing absent of context. The context in this case is the nonmetal article, and the primary use of the term nonmetal. In contrast, we could consider (as a random example) Birk's Chemistry 1994, Instructor's Annotated Edition, at about 1,000 pages and see that metal/s and metallic are mentioned about 1,230 times and nonmetal/s and nonmetallic are mentioned about 200 times. On this basis it seems reasonable to presume that this source could shed some light on the term nonmetal.

Ldm1954, too many of your comments are reflective of your Materials Science and Engineering background. That is what is known as expert bias. You can only see the world through your materials science and engineering glasses, and therefore seek to filter out things that are not congruent with this view, including Wikipedia policy. Here's a pertinent link to a 2020 article on "Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and eight sources of bias. Some pertinent extracts are listed below:

Expert bias extracts

Expert bias. "There is a widely incorrect belief that experts are impartial and immune to biases.(17) However, the truth of the matter is that no one is immune to bias, not even experts.(18) In fact, in many ways, experts are more susceptible to certain biases. The very making of expertise creates and underpins many of the biases.(19) For example, experience and training make experts engage in more selective attention, use chunking and schemas (typical activities and their sequence), and rely on heuristics and expectations arising from past base rate experiences, utilizing a whole range of top-down cognitive processes which create a priori assumptions and expectations. These cognitive processes enable experts to often make quick and accurate decisions. However, these very mechanisms also create bias that can lead them in the wrong direction. Regardless of the utilities (and vulnerability) of such cognitive processing in experts, they do not immune experts from bias, and indeed, expertise and experience may actually increase (or even cause) certain biases. Experts across domains are subject to cognitive vulnerabilities.(20) Although experts tend to be very confident (sometimes even overconfident), more experienced experts can actually perform worse than novices. This has been demonstrated, for example, in environmental ecology, where data collection is critical and underpinned by the ability to correctly identify and collect samples, and novices actually outperform experts.(21)"

As the author says, no one is immune to bias, neither you nor me, nor the rest of the editors who have contributed to this thread. Hence the need to rely on a representative assessment of the literature + Wikipedia policy.

Several comments by others have done an excellent job of generating thoughtful discussion. More generally the disussion has prompted some good research into dictionary—i.e. common use— meanings of the term "nonmetal" and the meaning of the term "nonmetallic materials". [24] The use and meaning of the term "nonmetal" in physics remains to be summarised.

I wasn't familiar with WP:TNT. I see it is neither WP policy nor a WP guideline. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Timing

@YBG and Double sharp: By now, I had hoped to have been getting Nonmetal ready for FAC. I haven't been able to progress this work due to a combination of (1) the need to address concerns raised by other editors, Ldm1954 and User:Johnjbarton in particular; and (2) RL obligations.

I regard Ldm1954 and Johnjbarton's input as representing an important contribution to the development of the article (as I do of your contributions, YBG and Double sharp).

My view on our discusssions is fairly well captured in this quote:

"Disagreements can be unpleasant, even offensive, but they are vital to human reason. Without them we remain in the dark."[25]

TLDR: The genesis of manned flight, by the Wright Brothers, arose out of disagreement. By allowing their arguments to run hot, the Wrights were able to beat all the experts in the world.

The idea that people with different views can vigorously yet co­operatively disagree is essential to democratic society.

A good scrap can turn our cognitive flaws into collective virtues.

Truth wins out only after an exchange of arguments. The answers that emerge will be stronger for having been forged in the crucible of our disagreement. — Sandbh (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetallic materials

I've been looking into conceptions of "nonmetallic materials". Most curiously, gases like H, N and O are generally out of scope, unless designed or manipulated for technological ends (never mind their status as nonmetals).

Weird, eh? The explanation is give by the Aims & Scope statement for Nature Materials:

"Nature Materials is a monthly multi-disciplinary journal aimed at bringing together cutting-edge research across the entire spectrum of materials science and engineering. Materials research is a diverse and fast-growing discipline, which has moved from a largely applied, engineering focus to a position where it has an increasing impact on other classical disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. Nature Materials covers all applied and fundamental aspects of the synthesis/processing, structure/composition, properties and performance of materials, where "materials" are identified as substances in the condensed states (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends."

So there it is: gaseous substances are out of scope of materials science, unless they are "designed or manipulated for technological ends". The term "nonmetallic material" in the case of gaseous substances, is an artificial distinction, rather than a properties-based one.

What follows are eleven extracts from the literature. Note that while both compounds and nonmetal elements are mentioned, only the solid nonmetal elements get a seat at the table, being C, P and S in these examples. Quote #9 is interesting since it recognises O as a nonmetallic element but presumably not as a nonmetallic material.

Nonmetallic materials mentions

1. Meire Rl 1951, The long-term prospects for essential minerals, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 7. no. 7, pp. 214—216 (215) ""Non-metallic materials…Salt…Lime…Sulfur" 2. Glaeser WA 1963, Wear characteristics in non-metallic materials. Wear, 6(2), 93–105 "Non-metallic materials used in situations requiring high wear resistance include elastomers, plastics, carbon-graphite, ceramics and jewels." "Pure graphite also has a significantly higher thermal conductivity than most non-metallic materials, making it attractive for high-speed sliding applications." "Graphite is one of the few natural materials which exhibits self-lubricating properties. As a powder, it is used as a lubricant, and in solid form it is used in dry-sliding conditions. The fundamental reasons for the low-friction properties of graphite have yet to be resolved. However, it is known that both wear and friction are influenced dramatically by adsorbed vapors and gases. When graphite slides in high vacuum or in a dry gaseous environment, the friction is high and the graphite dusts away very rapidly." See: R. H. SAVAGE, J. Appl. Phys., 19 (1948) I. 3. Tottle CR 1974, The Science of Engineering Materials, reprint of 1966 ed., Heinemann Educational Books, London, p. 20 As well as referring to metals and nonmetals in the periodic table sense Tottle later includes a chapter on Metals and alloys, and a chapter on Non-metallic materials. Some examples given by him of non-metallic materials are alumina, magnesia, graphite, beryllia, titanium carbide, glass, rubber, nylon and wood. He gets into trouble in his chapter on Metals and alloys, since he includes some discussion on interstitial solid solutions, such as cementite Fe3C, which is an insulator, and intermetallic compounds, which appears fine on the surface, until one realises that some intermetallic compounds are semiconductors, such as FeGa3, RuGa3, and IrGa3. I've never heard of semiconducting or insulating metals or alloys. 4. Waldron RD 1993, Production of non-volatile materials on the moon, in Lewis J, Matthews MS & Guerrieri ML (eds) Resources of Near-Earth Space, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 257–296 "The only nonmetallic material resisting fluorine attacks at high temperatures (~1270 K) is highly sintered clay." p. 144 "Nonmetals "This group includes ceramics, glasses and, in the terrestrial case, polymers and elastomers." p. 275 "Products Derivable from Lunar Metals The source materials may include natural lunar free metal (Fe with < 10% combined Ni + Co), refined lunar free metals, metals refined from lunar silicate or oxide minerals (Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Ti and in lesser quantities, Cr or Mn) and alloys derived from the above sources plus optional minor fractions of Earth-imported elements." p. 276 "Refined crystalline nonmetals such as Al2O3, MgO, TiO2, can be used for refractories, abrasives, insulation, dielectrics, etc." p. 290 "Chemical refining is required for propellant production, specifically for oxygen, which will co-produce metals such as Fe, Al, Mg, Ti, Ca and Si (semi-metal) or mixtures depending on the refining systems selected." p. 293 5. Komatina M 2004, Medical Geology: Effects of Geological Environments on Human Health, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 186 "Non-metallic mineral raw materials are characterized by the enormous diversity of rocks and minerals. The group of main raw materials includes the following: limestone, crushed rock, rock for block making, sand, gravel, phosphate rocks, clays, sulfur, potassium salts, and gypsum." 6. Smith P 2005, Piping Materials Guide, Elsevier, Amsterdam "Carbon (C). Element no. 6 of the periodic system; atomic weight 12.01; has three allotropic modifications, all nonmetallic. Carbon is preset in practically all ferrous alloys and has a tremendous effect on the properties of the resultant metal. Carbon is also an essential compound of the cemented carbides. Its metallurgical use, in the form of coke, for reduction of oxides, is extensive." p. 248 "Corrosion. The attack on metals by chemical agents converting them to nonmetallic products." p. 253 "Inclusion. A nonmetallic material in a solid metallic material. Slag or other foreign matter entrapped during welding. The defect is usually more irregular in shape than a gas pore." p. 263 "Phosphorus(P). Element no. 15 of the periodic system; atomic weight 30.98. It is a nonmetallic element occurring in at least three allotropic forms." p. 270 "These are the abbreviations commonly used to describe nonmetallic materials: FRP Fiber-reinforced plastic NR Natural rubber SIC Silicon carbide XPS Extruded polystyrene" :"LIST OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE NONMETALLIC MATERIALS Diabon Graphite Sigri, Germany Hfr cement Potassium silicate cement Hoechst, Germany", pp. 317+ 7. Phull B & Abdullahi AA 2010, Marine corrosion, in Cottis et al. (eds) Shreir's Corrosion, vol 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1107–1148 "Nonmetallic Materials Nonmetallic materials do not generally corrode in the same manner as metals and alloys in seawater, that is, by thinning. Instead, they may suffer marine borer attack which is usually not very deep, except in wood. In addition, nonmetallics may undergo swelling and some reduction in mechanical strength – which is usually less for synthetic materials than those derived from nature (e.g., to make ropes). Deterioration is generally greater in warm seawater and close to the seabed. Other hazards are fish bites, for example, on cables. Results of long-term exposures of polymeric materials have been reviewed." pp. 167,168 8. Taheri-Ledari R 2022, Classification of micro and nanoscale composites, in Maleki A (ed.), Heterogeneous Micro and Nanoscale Composites for the Catalysis of Organic Reactions, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1–21 "Nonmetallic materials Engineering materials can be classified into three main groups: metals and alloys (Metals and Alloys) and nonmetallic materials (Nonmetallic Materials) and coatings. Nonmetallic Materials refers to all nonmetals that are divided into two general groups: Natural Materials and Synthetic Materials. Natural materials that are branches of nonmetallic materials are materials that are essentially found in nature. These materials are used in the same way as they are found in nature, while other categories of nonmetallic materials, namely Synthetic Materials, are materials made by humans by modifying, combining, and transforming natural materials found in nature. Synthetic materials, which are an important component of nonmetallic materials, can also be divided into three general categories: Plastic or polymer, Ceramics, and Plastic or polymer, each of which can be divided into subcategories according to criteria. For example, ceramics are divided into two general categories in terms of application: Traditional Ceramics or silicate ceramics and New Ceramics. The composites are divided into three main groups in terms of background phase: Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC), Polymer Matrix Composite (PMC), and Metal Matrix Composite (MMC)." 9. Abdelbary A & Chang L 2023, Principles of Engineering Tribology, Elsevier, Amsterdam "Tribology of nonmetals; Introduction Nonmetals (non-metals) are those materials, both natural and synthetic, which do not contain metal. They are produced easily, able to keep their chemical and physical composition during the machining process, and do not require posttreatment finishes as metals. These materials have the advantage of being significantly more inexpensive in both the short term and long term. There are a wide variety of nonmetallic materials, including polymers, polymer composites, rubber, ceramics, and others (Myshkin & Kovalev, 2017)." "Nonmetals (non-metals) are those materials, both natural and synthetic, which do not contain metal." "In general, nonmetals are more lightweight and designed to have superior tribological properties than metals." "There are a wide variety of nonmetallic materials, including polymers, polymer composites, rubber, ceramics, and others (Myshkin & Kovalev, 2017)." "According to the American Ceramic Society (ACS), ceramics are defined as inorganic, nonmetallic materials, which are typically crystalline, and are compounds formed between metallic and nonmetallic elements such as aluminum and oxygen, calcium, and oxygen, and silicon and nitrogen." 10. Huang Z, Shao G & Li L 2023, Micro/nano functional devices fabricated by additive manufacturing, Progress in Materials Science, vol. 131, 101020 "Inorganic nonmetallic materials and associated composites Inorganic nonmetallic, metal, and organic polymer materials constitute a complete material system. These materials usually have high compressive strength, hardness, temperature resistance, and corrosion resistance [184]. Typical inorganic nonmetallic materials include ceramics and quartz glass [185–188]. In addition, inorganic nonmetallic materials, including oxides, carbides, and nitrides of many elements, have become important components of composites." 11. Li Z & Yu C 2024, Nanostructured Materials: Physicochemical Fundamentals for Energy and Environmental Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 4 "Most nano nonmetallic materials (such as carbon and phosphorus)…"

Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Materials science", which I suppose would lay claim to "nonmetallic material", is essential the engineering counter part to "condensed matter physics". The scientific models behind gases and condensed matter are completely different, so I think that explains the lack of interest by Nature Materials.

As for the relation of this comment to the article, there are no restrictions on the elements composing "nonmetallic materials". I think most people would consider a "nonmetallic material" to be a "nonmetal", but no so on Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Pitching materials science as the engineering counterpart of condensed matter physics is nice.

Thinking about your next comment carefully, I put it to you that—in an encyclopedia—the notion of what is a nonmetallic material is not what people consider it is but rather, how it is conceived of in the literature. As the mentions show, "nonmetallic materials" include nonmetals such as C, P, S but not, in general, gaseous nonmetals namely H, N, O, F, Cl and the six noble gases, nor gaseous compounds such as CO₂ and SF₆. — Sandbh (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, publications in journals need to use "nonmetallic material" in the context of the reader expect, just the same way that Wikipedia needs to use "nonmetal" in a way that readers can understand. In the context of Nature Materials gases are not an expected topic that's all. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, materials science is not the engineering counterpart of condensed matter physics. The definition in the Wikipedia page lede is the commonly accepted one in the field; it is interdisciplinary field combining chemistry, physics and engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You left out the rest of the definition from the Wikipedia page: "Materials engineering is an engineering field of finding uses for materials in other fields and industries."

As I understand it, materials science focuses on understanding and developing materials, including nonmetallic ones, for various applications. It often overlaps with condensed matter physics, which studies the physical properties of solid and liquid matter. While condensed matter physics aims to understand the fundamental properties and behaviours of materials at a theoretical level, materials science applies this knowledge to develop and optimise materials for practical use and technology and engneering.

In the preceding context, materials science can be seen as the engineering counterpart to condensed matter physics. —- Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read! Materials science and Materials Engineering are not the same. You are completely wrong, please stop this. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Au contraire.

To address the initial premise of Johnjbarton—that materials science can (indeed) be seen as the engineering counterpart to condensed matter physics—I suggest it's important to understand the distinctions and connections between these fields.

As I understand it, materials science is an interdisciplinary field focused on researching and discovering new materials. It brings together principles from chemistry, physics, and engineering to understand the properties and behaviours of materials, aiming to develop and optimise them for practical use. OTOH, materials engineering is specifically concerned with finding practical applications for these materials in various fields and industries.

Condensed matter physics primarily deals with understanding the fundamental physical properties of solid and liquid matter. It provides the theoretical foundation needed to appreciate how materials behave at atomic and molecular levels. This field is crucial for the deep scientific knowledge that underpins material development.

The Aims & Scope statement for the journal Nature Materials highlights the evolving nature of materials science. It states:

Nature Materials is a...multi-disciplinary journal aimed at bringing together cutting-edge research across the entire spectrum of materials science and engineering [emphasis added]. Materials research is a diverse and fast-growing discipline, which has moved from a largely applied, engineering focus to a position where it has an increasing impact on other classical disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. Nature Materials covers all applied and fundamental aspects of the synthesis/processing, structure/composition, properties and performance of materials, where "materials" are identified as substances in the condensed states (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends.

Their statement underscores how materials science covers both applied and fundamental aspects.

Note the engineering heritage.

Given this context, materials science can indeed be seen as an applied counterpart to condensed matter physics. While condensed matter physics seeks to uncover the fundamental principles governing materials, materials science takes these principles and applies them to create new materials and improve existing ones for real-world applications. In this sense, materials science acts as a bridge, translating theoretical insights from condensed matter physics into practical innovations and solutions.

Therefore, although materials science is not strictly an engineering discipline, it often serves a similar role by applying scientific discoveries to develop new technologies and materials, effectively functioning as the practical counterpart to the theoretical focus of condensed matter physics. This perspective highlights the complementary relationship between the two fields, emphasizing how they work together to advance both fundamental understanding and technological progress. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

My god! An emeritus professor of the 1st department in the world to change its name to "Materials Science and Engineering" is now being lectured by someone who it appears has never taken a single course in the topic, told that he does not know what he did for 40 years. Competence is required. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, Competence is required is neither a Wikipedia policy nor Wikipedia guidance.

A real Wikipedia requirement is that article content is based on, and reflective of the use of, reliable sources found in the literature. It seems to me that Wikipedia is an equal opportunity encyclopedia in this regard: experts and amateurs are on the same playing field. Experts are welcome to make their contributions on this basis; amateurs are welcome to question experts who do not do so. Equally, experts are welcome to question amatuers who do not do so on the same basis. Winners all round in the encyclopedia building experience. -- Sandbh (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Uses

The Uses section starts with this self-contradictory paragraph:

• The unique properties of nonmetals determine their applications across various industries. For example, carbon in the form of graphite and carbon fiber, has distinct uses. Graphite's high electrical conductivity makes it suitable for use in fuel cells, while carbon fiber is ideal for laminates. Silicon's semiconducting properties are crucial for the electronics industry, where it is used to manufacture integrated circuits and solar cells

So in other words, the unique properties discussed throughout the article play no role in the uses of nonmetals. Rather it is the atypical properties that are important. I am just going to delete this until we can sort it out. The reference is not about "nonmetal elements" but rather about elements, some of which are classed as nonmetals. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph is clunky and doesn’t scan very well. As I understand it, the point that is being attempted here is that as a class nonmetallic elements are quite diverse in their properties; the metallic elements are much more homogenous. As a consequence, the uses made of nonmetals are much more varied than the uses made of metals. To my layman’s ear, this seems at least plausible if not probable. It is definitely interesting. Whether it belongs in this encyclopedia depends on whether we can find reliable sources that make this point. No good just finding RS that imply this; we actually need RS that make this point. YBG (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree all round. One more thing to add to the pre-FAC list. —- Sandbh (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the Uses section should be removed altogether. A similar section could be in nonmetallic material, but the current content Uses in this article has no useful references. None of the references discuss the "uses of nonmetals", they discuss the uses of individual elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with deletion Ldm1954 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In the literature, it's quite common for the individual uses of nonmetal elements to be discussed. We may consider, for example:

• Steudel R 2020, Chemistry of the Non-metals: Syntheses - Structures - Bonding - Applications, in collaboration with D Scheschkewitz, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, doi:10.1515/9783110578065.

  An updated translation of the 5th German edition of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019. Twenty-three nonmetals, including B, Si, Ge, As, Se, Te, and At but not Sb (nor Po). The nonmetals are identified on the basis of their electrical conductivity at absolute zero putatively being close to zero, rather than finite as in the case of metals. That does not work for As however, which has the electronic structure of a semimetal (like Sb).

The pertinent fact is the inclusion of "Applications" in the title.

That is what an encyclopedia does; it compiles information from reliable sources.

Consistent with this end, the Uses section currenly cites about 22 reliable sources.

Yes, as noted, the Uses section as currently written needs work. And that is how an encyclopedia is built: incrementally. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

When you look at the book by Steudel R 2020 you can see that it has two Parts. Part I is about general properties and characteristics of nonmetals. Part II is separate chapters for each element where applications are discussed. This mirrors our encyclopedia in that we have this article and existing detailed articles on each element with applications. (Also Steudel is not referenced in the Uses section).

Repeating the uses here is not knowledge about "nonmetal". Really it is just a randomly selected list of things. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I knew Steudel wasn't yet cited in the Uses section. I recall the Uses section was compiled before I had access to Steudel. On repeating uses, the article is not about "nonmetal" singular. It is about the relevant elements (plural). Article titles are generally in the singular form (e.g., "Metal" rather than "Metals"). This helps maintain consistency and readability across Wikipedia articles.

There is naught random about the inclusion of uses of individual nonmetals, in the nonmetal article, in the same way that the article mentions other characteristics and properties of nonmetals, such as their variagated appearances.

Indeed, Stedel discusses the applications of nonmentals in his chapters on B, C, Si and Ge, N, P and Sb, O, Se, Te, S, the halogens and the noble gases.

Or we could turn to e.g. Moyer & Bishop's book General Science (1996, Charles E Merrill Publishing, Columbus, OH), pp. 104 and 106, and find two tables, one setting out some properties and uses of metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Te) and their compounds, and the other some properties and uses of nonmetals (N, O, F, Cl, I, S, Se, P, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe) and nonmetallic compounds. — Sandbh (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Steudel's definition, I do not think he was making a mistake. Rather, the introductory comments to part II (as well as chapter 10 in particular) suggest that he decided to include all elements that can form a nonmetallic phase at standard conditions, with no prejudice as to whether that phase should be the only one. That makes sense for his purposes, because you can't exactly write a general-chemistry book and not cover carbon, and the arsenic chemistry he wished to cover is mostly homologous to phosphorus chemistry. He also was clearly not considering astatine seriously: literally the only mention of it in the book is to dismiss it for its short half-life. That's not a surprise, because a monograph which appropriately treated astatine at length would presumably have to be focused on ultra-trace-scale radiochemistry, and that's not the kind of monograph he was writing. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Steudel defines a metal as conducting at T=0, a nonmetal as not. This is identical to what Mott said as well the presence or absence of states at the Fermi level -- conduction at T=0 is a manifestation of the states. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Since by the definition compounds are not relevant, I may have missed a couple, but the only ones are

• Air replacements are He, N, Ar
• Cryogenics Ne, N, He
• Explosives C
• Fertilizers None, all are compounds
• Flame retardants None
• Household C
• Laser He, Ne, Si
• Lubricant" C
• Medicine O
• Mineral acids None by definition
• Hybrids None
• Welding gases H, O
• Smart phones None

Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In the literature, the convention is that "uses" includes the uses of the elements or their compounds. — Sandbh (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Which literature? Literature is peer reviewed primary or secondary articles, as well as secondary graduate texts, monographs, PhD theses or book collections which reflect the state of the art. Tertiary first year university/college or high-school/grammar school texts are not part of the established scientific literature and as a rule will be rejected during peer review of a publication except if it is on teaching. As is well known they oversimplify, everyone who has taught wrestles with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In which literature I think this may be at the heart of why, to my count, at least six editors have disagreed with you. High school/first year texts are almost always "make it simple". Not all students are smart or interested and one has to teach to some lower level. I have had to tell students hundreds of times we can do better than this approximation, but it is OK for now or you learned something different in high school, now we will do it right.

Material cannot just be in one source, it must be verifiable by other work in the scientific community. Exact phrases rarely matter, you have to decode the meaning. If you have spent time on WP:AfC, WP:AfD and WP:NPR you will have seen many people try to game Wikipedia. Information cannot be just one source, and as an editor (or reviewer) curating information and not just collating it is the hard part.

As a specific example, the mention of catalysis at the bottom of Nonmetal#Property overlaps initially looked like a stretch. I therefore went and reviewed the papers, not just the blurb but the ones behind pay walls. While I think it may still be a stretch, the results in the articles convinced me that the paragraph was reasonable so I have left it as reasonable. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The literature I'm referring to is what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources", which includes Moyer & Bishop's book General Science (1996).

Three further examples from the literature immediately come to mind: 1. Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks (2011); 2. the aforementioned work by Steudel (2020) namely Chemistry of the Non-metals: Syntheses - Structures - Bonding - Applications'; 3. Stwetka's 2012, A Guide to the Elements, 3rd ed., Oxford Univesty Press, Oxford. — Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You make my point. Every source you mention above is for either the non-scientist or for high school students, maybe also first year college/university with a weak preparation. They make simplifications which we don't want to do in Wikipedia. We want to be accurate while still being readable. They are all tertiary. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

They are all reliable sources. That's what counts. As far as tertiary souces go, WP:PSTS states that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Steudel's book, in particular, is intended for an audience with a solid background in chemistry, including undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professionals in the field. It provides an in-depth and comprehensive examination of the chemistry of non-metallic elements, suitable for those with a strong foundation in scientific concepts and seeking detailed theoretical and practical knowledge.

There's no WP policy or guidance that I'm aware of proscribing simplifications. Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will accept Steudel's book as secondary. Part I has material I learnt for my A levels/1st year undergrad, but in 2024 would be for senior undergrads or grads. but the others are certainly all tertiary.

Note that at the top of p4 Strudel's book reads "The nonmetallic elements and their compounds". There are many uses in the text of "nonmetallic elements", "nonmetallic cystems" and "nonmetallic compounds" etc.

He also has the conductivity criteria for metals and nonmetals in general (he puts no limits on them so includes compounds).

This book stronly supports what first @Johnjbarton then myself and I think one of two others have said. The current article should be renamed as Nonmetallic elements, his preferred term. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: The title of Steudel is, "Chemistry of the nonmetals. The term "nonmetals" appears 66 times in Steudel; "nonmetallic elements" appears 12 times. "Nonmetal" is the primary use term. According the Google's Ngram, the term "nonmetals" appears about ten times more often in the English corpus than does "nonmetallic elements". Google Books returns ~703,000 hits for nonmetals v ~22,100 for "nonmetallic elements". Google Scholar returns 136,000 hits for "nonmetals" v 7,450 for "nonmetallic elements". Renaming the article "Nonmetallic elements" is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.

--- Sandbh (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be rigorous. The title is "Chemistry of the non-metals", and the first introduction of terms is on P4, with his bold.

The nonmetallic elements and their compounds

Hits for words mean nothing. There are many ways forward which don't involve contesting what multiple editors say. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Emsley, Steudel Part II, and Stwetka are lists of elements. We have articles for each one of the items on these lists. The Uses of individual elements appears, based on these books and articles, to have no connection whatsoever with the topic "Nonmetal".

Steudel Part I is legitimately about "nonmetal". Our article on nonmetal should include that content, not the dull and pointless list of unrelated things. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Lists of uses of nonmetals appear in reliable sources. Here's another example: Mosher M & Kelter P 2023, An Introduction to Chemistry, 2nd ed., Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, p. 301. Uses of nonmetals appear in the nonmetal article further to the FAC criteria dealiing with being comprehensive and well-researched. Bearing in mind the general reader audience of Wikipedia articles, it's reasonable to feel that an article on nonmetals would include information about their uses. It's similary unreasonable to expect a reader to have to look up ca. two dozen articles in order to get an overview of the uses of nonmetals. That's what encyclopedias mitigate the need for. — Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh According to your analysis we should present the Uses in separate subsections for each element to match the character of the tertiary sources, not all mashed together implying some commonality.

According to the sources referenced here there are no "uses of nonmetals", so we don't need an overview. It's just a list, it's not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I believe there may be a misunderstanding of my analysis. Lists of uses of nonmetals are set out in reliable sources, and such lists or list-like paragraphs are standard features in Wikipedia articles. The uses of nonmetals like H, C, N, O, P, S, and Cl in explosives, for instance, are not just random facts; they demonstrate a pattern and provide valuable context. This kind of information helps readers understand the practical applications of nonmetals without having to consult multiple articles. Therefore, including an overview of the uses of nonmetals in the nonmetal article is both relevant and beneficial to the general reader. — Sandbh (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh says:

• "The uses of nonmetals like H, C, N, O, P, S, and Cl in explosives, for instance, are not just random facts; they demonstrate a pattern and provide valuable context."

Yes, this is exactly my point! The section uses synthesis to create misinformation. If explosives use "nonmetals" then we should have a reference discussing the use of nonmetals in explosives. But there is no such reference. Also no use of Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe in explosives. Why not?, they are nonmetals. I could imagine there may be a chemistry ref for this case, but no one looks because the section is a list of stuffs, not a section how the chemistry of nonmetal elements encourages their use. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Thanks for your ongoing civility. Synthesis involves the creation of new knowledge. No new knowledge nor misinformation is created by observing that, based on rather a lot of reliable sources, C, N, O, P, S, and Cl have uses, collectively or individually, in explosives. For example, gunpowder is a mixture of potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal. Here, four nonmetals are involved, C, N, O, S. Noble gases are not noted for their uses in explosives for self-evident reasons. I have previously acknowledge that the Uses section needs some work and intend to consider your comments in this regard.

If I may make a somewhat personal comment, with respect, and with no malice intended, my impression of your view of what a Wikipedia article should contain seems to be at odds with how Wikipedia articles are created and written, in accordance with WP policy and WP guidelines. My previous comment refers: "Lists of uses of nonmetals are set out in reliable sources, and such lists or list-like paragraphs are standard features in Wikipedia articles." If I have the wrong impression I'm happy to be corrected. — Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh No one else has spoken up in favor of your impression of my point of view. The overarching Wikipedia policy is consensus: we select material from reliable references according a criteria we have to establish for each article. I think this one got stuck in the model previously adopted for individual elements. Now we can fix it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Tx Johnjbarton. What goes into each article is informed by the same set of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices, rather than a set of criteria, per se, established for each article. Of course, while some judgement is called for in the process of writing each article, the elephant in the room, which you seem to ignore, is, "Lists of uses of nonmetals are set out in reliable sources, and such lists or list-like paragraphs are standard features in Wikipedia articles." Pls correct me if seem to be wrong. — Sandbh (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: fyi, a few more reliable sources noting, in consolidated formats, the uses of nonmetals:

• Wulsberg G 2000, Inorganic Chemistry, University Science Books, Sausalito, California, pp. 599–611. In his Chapter 12.2, "Physical properties, allotropes, and uses of the nonmetallic elements", he discusses the uses of Ar, Ne, He; F, Cl, Br, I; O, S, Se, Te; N, P, As, Sb and Bi; C, Si, Ge; and B.
• Allcock HR 2019, Introduction to Materials Chemistry, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Newark. In chapter 4, table 4.1, lists the uses of the nonmetals: H, B, C, Si, Ge, N, P, As, O, S, Se, F, Cl, Br, I, He-Xe.
• Mosher M & Kelter P 2023, An Introduction to Chemistry, Springer Nature, Cham, p. 301. Table 7.4 lists the uses of C, Cl, N, O, P and S.

--- Sandbh (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

(←)

This might be a good time to review WP:PSTS which includes information about WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:TERTIARY sources, describing how to determine the appropriateness of using a particular source to establish the notability of a particular subject or to establish a particular fact about it, based on whether the source is 1ary, 2ary, or 3ary for that particular use. WP does not make a blanket exclusion of any of these three; but the appropriateness of a particular use depends on the particular situation and whether the source is 1ary/2ary/3ary for that use. These are not essays, but en-wiki policies. YBG (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede paragraph

I've restored a lede paragraph to the Uses section, so that the reader can immediately grasp what is covered by the whole section. The lede follows the rule of three (writing), in that there are three broad usage categories, and one more. Since "attenuative" may seem like a less familiar word to the general reader, it's accompanied by a parenthetical explanation (meaning skip the parentheses if you already know what attenuative means). Using this word also makes it easier to summarise six of the "significant number" uses down to one broad category. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discovery

The section in History called "Discovery" isn't about the discovery of "nonmetal". As the immediately following section makes clear, the concept of "nonmetal" dates from the late 1700s. In my opinion this section should be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with deletion Ldm1954 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The section title can be changed to "Discovery of nonmetals". --- Sandbh (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton and Ldm1954: Per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE the section title should not be changed to "Discovery of nonmetals". I attempted to do so but User:YBG reverted [26]. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If I’d been watching more closely, I would have seen your note above and commented there instead of reverting. That said, I think the article would be better if this subsection title and its siblings were more uniform in length. In that respect, discovery of nonmetals was better. I don’t have an immediate idea for how to accomplish this evenness. YBG (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Another comment about discovery. I have been bothered by the lack of context in the statement here and in the lede While most nonmetallic elements were identified during the 18th and 19th centuries, a few were recognized much earlier. The context that is lacking includes

1. During this same era the whole idea of a chemical element was solidified, so in some sense, the discovery in antiquity of certain nonmetallic substances cannot truly be said to be the discovery of nonmetallic elements.
2. This was also the era when a great number of metallic elements were discovered, so it isn’t clear how significant this fact is about nonmetallic elements.

I suggest something along these lines:

Most nonmetallic elements (and over half of the metallic ones) were identified in the 18th and 19th centuries, an era when the modern idea of a chemical element was solidified. A few were known in much earlier.

Thoughts? YBG (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no significant opinion on this. The page is significantly better than it used to be, and is now clearer that it is only about the elements. It is still a WP:COATRACK and could do with more trimming; I think this is needed for it to retain a GA status let alone FA. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that gets at the point I was trying to make: "nonmetal elements" only make sense after you have so many "metal elements" that you need to classify the remainder. It is incorrect to say that say any nonmetal element was discovered before the concept of "nonmetal element" existed. The History of the nonmetal elements begins when the concept is conceived. As part of the context of origin of that concept, the existence of specific elements can be discussed as well as the reasons they were given elemental status. But the history of nonmetal elements is not the history of those elements later gathered under the classification of nonmetal. It's like claiming the European Union dates from the time of the migration out of Africa. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the Discovery section and altered the History TOC to focus on the article topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Discovery of applicable elements" article section

@Johnjbarton: To address your concerns I've edited the content to do with the Discovery of the applicable elements, and added this section after the section now called "Taxonomical history". The lede of the "Discovery of applicable elements section" read as follows:

While the concept of a chemical element came to fruition during the 18th and 19th centuries, some elements now classified as nonmetals (or sometimes as metalloids) were known and used from as early as antiquity, even if they were not recognized as such at the time." There is now a clear separation between the "Taxonomical history" section and the following "Discovery of applicable elements" section.

I feel that this addresses your concerns re, "say[ing] any nonmetal element was discovered before the concept of "nonmetal element" existed."

How does the revised "Discovery" section now look? — Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this section is off topic and distracting. It's just a laundry list in the form of sentences. The discovery dates for individual nonmetal elements are not notable in the context of the topic. This material muddies the water, making it harder for reader to internalize the idea being described. It's chaff.

Three aspects would be notable: 1) which nonmetal elements were well understood to be elements during the time that the concept of the category was developed and 2) if a nonmetal element was discovered after the concept was in play, did the concept affect the discovery (I guess no) 3) did any later discoveries alter the concept? (I guess no). These are aspects at the interplay between the discovery of individual elements and the topic of the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Thanks for your considered response. I’ll take them on board and let you know how I feel. I have a few issues on the go at the moment and am not able to respond immediately. — Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime I have deleted the content until you can build consensus to add it. I understand your feeling about the material. Please don't add it back without consensus. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I feel that the concerns you raised about the "Discovery of applicable elements" article section have no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Here are my reasons:

1. Laundry list aspect: Wikipedia contains numerous sections with list-like content. The content of the section is no different in that regard.

2. Discovery dates: The section is organised into two subsections:

• Nonmetals discovered before the concept chemical elements and nonmetals.
• Nonmetals discovered after these concepts were established.

This organisation provides clarity and context, showing the evolution of understanding regarding nonmetals.

3. Discovery methods: The discovery dates are accompanied by the methods used, where known. This is significant as it highlights patterns, such as:

• Halogens discovered via their halides.
• Noble gases primarily extracted from air.
• Metalloids via thermal extraction.
• The variegated unclassified nonmetals via equally variegated methods.

Expecting the general reader to piece together this knowledge from 23 separate articles is impractical and non-encyclopedic. This section consolidates important information for easier comprehension.

4. Encyclopedic relevance: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means that it represents an organised compilation of collected facts. Given the subject matter of the nonmetal article, it follows that information about the discovery of the nonmetals is relevant. Indeed, there would be nothing to write about nonmetals but for their discovery. This includes the discovery of helium off-planet, and fluorine which killed some chemists along the way, surely notable items in the consolidated history of the discovery of nonmetals.

5. Historical context: Content about the discovery of nonmetals has been part of the article since 2015. Throughout nine FAC nominations, there have been no objections or comments about its inclusion. After nearly a decade, it is unlikely that this content has suddenly become non-notable. Removing such information could be seen as knowledge censorship, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles.

For these reasons I have restored the content on the discovery of nonmetals that you deleted. If you still feel so disposed, I suggest the most appropriate course of action is to seek to obtain concensus for its removal via an RFC. — Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As @Johnjbarton said, the onus is on you to get concensus. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh You know I do not agree. You have gone over and over this. I am not convinced and I don't see anyone else being convinced. Factoids about elements before the concept of nonmetal elements or even the concept of chemical elements was invented is off topic and distracts the reader from the core concept. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Underutilized reference

The article:

• Yao, Benzhen; Kuznetsov, Vladimir L.; Xiao, Tiancun; Slocombe, Daniel R.; Rao, C. N. R.; Hensel, Friedrich; Edwards, Peter P. (2020-09-18). "Metals and non-metals in the periodic table". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 378 (2180): 20200213. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213. ISSN 1364-503X. PMC 7435143. PMID 32811363.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)

discusses the question "Why do the chemical elements of the periodic table exist either as metals or non-metals under ambient conditions?’" To me, this is the kind of question that ought to dominate the content of this article, rather than factoids about particular elements that don't related to 'nonmetal'. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Johnjbarton: I'm familiar with this article. In my view it contains naught of relevance to the nonmetal article.

That said, I'll look at it again in the context of getting nonmetal ready for FAC#10.

A few interesting passages in the article, with bolding added, are:

"We have sought to identify the chemical elements of the periodic table either as metals or as non-metals to help our discussion of the origins of the differences between these two canonical states of matter."

So, the article is talking about periodic table elements.

"Sir Alan Cottrell [13] surely penned the complete descriptor of our understanding of a metal in this short, penetrating sentence in his classic text ‘Introduction to the Modern Theory of Metals'; Cottrell noted: "Metals contain free electrons."

Thus, carbon is a metal. I note Cottrell has nothing to say about nonmetals.

"We hope to have illustrated that the classification ‘metal or non-metal’—although used universally in terms of the periodic table—is not an inherent and unchanging property of any particular element."

So, the terms metal or non-metal are used universally in terms of the periodic table.

"For the simplest, and surely most powerful description of a metal or metallic substance, we return to Cottrell's definition, and take the existence of free electrons as the characteristic of a metal."

So, carbon is once again a metal.

More generally, the article mentions the periodic table 55 times. That's no suprise in terms of the primary/universal use of the terms metals and nonmetals in a periodic table context.

In terms of why nonmetals are nonmetals, the article used to have a paragraph explaining where the physical differences between metals and nonmetals arise from. This paragraph was deleted by Ldm1954, here [27]. The article still has a paragraph on where the chemical distinctions between metals and nonmetals arise from.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way does that imply that "carbon is a metal"? Graphite is a metal (okay, a semimetal if you want to be more precise). Diamond isn't. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Well, the title of the article is "Metals and non-metals in the periodic table".

Section 5 refers to the conventional (and accepted) distinction between metals and nonmetals as being governed by the natural experience of the chemical elements under ambient conditions on Earth.

In a periodic table context, the elements are usually conceived of in terms of their most stable forms in ambient conditions—oxygen as O₂, for example, rather than O₃. Here, the most stable form of C is graphite, which has free electrons. Ergo, in terms of the "free electrons" criterion, carbon is a metal. I nevertheless do appreciate your distinction between graphitic C as a metal and diamantine C as a nonmetal.

Relying on a single criterion to make a distinction between metals and nonmetals always results in tears, as noted in the nonmetal article.

Elsewhere, the authors:

• say that "as with many general terms, the word metal is used in different ways" while referring to Landau & Zeldovitch [8], and Mott [9], pointing out that the metallic and non-metallic states of matter can only be distinguished unambiguously at T = 0; yet, if the word metal is used in different ways, the metallic and nonmetallic states of matter cannot be distinguished unambiguously;
• say that the demarcation of the chemical elements into metals and non-metals dates back to the dawn of Dmitri Mendeleev's construction of the periodic table, whereas it in fact dates back to Lavoisier;
• say that gray tin (α-tin) has no metallic properties at all, which is not true since gray-tin has the electronic band structure of a semi-metal;
• refer to the Mott parameter, which results in Po being expected to be nonmetal, whereas it's a metal;
• refer to the Goldhammer–Herzfeld metallization/polarization catastrophe criterion, which results in Si being counted as a metal.

I suggest that these parts of their article were not well thought through.

— Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit harsh. I don't see what's the problem with referring to the Mott parameter or Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion. Okay, they are not perfect at explaining the experimental observations. So? The nuclear shell model is not perfect either. Is any theory perfect? A single failure in each is honestly quite excellent! (And the fact that it's polonium for the Mott parameter makes it even more so, since it immediately suggests that part of the problem is not considering relativistic corrections. Quite forgivable if you ask me.)

I also don't see why there would be tears from using Mott's criterion of "does it conduct at 0 K". The only problem is that elements are not the same as the phases they form, but you can always take the Steudel approach and include C and As for completeness since diamond and arsenolamprite are stable enough. Then it simply becomes "for completeness, we're including any element that forms a nonmetallic phase that's willing to stay that way". Why wouldn't one mention both dioxygen and ozone when tabulating properties of the elements, anyway? Arblaster's Selected Values of the Crystallographic Properties of Elements does exactly that, for instance. Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested on tentative proposal

Feedback requested on tentative proposal

@YBG, Ldm1954, Johnjbarton, and Double sharp:

I'm not an expert in the nonmetal field, but I've developed my understanding of the relevant and related literature to the point where I feel I can propose a potential way forward, considering recent discussions.

In this context, I suggest creating a list article with the following title:

List of nonmetal and related meanings

The contents would include:

Nonmetal in general use

Draft summary: "Nonmetals are chemical elements that mostly lack the distinctive characteristics of metals. They are usually poor conductors of heat and electricity and have high ionization energies and electronegativities."

Link: Nonmetal

Nonmetal in physics

Draft summary: To be further developed, based on current content in Nonmetallic materials.

Link: Not currently applicable

Nonmetal in astronomy

Draft summary: "In astronomy, nonmetals refer to hydrogen and helium, all other elements prevalent in stars and interstellar space being regarded as metals."

Link: Nonmetal (astronomy) —> Metallicity

Nonmetal in metallurgy

Draft summary: "When distinguishing nonmetals from metals, the latter are characterised by the presence of free electrons in their structures, and electrical conductivity decreasing when temperature decreases. Chemically, metals have alkaline hydroxides. More broadly, nonmetals include structural plastics, structural ceramics, and possibly metal-nonmetal composites."

Link: Not currently applicable

Comment: The source is, Chandler H (ed.) 1998, Metallurgy for the Non-metallurgist, ASM International, Materials Park. OH, pp. 242, 154:

metal. (1) An opaque lustrous elemental chemical substance that is a good conductor of heat and electricity and, when polished, a good reflector of light. Most elemental metals are malleable and ductile and are, in general, denser than the other elemental substances. (2) As to structure, metals may be distinguished from nonmetals by their atomic binding and electron availability. Metallic atoms tend to lose electrons from the outer shells, the positive ions thus formed being held together by the electron gas produced by the separation. The ability of these "free electrons" to carry an electric current, and the fact that this ability decreases as temperature increases, establish the prime distinctions of a metallic solid. (3) From a chemical viewpoint, an elemental substance whose hydroxide is alkaline. (4) An alloy.

Nonmetals...include structural plastics, structural ceramics, and possibly metal-nonmetal composites...

Nonmetallic materials in materials science

Draft summary: "In materials science, nonmetallic materials encompass solid and liquid compounds and elements that do not exhibit the properties of metals. These materials include ceramics, polymers, and certain composites."

Link: Materials science, with some mention of the five types of engineering materials other than "Metals and alloys", and several relevant citations mentioning “nonmetallic materials”.

*     *     *

This proposal would involve:

• deleting Nonmetal (disambiguation);
  
• retitling Nonmetallic materials to List of nonmetal and related meanings; and
  
• adjusting and reusing some of the existing content of Nonmetallic materials.

I'm particularly conscious of the work that Ldm1954 has put into Nonmetallic materials which, in a roundabout way, may well turn out to be quite useful.

I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions on this proposal. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point. For the moment let's ignore exact names, that can come later. The first key point is that the three sections Nonmetals in materials, Nonmetals in metallurgy and Nonmetals in physics should be merged.

1. Metallurgy is now a subdiscipline of Materials Science.
2. Materials science is an interdisciplinary field which was deliberately created in the 1950's to include many aspects of Chemistry, Physics as well as to include as subfields Metallurgy, Ceramics, Polymers, Semiconductors and more recently Biomaterials.

Some relevant sources are

• The short encyclopedic article in
• The history, quite detailed by Moody and Martin in
• Early National Academies article about some of the original large scale US funding.
• A nice overview of early days by Mori Fine (who invented the word "materials science") and Harris Marcus.

Please vote Accept Merge or Reject Merge first.

refs
References

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thanks. It'll take me some time to consider the merits of your merge proposal. This will include reading your (what look to be) interesting cites. -- Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I presume by "Nonmetals in materials" you mean "Nonmetals in materials science". Combining "in materials science" and "in metallurgy" seems obvious to a layman; "in physics" does not seem so obvious to me, but I will go with whatever consensus arises. YBG (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did mean that. I will interpret your comment as Accept Merge Ldm1954 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes ... but. On further consideration, we are talking here about definitions. The band gap definition clearly belongs to Physics, but far less clearly to Materials Science and Metallurgy. In these two applied technology disciplines, a definition based on macro physical properties seems more appropriate than microscopic band gaps. YBG (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry YBG, your definition of MSE is incorrect. Materials science is multidisciplinary, combining chemistry and physics, with subareas including metallurgy, ceramics, polymers, semiconductors and biomaterials; materials engineering is the applied discipline. In materials science we teach solid-state physics (see this list), I taught our undergrad class 351 using Kittel as one of the two textbooks, adding Ashcroft and Mermin for the graduate class 405 . There are other classes with a more chemistry approach such as 336 Chemical Synthesis of Materials for undergrads.

Materials science is not an isolated box, it is a Venn diagram. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

To the extent that materials science engineering and metallurgy overlap with physics, they overlap with applied physics. But when I speak of physics without an adjective I don’t mean applied physics. And when I hear about band gaps and and fermi levels, I think I’ve left the field of applied physics. Hence it seems reasonable to lump metallurgy and materials science engineering together, and I’d be fine with expanding this to include applied physics, but it seems discordant to include (unmodified) physics, much less microscopic properties such as band gaps and fermi levels. That’s all I’m saying. YBG (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh I think a better target article name would be List of definitions of nonmetal or List of nonmetal definitions or Alternative nonmetal definitions and that it should be considered a set index article. Furthermore, IMO this is one of the cases where it is good to have both a (dab) page and a SIA, hence, I think we're better off retaining nonmetal (disambiguation).

If you are wondering about the weird placement of my response, it is because I use the nifty Reply feature to respond to particular posts YBG (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: I suggested/suggest the name needs to be “List of nonmetal and related meanings” to properly accommodate “nonmetallic materials”. No disambiguation page will be needed given the hatnote for Nonmetal will say, “This article is about the chemical elements. For other uses, including in astronomy, materials science, and physics, see List of nonmetal and related meanings". Sorry if my reasoning was not apparent. — Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh

(1) Please explain why this is needed to accommodate nonmetallic materials.

(2) Your proposed title scans poorly. It is not at all clear to me what the title is supposed to mean. If my proposed alternative is unacceptable to you, please try to provide some clearer alternatives that are acceptable to you.

(3) A disambiguation page would be very helpful because it would be much briefer.

— YBG (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: Upon reviewing WP:SAL I agree with you. “List of nonmetal definitions” could work. The lede of the list article would summarise the definitions in the same brief way as a disambiguation article. — Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Accept merge. The separation of these fields is artificial. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no relationship between this proposal and the problematic pre-FAC article Nonmetal. Issues with Nonmetallic materials and Nonmetal (disambiguation) should be discussed on those pages. The proposal here is complicated and discussing it on an page not involved just makes it impossible to sort out. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton, I think it will connect to this page in the end. For the moment can you please just vote on my Merge. Maybe we can achieve consensus on one thing, which is a small step forward. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ldm1954 that it will connect to this page in the end. Thanks to Ldm154 for recognising the spirit of attempting a small step forward. @Johnjbarton: I'll respond separately to your comment. --- Sandbh (talk)! Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I feel that the relationship between this proposal and the pre-FAC article nonmetal is an attempt to position the latter in the context of the broader picture of nonmetal "space". Yes, the proposal has some complexity in terms of the explanation of the proposed list article and its knock-on consequences. That said, if the nonmetal space is going to be sorted out so that it has stability, some effort in carefully understanding and considering the proposal will be worth the effort. --- Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Reference 1, being from the New World Encyclopedia, is not a reliable source. It is, rather, [Quote]: an Internet encyclopedia that, in part, selects and claims to rewrite certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification Church values. It "aims to organize and present human knowledge in ways consistent with our natural purposes" and "to promote knowledge that leads to happiness, well-being, and world peace". [Unquote]. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference 2 notes that the roots of materials science are in metallurgy; the article does not mention that metallurgy is a subdiscipline of materials science. The article does not explicitly mention "nonmetallic materials". --- Sandbh (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference 3 confines its remit to condensed matter i.e. gases are excluded. Metals are mentioned 46 times but no mention is made of nonmetals or nonmetallic materials. It cites this source:

National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering, 1974, Materials and man's needs, Summary Report

This source, on page xxiii, states, "Materials science and engineering…intimately combines knowledge of the condensed state of matter with the real world of material function and performance." i.e. gases are excluded.

Page 26 states

Subjects within the shaded sector above [Figure 2] are considered to be in the field of materials science and engineering. Subjects partly or wholly outside the sector are involved in the field to varying degrees. COSMAT estimates, for example, that among the 150,000 chemists in the country, there are the equivalent of 50,000 chemists working ful1 time in materials. (Ilustration adapted from Mineral Science and Technology: Non-metallic Materials, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. 1969, page 12.)

The subjects in the shaded sector are:

Mechanical, Chemical, Metallurgy, Civil, Ceramics, Electrical, Polymers, Nuclear, Aerospace

Physics and Chemistry are shown as being mostly outside of the field. Math is completely outside of the field.

Page 193 has a table that says, "Priority ratings for basic research in materials science and engineering arranged according to specialities". Under classes of materials is includes, Nonmetallic elements and compounds.

Reference 4 discusses what is material science and engineering. It is fair to surmise from this article that materials science overlaps with chemistry and physics. Page 11 notes, "In some universities, materials science was combined into the metallurgical engineering department" i.e. rather than metallury being combined into a materials science department. --- Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reject merge (provisonal). The materials science conception of nonmetallic materials generally excludes gases. OTOH, the physics-based notion of a nonmetal as tending to show nil conductance at T = 0 does apply to gases such as e.g. H, He, CO₂ and SF₆ since these are either solid or liquid at T = 0. As to metallurgy, (1) metallurgy is stand-alone field; (2) a pea under the matress is graphite which is a metal, according to the cited definition of a metal in metallurgy namely, "An opaque lustrous elemental chemical substance that is a good conductor of heat and electricity and, when polished, a good reflector of light"; and (3) oxygen, a nonmetal,^ is used in processes such as steelmaking (basic oxygen steelmaking) where it reacts with impurities to form slag, yet oxygen is not recognised as a nonmetallic material in materials science (since it's a gas).

^ Here's an example of the recognition of O as a nonmetal in metallurgy: "Basic metallurgy. A metallothermic reduction of a metal compound is possible when the reductant metal has a greater affinty for the nonmetal element in the compound than the desired metal. In various branches of metallurgy, the nonmetal may be a halogen, sulfur or oxygen." Habishi F (ed.) 2007, Handbook of Extractive Metallurgy, vol 1, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, p. 407

There thus appears to be citable differences between the conceptions of a nonmetal in materials science; physics; and metallurgy. AFAIK there is no unified citable concept, in the literature, of a nonmetal across these three fields, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

My vote is provisional, meaning subject to the thoughts of others. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I provided the 4 references as examples to point out how MSE originated, and that deliberately it includes aspects of solid-state physics. It is unfortunate that you are rejecting that MSE undergrad/grad programs teach solid-state physics using texts such as Ashcroft and Mermin and/or Kittel, and that exactly the same approach is used in materials science, metallurgy and physics. If you are uncertain about this, please check the course selection of the 132 ranked US Departments or the 420 in the world rankings. Science is not a set of boxes, it is overlapping sets. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

N.B., this is a fun explanation -- fun, I did not say it is a quotable source. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ldm1954: I haven't (to my knowledge) and don't reject that MSE undergrad/grad programs teach solid-state physics using texts such as Ashcroft and Mermin and/or Kittel, and that exactly the same approach is used in materials science, metallurgy and physics. My perception of science is that science mostly sticks to whatever field is the expertise in question, with some exceptions among more englightened folk who explore more interdisciplinary approaches, hence some overlapping can occur, consistent with your reference 3.

The salient point is instead, as I wrote above:

"There thus appears to be citable differences between the conceptions of a nonmetal in materials science; physics; and metallurgy. AFAIK there is no unified citable concept, in the literature, of a nonmetal across these three fields, but I'd be happy to be corrected."

This is quite different from the fact that the three fields in question teach solid-state physics using the same approach. If that is the case, then there is neverthelss no citable evidence of a unified concept of what a nonmetal is. Quite the contrary in fact.

On a related note, it seems to me that the differing conceptions of nonmetals have a more or less chronological sequence:

• Chemistry: 1789 (Lavoisier)
• Astronomy: late 19th C?
• Physics: 1930s?
• Materials science: 1940s
• Metallurgy: 1960s?

More grist for the mill of the prosed list.

The 1960s date for Metallurgy is a wild guess based on the earliest reliable metallurgical sources I've found so far referring to nonmetals in the context of metals. One would think, that metallurgy would have thought about the notion of what a nonmetal is at some earlier point in its development, but that doesn't seem to be the case (so far).

As far as my list article proposal goes, I put it to you that it could go ahead and, if it can subsequently be established in reliable sources that there is in fact a unified concept of what a nonmetal is in two or more of the five fields, the list could be adjusted accordingly. How does that sound to you? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, In earlier discussions, I recall your strong argument that metalloids should be considered nonmetals since linguistically "nonmetal" means "not a metal". This leads me to side laymen who understand "nonmetal" to include everything that is not a metal.

@Sandbh, this note is only intended to prompt your thinking, so whether you find this helpful or not, please do not be tempted to write a lengthy response, as I fear that would only derail the discussion at hand. I nearly didn't post this for fear of such derailment.

-- YBG (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh IMO the section header Nonmetal in general use is OK as a placeholder@, but should be replaced with something less ambiguous and more NPOV. (1) Less ambiguous because unlike astronomy//metallurgy//materials-science//physics, one must read more than the section header Nonmetal in general use to understand its context. OTOH the context of Nonmetal in the periodic table is immediately clear. (2) More NPOV because Nonmetal in general use presupposes a view not held by all; but even those who say the primary/general meaning of "nonmetal" is "nonmetallic element" would know what the section header Nonmetal in the periodic table means.

Note: This refers to section headers in this list of definitions article, irrespective of how the article title dispute is resolved.

-- YBG (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made a somewhat similar suggestion under #A_new_compromise_proposal. Rather than a list article I am proposing a summary-style, so the items suggested by @Sandbh would all get paragraphs explaining their relationship to "nonmetal". I think this was any way intended.

The two big differences: 1) it would be this article, 2) the element content would also be summarized per element. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal and related meanings (inc. electrochemistry)

I'd've thought that physics would've referred to nonmetals as semiconductors or insulators but it turns put that this instead occurs in electrochemistry (see meaning 2 below, 1973).

For reference, please find hereafter a summary of the five to six "nonmetal or related" meanings in 1. metallurgy; 2. chemistry; 3. astronomy; 4. physics; and 5. materials science. I’ve included extracts from the literature, where possible.

The entries are arranged in chronological order of (loosely) either their field or the earliest date from which the applicable notion seems to have originated.

Corrections and clarifications welcome.

Meanings summary

1. Metallurgy (1556) When distinguishing nonmetals from metals, the latter are characterised by the presence of free electrons in their structures, and electrical conductivity decreasing when temperature decreases. Chemically, metals have alkaline hydroxides. More broadly, nonmetals include structural plastics, structural ceramics, and possibly metal-nonmetal composites. See: Chandler H (ed.) 1998, Metallurgy for the Non-metallurgist, ASM International, Materials Park. OH, pp. 242, 154 2. Chemistry (1789) Chemical elements that mostly lack the distinctive characteristics of metals. This is the general defintion found in dictionaries. Nonmetals have low densities and high electronegativity. See: Moeller T 1958, Qualitative Analysis: An Introduction to Equilibrium and Solution Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 11. 178 (low density and high EN) There's also: "In a pure nonmetal, i.e., a semiconductor or an insulator, the uppermost or "conduction" band is empty, whereas all others below it are completely occupied." Vijh AK 1973, Electrochemistry of Metals and Semiconductors: The Application of Solid State Science to Electrochemical Phenomena, volume 3 of Monographs in electroanalytical chemistry and electrochemistry, M Dekker, New York, p. 4. 3. Astronomy (late 19th C?) Hydrogen and helium, all other elements prevalent in stars and interstellar space being regarded as metals. “Metals: (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand, photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant." Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. p. 22. 4. Physics (1930?) A material in which conductance tends to zero at T = 0. See: Davis EA 1998, Nevill Mott: Reminiscences And Appreciations, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 255 At T = 0, there is also: "In nonmetals, the energy bands are either completely filled or completely empty, and in metals, ar east one band is partially filled." Zabet-Khosousi J & Dhiriani A-A 2011, Coupling in metallic nanoparticles: Approaches to optical nanoparticles, in Sattler KD, Handbook of Nanophysics: Nanoparticles and Quantum Dots, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p. 25-2 5. Nonmetallic materials in materials science (1940s?) Nonmetallic materials encompass solid and liquid compounds and elements that do not exhibit the properties of metals. These materials include ceramics, polymers, and certain composites. While there are many mentions of “non-metallic materials” in the literature, it is the Aims & Scope statement for Nature Materials that clarifies that "materials" generally exclude gases (e.g. H, He, CO2, SF6): Nature Materials is a monthly multi-disciplinary journal aimed at bringing together cutting-edge research across the entire spectrum of materials science and engineering. Materials research is a diverse and fast-growing discipline, which has moved from a largely applied, engineering focus to a position where it has an increasing impact on other classical disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology. Nature Materials covers all applied and fundamental aspects of the synthesis/processing, structure/composition, properties and performance of materials, where "materials" are identified as substances in the condensed states (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends."

--- Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• It does not seem useful to try and match the different definitions with specific fields. Physical metallurgy is a subfield materials science (ref), so #5 should coincide with #1, if there was a single generally agreed definition of metal/nonmetal on that field. "Physics" (more properly condensed matter physics) and materials science also have a large overlap, and it seems impossible to make an distinction between the two. For example, when people working in departments of condensed matter physics publish in Nature Materials, which field does concept of metal they employ belong to?
• It also seems wrong to take few publications and extrapolate from them some general statement about the field. Instead, such generalizations should be sourced, as is done with astrophysics, for which there are statements in the literature saying that their concept of a 'metallicity' is distinct from the common concept of metal. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jähmefyysikko: Thanks for clarifying your position. I'll give some thought to your comments and see if I can work things out. Will post more later. – Sandbh (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looking forward to it. It may also be useful to consider the PhySH classification scheme used by the American Physical Society. Notably, one of the disciplines is "Condensed Matter, Materials & Applied", suggesting that the demarcation between these disciplines might be too arbitrary to be useful. In the scheme, "Metals" is a physical system studied in that wide discipline. On the other hand, perhaps this taxonomy is too mute to be useful for anything in this discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jähmefyysikko: I suggest the most important consideration in the proposed list is the varying meanings, and that these could be listed from general to more specific.

  Nonmetal

  1. Chemical elements that mostly lack the distinctive characteristics of metals. This is the general definition found in dictionaries. Nonmetals have low densities and high electronegativity.

  2. A semiconductor or insulator.

  3. A material in which conductance tends to zero at T = 0.

  4. In astronomy, the elements hydrogen and helium, all other elements prevalent in stars and interstellar space being regarded as metals.

  Nonmetallic material

  5. Solid and liquid compounds and elements that do not exhibit the properties of metals. These materials include ceramics, polymers, and certain composites.

  The nonmetal article’s hatnote would read, "This article is about the chemical elements. For other notions of nonmetals and related meanings, see List of nonmetal and related meanings." Sandbh (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, better without labels. But now it seems #2 and #3 are equivalent. For materials with gapped electronic spectrum (insulators and semiconductors), current flows due to thermal population of electrons on the conduction band and holes on the valence band. These populations vanish at T=0, so the current cannot flow. If one goes beyond band theory, then #3 might be more general, depending on whether "insulators" in #2 includes Mott insulators or only refers to the (non-interacting) band structure, but #2 would still be contained within it. Or am I confusing something? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jähmefyysikko: Thanks. As I understand it, #2 and #3 are disimilar in that 2 applies at any T whereas 3 applies only at T = 0. Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. Despite appearances, #3 is not really confined to T=0. Most materials undergo some phase transition at low enough temperatures, yet we still use the criterion #3 to classify the "high-temperature" phases by studying the temperature dependence of the resistivity and projecting to T=0. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  For verification, see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0282 page 943. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Jähmefyysikko That article is interesting and partly useful. It reads in part:

  • "Over a period of more than half a century, Prof. Sir Nevill Mott pioneered the development of key concepts, models and theories for discussing the fundamental problem of metals versus non-metals (insulators and semiconductors)."
  • "Following Mott, we designate metals and non-metals as the states of matter at T=0 K (excluding superconductors). Thus, at absolute zero, insulators and semiconductors are non-metals."

  The 1st dot point is the second time I've seen an explicit connection made in the literature between nonmetals, and insulators and semiconductors.

  The 2nd dot point is somewhat less than helpful as to why it needs to say that, "at absolute zero, insulators and semiconductors are non-metals." Surely, in ambient to near-ambient conditions, insulators and semiconductors are nonmetals? T = 0 seems to be more practical for a metal-nonmetal distinction i.e. a metal conducts; a nonmetal doesn't. In ambient conditions the distinction becomes more nuanced i.e. between metals, and semiconductors (where thermal influences become important), and insulators (which remain non-conductive).

  Does this clarify the situation? --- Sandbh (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Edwards rephrases the definition on page 943: "In this work following Mott we therefore use the term 'metal' to describe materials and substances in which the conductivity tends to a finite value for T = 0 K and nonmetal to describe those for which the conductivity tends to zero at the limit of T=0 K" (underlining mine). A definition at absolute zero would be experimentally quite unhelpful, since it can never be reached. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jähmefyysikko: I've drafted a "List of nonmetal meanings", here, taking into account our discussions in this thread. How does it look to you? --- Sandbh (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I think prefer the current organization of pages. It seems more useful for navigation, and more aligned with WP conventions. With this list, there are multiple problems:

  • I still think #2 and #3 are the same definition, or at least close enough to be discussed in the same entry. And most likely they should be discussed together with the more amorphous definition of a "nonmetallic material", which may also include considerations of mechanical properties, not only conductivity.
  • Hatnotes are mostly unhelpful here. Absolute zero or materials science are not useful for the reader interested in this topic.
  • Some entries rely on long quotations, which is not not the preferred style. In contrast, the dab page entries do not need to define the subject exhaustively and can be kept short.
  • The title "Nonmetallic material" seems more natural than "List of nonmetal meanings". Also I think it is better to focus on the concept (the class of materials), and not on the terminology. Of course terminology is important in order to establish boundaries on what to include in the article, but it is not usually the central topic. Currently the article Nonmetallic material also focuses heavily on terminology, but I think that can be fixed.

  Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko: Thanks for your further thoughts and patience.

The current organisation of pages (which is fragmented) alongside the proposed organisation is:

Current (fragmented)	Proposed (streamlined)
Nonmetal Nonmetallic material Nonmetal (astronomy) -- > Metallicity Nonmetal (disambiguation)	Nonmetal Nonmetallic material ^ List of nonmetal meanings

^ = sharpened focus

The current organisation is fragmented since related information is spread across different pages. The proposed organisation streamlines navigation by centralising different meanings of nonmetals into a single "List of nonmetal meanings" page. This approach reduces fragmentation and provides a clearer pathway for users to find the specific context they are interested in.

The "sharpened focus" qualifier for Nonmetallic material means that e.g. the content re nonmetals in astronomy should be removed. This is because "nonmetallic material" has a specific meaning in a materials science context, one that has no relation to nonmetals in astronomy.

As far as WP conventions go, the proposed list is a Wikipedia: Stand-alone list. I've edited it to make its appearance somewhat more consistent with such a list, such as Lists of mathematics topics.

Re your list of multiple problems:

• I understand your point about the related nature of #2 and #3. However, combining these definitions might lead to an overly complex entry for the general reader. I feel it's important to distinguish the broader category of semiconductors and insulators from the specific condition of conductivity approaching absolute zero. Regarding nonmetallic materials, discussing their mechanical and other properties alongside electrical characteristics would indeed create a "too much information" omnibus entry. For clarity and ease of understanding, I suggest keeping these entries distinct.
• The wikilinks in the article are the best currently available, as far as I could discern. I agree they aren't really useful to the reader. In a sense they're the equivalent of red links. They represent an invitation to add more relevant content to the article at the end of the wikilink or to hive off the same into a new article.
• The quotations are there to illustrate usage of the term in the literature; in this context there's no preferred style that I'm aware of.
• The title, "Nonmetallic material" would not work since "nonmetallic materials" excludes gases.

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A few thoughts

1. I still believe that a disambiguation page would be useful. Because of its brevity, it makes an ideal target for hatnotes, so the reader doesn’t need to wade through a long article to find the meaning sought
2. A more all-inclusive name could be nonmetallic substance(s?) if such an article is desired

— YBG (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC on discovery of the 23 nonmetals

Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article? Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Considerations
1. WP:FAC criteria: Criterion 1b states that an FAC article is, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

2. Encyclopedic relevance: Content about the discovery of nonmetals has been part of the article since 2015. Throughout nine FAC nominations, there have been no objections or comments about its inclusion. After nearly a decade, it is unlikely that such content has suddenly become non-notable. Removing such information could be seen as knowledge censorship, which contradicts Wikipedia's principles.

3. Historical context: WP is an encyclopedia which means that it represents an organised compilation of collected facts. Given the subject matter of the nonmetal article, it follows that information about the discovery of the nonmetals is relevant. Indeed, there would be nothing to write about nonmetals but for their discovery. This includes the discovery of He off-planet; P as by-product of attempting to create the fabled philosopher's stone; and the discovery of F which killed some chemists along the way. These are notable items in the consolidated history of the discovery of nonmetals.

4. Discovery dates: The section is organised into two subsections:

• Nonmetals discovered before the concept chemical elements and nonmetals.
  
• Nonmetals discovered after these concepts were established.

This organisation provides clarity and context, showing the evolution of understanding regarding nonmetals.

5. Discovery methods: The discovery dates are accompanied by the methods used, where known. This is significant as it highlights patterns, such as:

• noble gases primarily extracted from air;
• halogens discovered via their halides;
• the variegated unclassified nonmetals via equally variegated methods; and
• nonmetals sometimes called metalloids via thermal extraction.

Expecting the general reader to piece together this knowledge from 23 separate articles is impractical and non-encyclopedic. This section consolidates important information for easier comprehension.

6. List-like content: The content of the section is to some degree list-like, as can be found in sections of numerous Wikipedia articles.

!Votes
Oppose removal. --- As RfC initiator. Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove. A key point has previously been made by @Johnjbarton in a prior section #Discovery, to repeat it:

The section in History called "Discovery" isn't about the discovery of "nonmetal". As the immediately following section makes clear, the concept of "nonmetal" dates from the late 1700s. In my opinion this section should be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a further discussion in #"Discovery of applicable elements" article section where a second point is made:

@Sandbh You know I do not agree. You have gone over and over this. I am not convinced and I don't see anyone else being convinced. Factoids about elements before the concept of nonmetal elements or even the concept of chemical elements was invented is off topic and distracts the reader from the core concept. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2024

I supported the deletion then, and still do now. It really is not relevant what was in the article many years ago, Wikipedia is dynamic and evolves. There is already a significant article Discovery of chemical elements, this page should focus on the nonmetallic elements and off-topic factoids need to be removed or heavily edited. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove Off-topic fluff. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove per Ldm1954. This is not about the history of the classification "nonmetal". Though I might agree to a hatnote pointing readers interested in the discoveries of the individual elements to Discovery of chemical elements. Double sharp (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Include as discovery of the included elements is significant to the topic. The discovery section also shows the diverse methods of production and identification of nonmetals. Graeme Bartlett (talk)

• Remove. Off-topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC).
• Remove, this is just the discovery of individual elements, there's nothing there that's intrinsic to them being non-metals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Retain. The argument for removal is unconvincing; it appears to be based on the idea that this article should include only information about "the concept of nonmetal" and that any data about individual members of this small class seem to be pejoratively termed "fluff" and "factoids".

The long-standing inclusion of this information is germane in that it establishes a long-standing wp:consensus. While consensus can change; this happens through a discussion that results in a new consensus. The bold/revert/discuss strategy is a proven method for resolving such issues without edit warring.

Throughout this discussion, @Sandbh has made multiple attempts to tweak the presentation to meet the concerns raised, but the deletionists seem to remain uncompromisingly fixed that this information has no place in this article.

If no new consensus arises through this RfC, the long established consensus stands. If a new consensus arises, I encourage @Sandbh to find a new home for this information: either a new article or a new section in Discovery of chemical elements YBG (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@YBG Sorry, but I disagree with your characterization of my role in this discussion. As I have previous discussed in one of the many times this content was discussed, I am not against including some discussion of the elements that informed the historical efforts leading to the creation of the category "nonmetal elements". That is what we need. I did not and do not claim that "any data about individual" nonmetal elements is fluff. But this is not what we are discussing. This is not a few sentences placed in the context of the article content. This is not even a WP:SUMMARY paragraph. It is a long section with ancillary footnotes. It detracts from the article mission.

@Sandbh has repackaged this material and reinserted it even after multiple editors objected. The same arguments then ensued. I have proposed a compromise that was ignored. My terse "fluff" comment on this RFC derives from my frustration at the unending discussions with zero progress.

The concept that existence creates a consensus is no where to be found in WP:consensus. This idea was made up. There is no consensus to include this material.

I agree that this material may indeed be suitable in an article like discovery of chemical elements. One of my previous points was that this article is part of a bigger picture like a chapter in a book. The entire contents of the book does not need to be jammed in here. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood you as I did not understand how this objection would not equally apply to other "fluff" or "factoids" about individual elements.

I agree, existence does not imply consensus. But WP:CONSENSUS at WP:EDITCON says Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Years of editing and multiple GA/FA reviews without this objection IMO constitute an implicit consensus. New editors have objected, so a formal RfC consensus is sought. If no RfC consensus arises, the previous implicit consensus stands.

— YBG (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I just read the comments from the last two FAR. I do not think that they provide a general consensus for what is in the article, in fact the statement that the article contains too many factoids has history. Interestingly the point about band gaps (which @Sandbh has objected to) goes back to Oct 2023 for certain. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. And right now, a clear majority is for removal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb I wholeheartedly agree. My point is that it is a form of consensus, and can only be overturned by a stronger form. Not sure a consensus is established simply by a majority of WP:!VOTEs.

In any event, what I see developing here is not actually a consensus for removal, but rather a consensus to retain this information but interweave it into the history of the development of the concept. There are at least two possible approaches here:

1. Say nothing about discovery except interspersed in the section about the development of the context.
2. Describe the history of discovery first, then refer back to it in the following section about the development of the concept

I think both approaches are valid; I would leave the decision up to editorial discretion. But it seems most commenters here argue against (2); in fact, a bare unqualified remove would argue against both approaches. But I reckon most of the remove !voters would be quite happy with (1).

—- YBG (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be OK with (1) (said so below) so long as it is updated to modern thinking. Others, please yea or nay Ldm1954 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: @Double sharp: Yes, the subject content isn't about the history of the classification "nonmetal". That is why the content appears in its own section, "Discovery of applicable elements", after the section called "Taxonomical history". In this context, could you please reconsider your !vote? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Include some history, not necessarily in current form. Historical understanding of what a metL or non-metal was, was inevitably different and certainly evolved, so it is generally inappropriate to force modern concepts and classification on to historical events, it never works. A History section needs to describe events plainly, selecting as relevant those connected to understanding. The discoveries of what are today seen as non-metals are necessary to the growth of this understanding (or nobody would've come to the issue), but not sufficient, i.e. they are only a preliminary to the growth in understanding, which is the main thing to be explained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Chiswick Chap, a comment. There is already a separate section Nonmetal#Taxonomical history which I think discusses exactly what you are referring to, namely evolution of the terms. I personally think that section could be slightly tighter, but I feel it has a place and nobody has suggested deleting it. What we are debating here is something different, namely the discovery of the 23 elements as a completely separate and independent section. The debatable section was placed after the Taxonomy section, with all the content already present in more detail in Discovery of chemical elements. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I discussed two things above. The Taxonomical history seems to cover the history of the concept, but not of discovery, which must as I said have preceded that of the concept. I'd have thought some sort of account of discovery is also necessary. Clearly here the finding of substances in nature (or by chemical analysis) cannot be fully separated from development of concept, since finding some yellow stuff does not mean you know you have a nonmetal element - it might be in modern terms a compound - so it would make more sense to weave the "discoveries" into the Taxonomical history. You may well be right that the debatable material is excessive for this purpose; but the current history may also be somewhat too light on the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a remove and rewrite where the discoveries are weaved into the Taxonomy indicating how this influenced the interpretation of the term nonmetallic element. This would also be a way to introduce how the understanding of metal/not a metal changed in the 20th century from early band structure to more recent strongly correlated electrons and many-body physics/chemistry. Such a modification would both retain the focus on the topic and also connect to current research. I could draft the latter section if a concensus emerges. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this issue is nuanced, and not a slam dunk. In my opinion "nonmetal elements" cannot be "discovered". This is conceptual category, arrived at by analysis across a significant number of elements. This is a result of analysis, not something you find. Discovery of any one element tells you not at thing about the category. Only after you have many elements and in particular a large number of metals does the category emerge. Thus the key historical input is the elements that triggered the discussion of the category. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  That "nonmetal elements" cannot be "discovered" is why the section in question is called "Discovery of applicable elements". This further explains why the section starts as follows:

  "While the concept of a chemical element came to fruition during the 18th and 19th centuries, some elements now classified as nonmetals (or sometimes as metalloids) were known and used from as early as antiquity, even if they were not recognized as such at the time."

  While it was the elements involved that led to the establishment of the category, they had to be first discovered. Given the intrinsic properties of nonmetals are elaborated elsewhere in the article, including a historical commentary about the discovery of relevant elements is justified.

  Historical commentary provides context to the scientific process and the evolution of chemical knowledge. Understanding when and how elements were discovered gives insight into the challenges and methodologies of early chemistry. Including historical anecdotes adds a human dimension to the scientific narrative, making the story of nonmetals more engaging and relatable. It alludes to the perseverance and ingenuity of the scientists involved.

  In terms of historical content, there are a few other items worth elaborating:

  • Phosphorus: Discovered as a by-product of attempting to create the fabled philosopher's stone, which was a legendary substance in alchemy believed to transform base metals into gold. This discovery illustrates the transition from alchemy to early chemistry.
  • Hydrogen: The discovery of hydrogen led to the development of acid-base chemistry, a fundamental area of study in chemistry.
  • Helium: Discovered off-planet before on-planet, highlighting the overlap between astronomy, spectroscopy, and chemistry. This demonstrates how advancements in one field can drive progress in another.
  • Noble Gases: The completely unanticipated discovery of the noble gases forced a rethink of the accepted understanding of the periodic table at the time, as these elements initially seemed to have no place within it. Additionally, nitrogen was referred to as the original "noble gas" before the discovery of the noble gases, due to its relatively inert nature.
  • Metalloids: The discovery of nonmetals sometimes counted as metalloids, such as silicon and germanium, subsequently enabled the establishment of the semiconductor industry in the 1950s and the development of solid-state electronics from the early 1960s.

  While maintaining an objective and factual tone is crucial for Wikipedia articles, integrating the human dimension where appropriate can enrich the content and provide a fuller picture of the historical and scientific narrative. — Sandbh (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  The history of non-metal is exactly the same as the history of metals because non-metals are exactly that. Not metals. Go back in 10000 BC. Is water a metal? No. Then water is a non-metal. Is air a metal? No. Air is a non-metal.

  As refine your definitions of metals, so do non-metals get refined. There is never any discovery about non-metals made here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  The scope of the article is the chemical elements that are not metals, rather than the term "nonmetal" itself. This aligns with the most common understanding of the term and adheres to Wikipedia's title naming conventions.

  I understand your point that nonmetals, as elements distinct from metals, have always existed. Including these historical narratives does not contradict this idea but rather provides a fuller picture of how they came to be understood as they are today. This historical perspective is valuable for readers and enhances the article by adding depth and context.

  The history of the discovery of what we now call metals and nonmetals is quite different. The discovery of the seven recognised metals in antiquity has no parallel. The early 19th-century discovery of metals that floated on water shattered the millennia-old conception of metals as ponderous substances. Additionally, I’ve previously mentioned the tumult caused by the discovery of the noble gases regarding their placement in the periodic table.

  Including these historical narratives enriches the article by illustrating the scientific process and the evolution of chemical knowledge. This context helps readers appreciate the challenges and breakthroughs that have shaped our modern understanding of nonmetals. — Sandbh (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  According to @Sandbh:

  • "The scope of the article is the chemical elements that are not metals,"

  That is not correct. The article is about the category of elements referred to as the nonmetals. An article about a collection of elements is not notable unless there are references and the references here are about the category of nonmetal elements.

  Your comments about the history of metals that float and nobles gases are only relevant if you have a source that connects these events to the scientific process leading to the creation of the category non-metals. The lack of such sources is what makes the section under discussion unsuitable. By placing this material in the article you are implying a connection that you cannot document. Any source that documents specific "challenges and breakthroughs that have shaped our modern understanding of nonmetals" would change my opinion of the proposal. So far all I hear is the same argument over and over about the same off-topic content. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  In writing that the article is about the chemical elements that are not metals, the context is that its title does not mean it is about a collection of elements—it is rather about both the constituents of the category, and the category. Humans, being incessable classifiers, attempt to sort out whatever consituents make up the kind of thing, nonmetals in this case, being studied, in order to improve their understanding of the subject matter. For nonmetals, this has been the case since at least 1844, when Dupasquier established a basic taxonomy of nonmetals to aid in their study. The nonmetal article therefore includes references to kinds of nonmetals e.g. noble gases, as well as the individual nonmetals. — Sandbh (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Retain. There is a prior implicit consensus, and we're supposed to preserve the value that others add (try to fix it rather than remove it). There was a claim that "nonmetals could not have been discovered before people knew they existed as a category"; to me, this is equivalent to saying "no elements could have been discovered before people knew they existed as a category". Given such a diverse set of ~23 elements, the only thing that makes them a category is our (silly) name — the fact that they are so different from the rest of the elements (metals), which are all alike. So, yes, the history of their discovery is the history of discovery of each of those elements, grouped by discovery methods or periods or people who discovered them. No big deal. I'd expect the same timeline for metals in "Metal", which is something I believe we have. Ponor (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Include; I agree with Graeme Bartlett. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging past commentators on Nonmetal FACs

@Buidhe, Graham Beards, ComplexRational, Hog Farm, Double sharp, Nikkimaria, Materialscientist, Nick-D, YBG, Dirac66, Doncram, Petergans, Mirokado, CactiStaccingCrane, VanIsaac, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Ealdgyth, Guerillero, SandyGeorgia, Reaper Eternal, UndercoverClassicist, Smokefoot, Ajpolino, Licks-rocks, and Michael D. Turnbull: as past commentators on Nonmetal FACs.

Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article?

RfC is just above.

Apologies for any double notifications. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a few editors who have much more recently expressed opinions on aspects of this very extended discussion such as @Fishsicles, Ponor, Nerd1a4i, and Jähmefyysikko:. Added to be inclusive. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume that @Sandbh and @Ldm1954 included all FAC participants and all recent talk participants, and that neither list was culled inappropriately. YBG (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I culled nobody; I included everyone who has recently expressed an opinion here, and related discussions on WP:Physics & Nonmetallic materials, trying not to miss anyone. Culling obviously would be dishonest. I did not check the FAC. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

N.B., the original RfC was only posted by @Sandbh to Chemistry & Elements projects. I added Physics since they have been involved in discussions since nonmetals are very relevant in Physics. (The Materials Science project appears to be asleep.) It appears that @Sandbh has added Geology & Biology. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding @Guerillero and Serial Number 54129:

Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article?

RfC is just above.

I had some difficulty in discerning your user addresses when first compiling the list of past FAC commentators. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Kemshead reference roundly panned

While seeking to verify content in this article I learned that this reference in the history section:

• Kemshead WB 1875, Inorganic chemistry, William Collins, Sons, & Company, London

was "strongly condemned" in a review on Nature:

• Kemshead, W. B., F. G. S. Enlarged, and William Collins. "June r6, r88r J NATURE." Nature 7 (1881): 16. https://www.nature.com/articles/024139a0.pdf

Unless we have other evidence I think we should consider this source unreliable. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Unusual to see such strong language in a review.

There were 3 editions of Kemshead's work that I can see: 1873, 1877, 1881. His observation that the term "non-metal", despite its compound nature, was more precise and had become universally accepted as the nomenclature of choice, first appeared in his 1873 edition (p. 12). The citation shows as p. 13 due to a poorly reproduced "3". So I've changed it from from 1875 p. 13, to 1873 p. 12.

Kemshead's 1881 edition, according to him...

"...owes its existence to two causes:- 1st, the very favourable reception which its predecessor has received…and 2nd, by the fact that, within the last three years, such important discoveries have been made in Chemistry as to render untrue many assertions of fact formerly made, and to throw open to us a vista which may possibly revolutionise the whole science.

Presuming publishers of the time were not stupid, his comment about the popularity of the earlier editions is telling.

The Nature review refers to the 1881 edition. The reviewer wrote, in part:

"This work is a typical one. While containing much that is useful and fairly satisfactory, especially from an examination point of view, the whole tendency of the book, considered as an elementary treatise on a branch of natural science, must be strongly condemned.

The leading facts concerning the better-known non-metallic elements and compounds are succinctly stated; the principal reactions of formation and decomposition of these bodies---especially those reactions which unfortunately must be "got up" for examination purposes--are arranged in the form of equations; and the simpler arithmetical applications of such equations are illustrated by fully worked-out examples. But chemistry is more and than this: facts must be connected together by principles; the connection between fact and theory, and between theory and fact, must be revealed; these two must not be regarded as synonymous, but as mutually dependent; and the reasoning by aid of which theoretical conclusions are reached must be clearly indicated. Chemistry is neither a system of dogmatic assertions nor an accumulation of shibboleths, by the skilful use of which an examiner may make havoc among the Ephraimites crowding to the Jordan of Examination, but a living science.

The principle which is most largely used (or rather misused) in Dr. Kemshead's book is that of Valency; but valency in the hands of this author is deprived of its value as a scientific theory, and becomes an accumulation of fanciful speculations. The basis of the present work is evidently "Dr. Frankland's Lecture Notes"; hence probably the success of the book in preparing examinees for South Kensington (the present is a second and enlarged edition); and is not such success after all of more importance than training chemists or disciplining the mental powers of youth?"

The reviewer goes on for another column about valence.

I note the reviewer was complementary of Kemshead's writings about the nonmetals.

For the overall "condemnation" of the 1881 edition, the reviewer was evidently dissatisifed with Kemshead's approach to valence, a concept which was still under development at that time. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A new compromise proposal

This article has a very long and large Talk page around a few core issues. In my opinion we are not making progress. I hope readers here will consider this proposal to break the logjam.

I propose to change the article from an "Element-like" table of contents to a summary style table of contents. Let me explain my terms.

The current article reflects the organization of the Wikipedia articles on the elements in the Periodic Table. (This was more true a few months ago before we tried various changes). These articles have a formulaic organization including sections like "Properties", "Abundance" "Occurence", "Applications" and so on. This is a great strategy that I would like to see applied more uniformly to the articles on the elements. It's easier on readers and on editors.

This organization fails for lists of many elements because each section must loop through the items on the list. The result is multiple sections which amount to incoherent factoids: we don't have enough space to do justice to, for example, the issues in the abundance of Si, because we also need to include all the other elements on the list.

This organization also fails for the category because by its nature the category has no "occurrence", etc.

A summary-style article addresses this issue face on. The article consists of one-paragraph sections which begin with a main template link. Each section highlights a single topic and the reader visits the main article to learn more.

Specifically we would replace all those sections of the article which tend towards iteration over the list of elements with one major section titled "Elements" containing one one-paragraph section for each element. The summary in this paragraph would relate the linked element to the Nonmetal topic. Any content about specific elements left over would be added to the corresponding element page.

Similarly we would create a section titled "Concepts" to contain the various ways that the category has been defined and used. As with "Elements", the summary style would be used for all aspects which have existing wiki pages.

The table of contents for this organization would immediately reveal the nature of the topic: it's about both a conceptual division of the elements and those elements. I think this approach is well suited to "nonmetal". It would address my original complaints about lack of concept inclusion and "listiness," while providing a superior list-like aspect in the form of the sections for each element discussing their nonmetal-ness. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

1. I have a comment on the assertion that “… the current article reflects the organization of… articles on the elements in the Periodic Table.” Comparing element articles with Nonmetal shows this is not so. Element articles have sections on: isotopes; production; compounds; biological role; and precautions. The nonmetal article doesn’t. The nonmetal article has sections on definition and applicable elements; types; taxonomical history; and comparison of selected properties. Element articles don’t. — Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

2. Re, “This organization also fails for the category because by its nature the category has no "occurrence", etc.” The Nonmetal article encompasses the chemical elements, and their categorisation. That is why there is a section on Abundance, extraction, and use i.e. of the nonmetals involved, organised by their subcategories; and a separate section on Taxonomical history. I would expect to see no less in a WP (encyclopaedic) article on nonmetals. — Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

3. Re having, "… one major section titled "Elements" containing one one-paragraph section for each element.” The prospect of a section with 23 [!] paragraphs summarising biographical information for each nonmetal seems cumbersome and superficial. In contrast, the current structure in which essentially the same information is carefully curated by thematic relevance conveys insight and understanding of the differences involved across the four categories involved. Rote memorisation v structured understanding IOW. — Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)