Talk:Nonmetal

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)

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)

• "23 [!] paragraphs"

I agree! The Types section already has the best organization:

• noble gases
• halogens
• metalloids
• CHNOPS

All I want to do is make this section dominant over General properties and similar sections. The General properties is a mess, because the only general property of the nonmetals is mostly that they are not metals. If you take the content of General properties and move all of the Type specific content into Types, presto the article has structured understanding. That leaves the General properties to be actually general properties.

But my key point is view this article as a gateway to other articles rather than a place to stuff a lot of incidental information about 23 elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Historically not a notable concept.

I had the opportunity to visit a UC library today. I looked through more than a dozen books on the history of chemistry. This included, for example, a 4 volume, 2000+ page work JR Partington, History of Chemistry https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00309-9. I found one and only one index entry for "nonmetal" and it did not discuss the concept as history. This does not prove the concept has no historical significance, but it casts doubt and the current refs on history of the topic are weak. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If I went to the Library of Congress and looked at a dozen books on the history of the United States, I am quite certain that, even in a 2,000 plus page tome, you would find no reference to the history of the county I live in. If then the history section of the WP article on the county began with a summarizing statement that The historical development of the county was a complex spanning nearly nine decades, would you tag it {{dubious}} with a comment Historically not a notable concept? This would appear ridiculous to the half-million-plus residents, much less those who manage the local history museum.

Now, I freely admit that my analogy is a poor one, but I hope it causes you to rethink the strength of your argument.

The statement had been tagged {{citation needed}}, which is fair because while I recognize that although The widespread adoption of the term "nonmetal" followed a complex process spanning nearly nine decades is an honest attempt to write a wp:NPOV summary, it would be better if the summary were directly cited to avoid possible accusations of wp:SYNTH or wp:OR.

@Johnjbarton, I respectfully suggest that you change the tag from {{dubious}} back to {{citation needed}}. Thank you for considering this.

— YBG (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@YBG As I understand your argument, "nonmetal" is too insignificant on the scale of "history of chemistry" to mention, in the same way that your county has had no noteworthy mentions in the history of the US. I agree that is a fair analogy, and matches the title of the Topic I used. (I could quibble about Partington having lugged all four volumes off the shelf: it may have some material about your county!).

My intent in going to the library was to add refs to what I think is a weak section. I found none.

Now look back at the section. We have one paragraph on Lavoisier's work, but it barely relates to "nonmetal" as described in the article. The secondary ref makes no connection between Lavoisier's categories and the topic.

The next paragraph starts with an unsupported claim and sentences about metalloids. Again no secondary refs. One encyclopedia entry. Then the Kemshead ref I posted about before and which is not a history.

Personally I do not believe "The widespread adoption of the term "nonmetal" followed a complex process spanning nearly nine decades". I believe the term nonmetal as discussed in this article arose in the 20th century, as one of several dichotomies opposite metallic bonding, as a side effect of the understanding of chemical bonding. That would be my honest attempt at a non-POV summary, but I do not need to provide a source for this because I did not include it in the article.

I think this section would be better if Lavoisier's work were positioned as and early attempt to develop "Types" as this would be easily supported. We should give up on the idea that nonmetal in the sense of the article is an old concept. It's only true in the "there exist materials that are not metals", which we have excluded from this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton and @YBG, I do think there should be some history. However, it does need some careful checking, and I request that you try and read and verify all the cited sources.

Why? I have been going over the sources in the table that was on different definitions. I have found and read most of them. Unfortunately 10 of the sources either did not support what was in the table, were on different topics or the pages did not exist. Several were duplicates, i.e. the standard band structure explanation or "atomic conductance" which is electrical conductance in molar units. Indeed from about 1950 all the (chemistry) textbooks that go into some detail use the band structure explanation and temperature dependence of conductivity. Some NPOV rewriting is needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Everything that I have found points to the same conclusion: there is no such term as "the nonmetals" except in the narrow sense of "elements which are not metals". The nonmetals are not, in any source I have read, a category like "halogens" or "transition metals" or "lanthanides". See for example,

• Fluck, E.. "New notations in the periodic table" Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 60, no. 3, 1988, pp. 431-436. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198860030431

Of course I cannot provide a reference to show that a non-thing like non-metals is not a thing! There are refs that use "nonmetals" for the category of elements listed here, but this is not chemistry but simply logic: many elements share the property of being metals, the rest are thus "nonmetals". The only common property is exactly one: not being a metal.

There isn't a history for the term "nonmetal" because it is not a thing. The closest we get is the current discussion, which I've fixed up the refs for. In the earliest days, "nonmetals" was a "Type" before elements were more broadly understood. My claims can be easily refuted with a reference and maybe there are a few but it's not a mainstream concept beyond a logical category. I've done what I can here. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Dubious cites

Several inaccurate cites, they all need checking in detail:

1. Cites of p7 in [21] for "brittle or crumbly" which source does not say. The only relevant information is a discussion of brittleness of nonmetallic materials such as MgO on p270.
2. Cite of [26] for 1000 atom Se chains, where there is no source cited in the book so it is not a good source.
3. Cite of [68] for octet rule, where in fact the text says that is not a good approximation and VB should be used (changed)
4. Both As & graphite are semimetals, incorrect statement in Enf
5. The use of an O-level (< 16 years old) text book, i.e. Cambridge O Level Chemistry Book by B. Earl and Doug Wilford is dubious.
6. Citation to Sanderson 1957 quoted a page that did not exist (was the 1967 book meant?). In any case the ref has only been cited twice so removed as it is not really that relevant or accurate.
7. Temperature coefficient of resistivity is very much older than the table implied, it is in Kittel 1956. Date moved to 1956 (it might be earlier) and a relevant source added. Other dates are probably wrong.
8. Atomic conductance is just electrical conductance in different units; it is redundant so has been deleted.
9. The article about "3D conductivity" was misquoted, it is just another rephrasing of the established conductivity argument. Deleted from table.
10. The claim in the table that Horvath connects critical temperature to metal/nonmetal does not appear in the paper. Hence removed from the table.
11. The cite of Remy (1956) as "Minimum excitation potential" is inaccurate. He gives the standard band structures explanation. Removed.
12. The cite of Mann et al 2000 on configurational energy is invalid. The paper only discusses the d-block elements and makes no claims about metals versus nonmetals in general. The Wikipedia link also makes no such claims. Removed.
13. Johnson (1966) does mention physical state, e.g. gas, but then says it is not so good and lists the other standards such as conductivity etc. Hence removed from table as unverified.
14. Scott 2001 cites page 1781 which does not exist in any edition of the book (250-350 pages). Marked as dubious, perhaps delete later.
15. Povh & Rosin 2017 has no statements about thermal conductivity on p131. There is a short description on p173, but it does not call this a defining property. Deleted as unverified.
16. Brandt 1821, p5 is not even close to discussing metals and opacity. Deleted as very unverified and irrelevant.
17. Beach 1911 appears to have been copied from Origin and use of the term metalloid which has unrelated information. Since this is a very long book, without specific page number etc this source is not verifiable.
18. Harris 1803 provides the standard property list, the text misquoted what is stated.
19. Cyclopaedia: Or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (1743) rambles for three and a half pages with statements such as differentiating gold, mercury and silver by how much sulphur is in them, that metals are transmutable into each other etc -- there is a link to an open source. While the statement about "heaviness" is there, it is not the focus of the article. I cannot consider this as a useful source so I am deleting it, whereas Harris 1803 is definitively reputable.
20. Jones citation is "Jones BW 2010, Pluto: Sentinel of the Outer Solar System" which is definitely not on distinguishing criteria of nonmetals. Marked for the moment as dubious.
21. Hare and Basche 1836 p310 is cited for inventor Humphry Davy made an important discovery that reshaped the understanding of metals and nonmetals. It says nothing like that on p310. Removed as unverified.

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"where there is no source cited in the book so it is not RS."

That's not how RS's work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The statement is an aside, not part of a discussion on Se. A review which is on the topic would be appropriate; a single aside is IMO not what should be used to verify a statement. Maybe not quite NRS, but certainly better should be done. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb is right: That's not how RS’s work. The author of the source is a PhD physicist. They write, in discussing the properties of Se, that, “The most prevalent grey form contains large chains up to 1000 atoms long.” Not that it matters but this statement is self-evidently not an aside. I will revert the {{dubious}} tag. — Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source has been changed to an adequately cited peer reviewed article that provides a mini review on linear Se chains and goes further into an analysis of the chains in amorphous Se. This validates the "long chain" statement; the 1000 atom number is speculative without much more sourcing so has been removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the article. I've reinstated the RS that you removed. The two sources are now present in the one cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I will leave that although it is IMO inappropriate when a strong secondary sources already exists. Please note WP:RSCONTEXT:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Advance apologies: It will take me some time to work through this list, in between RL obligations. — Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1. I concur. Have removed the source in question and replaced it with a relevant source. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Timeline accuracy

I don't know who cobbled this together, but the dates don't check out on many things. For instance, the so-called Mott criteria, supposedly suggested in 2020. Work on this goes back to Goldhammer (1913) and Herzfeld (1927). Mott wrote about it in his book in 1990, but he came up with that criteria way back (1961? doi:10.1080/14786436108243318).

And yet we say 2020 because come people wrote a paper using the Mott criterion in 2020.

Utter. Nonsense.

This whole section should be jettisoned until we have actual sources discussing the actual history of metals.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the dates are horrible and many of the sources don't verify (see my ever growing list #Dubious cites). Plus the most important definition, band structure, is conspicuously absent despite appearing in numerous chemistry texts books. It needs to be there. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)