Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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.

"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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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)

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". [2] 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."[3]

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)