Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Discovery

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

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

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

@Johnjbarton and Ldm1954: Per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE the section title should not be changed to "Discovery of nonmetals". I attempted to do so but User:YBG reverted [1]. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I suggest something along these lines:

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

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

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

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

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

"Discovery of applicable elements" article section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on meaning of nonmetal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The general dominion of the term Nonmetal arises from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ldm1954:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I believe this addresses previous concerns...The Nonmetal hatnote has been updated concomitantly." [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Double sharp and Graeme Bartlett: The way the article currently starts wasn't my doing. We can thank Ldm1954, here [3], for the current shemozzle. I would've revereted that edit by now except that it forms part of a raft of ill-considered 12 June edits by Ldm1954, which I've only just finished reviewing. I'll add the results of my review to the Request for clear air during article review section. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary meanings

Extended content

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

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

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

Dictionary meanings (metal)

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

Relevant meanings

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

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

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

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

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

b. In astronomy, the situation is complicated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. "Nonmetallic materials", in materials science, are substances in the condensed state (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends. Gases are generally not included here unless designed or manipulated etc. An explanation for the exclusion of gases is given by the Aims & Scope statement for Nature Materials:[4]

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

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

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

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

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

Kemshead reference roundly panned

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

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

was "strongly condemned" in a review on Nature:

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

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

Unusual to see such strong language in a review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reviewer goes on for another column about valence.

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

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

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)

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)

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)