Talk:Nonmetal

Peer review or FAC

@YBG: I feel this article is now good to go to PR or FAC. Do you concur? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Perhaps. Let me take a global look first to see if anything jumps out. YBG (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

See related topic at § Oustanding issues check below. @Sandbh, should we close this section or come back to it later? YBG (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh? YBG (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

One suggestion might be to run the article by some of the editors who opposed the past FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was only suggestion that we don’t need both this section and § Oustanding issues check open. I've been dribbling my issues out a few at a time as I don’t have the bandwidth for multiple open discussions. YBG (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG, Double sharp, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I intend to proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage as set out above, and then ask some of the editors who opposed past-FACs. — Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will continue my slow pace of working through the article. YBG (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: Foornotes have now been switched to efn --- Sandbh (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: Redundant ref check completed. Final read through to follow; hopefully tomorrow. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetal(s) vs. Nonmetallic (chemical) element(s)

@Sandbh, do you use these terms synonymously?

• nonmetal(s)
• nonmetallic element(s)
• nonmetallic chemical element(s)

When I read this article, I cannot tell whether these are used synonymously or if they are intended to convey some slight distinction. YBG (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: I use "nonmetallic" in preference to "nonmetal", as the first has more wriggle room i.e. it better accomodates the metalloids. What Oderberg said about nonmetals relates i.e. if something is not a metal than it must be a nonmetal. But I don't want to go to too far down that rabbit hole. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: since you prefer nonmetallic, I wonder, where just plain nonmetal is used, does it mean the same thing? Or something slightly different? YBG (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

My intention is to use "nonmetallic" when referring to anything including a metalloid, and "nonmetal" otherwise. I haven't however checked for my consistency of usage. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good rule. Now that I know it, I will try to enforce it when it is needed. After we do a thorough review, it might be good to explicitly state this someplace in the article. YBG (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: As you read through the article, have a look at the use of "nonmetallic element" vs. "nonmetal". YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Density and electronegativity chart

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

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

New issues

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

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

Density & electronegativity

resolved YBG (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements says Nonmetallic chemical elements generally have low density and high electronegativity. A similar sentence is prominently placed as the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of § top. In both cases it is placed before lack of shininess, poor conductivity, the character of their oxides and their brittleness and crumbliness. I reckon this order of emphasis might be somewhat startling to our target audience: the interested reader who seeks to expand his knowledge by building on what he already knows. My question: does this emphasis reflect the literature? If this emphasis is not the clear consensus reflecting the preponderance of the literature, I think our readers would be better served by working from what they know to what they do not. So I suggest that in both cases the paragraphs be recast by placing the sentence about density and electronegativity last or at least later in these paragraphs. YBG (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I’ve adjusted the relevant paragraphs in response to your concerns. The literature generally mentions the lack of metallic properties seen in nonmetals i.e. lack of shininess and conductivity, and lack of ductility and malleability. More considered sources mention low density, high EN and the tendency to form acidic oxides; and exceptions such as the shiny appearance of iodine, the conductivity of graphite, and the malleability of white P. Sandbh (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Looks good. Thanks! YBG (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Table of distinguishing criteria

resolved YBG (talk)

Properties suggested as the distinguishing characteristic between metals and nonmetals (by year of first reference) 1811 Fusibility, malleability, ductility 1821 Opacity 1911 Cation formation 1927 Goldhammer-Herzfeld               metallization criterion 1949 Bulk coordination number 1956 Minimum excitation potential 1956 Acid-base nature of oxides 1957 Electron configuration 1962 Sonorousness 1966 Physical state 1973 Critical temperature 1977 Sulfate formation 1977 Oxide solubility in acids 1979 3D electrical conductivity 1986 Enthalpy of vaporization 1991 Liquid range 1999 Temperature coefficient               of resistivity 1999 Element structure (in bulk) 2001 Packing efficiency 2010 Electrical conductivity               at absolute zero 2010 Electron band structure 2017 Thermal conductivity 2017 Atomic conductance Shading indicates physical, chemical, and atomic properties Icon ideas I suggest that the three lists be combined into a single chronological list with the property types distinguished by background color and/or an icon, say, a flask for chemical, hammer for physical and an atom for atomic or electronic. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I feel it is more important to easily see the distinction between physical, chemical and atomic properties. The single chronological list would make these harder to discern. — Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: I've inserted an example of the sort of thing I have in mind. I think the difference between the three types of properties is very clear, but this has the advantage of showing all three types in context. I picked the colors semi-randomly; I am not tied to them at all. I would like to improve this by including three separate icons, perhaps something like the ones shown. YBG (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: I've tweaked the table to use letter codes instead of icons. YBG (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) @YGB: Comparing this suggestion with the current table, the latter is clear and straightforward whereas I feel that the former requires too much cognitive processing for no overall gain. — Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Things that I think are important for this table to show: the distinction between physical, chemical, and atomic properties. Both forms do this well. the relative frequency: physical >> chemical ≈ atomic. Both forms do this well the relative chronological order within the three property types. Both forms do this well. the relative chronological order between the three property types. Only the new form does this well. that physical properties were proposed in early, middle, and late of the time range. Only the new form does this well. that chemical properties were proposed from early to the middle of the time range. Only the new form does this well. that atomic properties were proposed from the middle to late in the time range. Only the new form does this well. The two forms (IMO) both do #1/2/3 well. Only the single chronology form does #4/5/6/7 well. Try as I might, the only advantage I can see for the status quo is that headings are slightly better than legends at labeling the three types of properties. So overall, it seems to me that the single-chronology form is significantly better. -- YBG (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: The purpose of the table is the foremost consideration. This is to show the physical, chemical or atomic properties historically suggested as a way of distinguishing metals from nonmetals. The current table does this well, with a minimum of clutter. Additionally, #4 to #7 are easily discernible. The extra visual clutter associated with the proposed table clouds the purpose of the current table. — Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh I think #4/5/6/7 cannot be discerned without looking back and forth a couple of times. Does it appear less cluttered to you now? — YBG (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Thank you. Since most of the properties are physical only, only the expections need to be marked, and this does not require the use of colour. I've instead used the albemic ⚗ motif for chemical; and the atomic symbol ⚛ emoji for atomic properties, and boldly made it so. I hope you like it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (←) @Sandbh:: Thank you, this looks very nice. I particularly like the use of icons: (1) they improve accessibility over just using color; (2) the bold purple of the atomic symbol is great; (3) omitting the icon for physical properties reduces clutter. YBG (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) I’ve listed some ideas here: Eliminate the jaggedness most apparent in 1811-1927 and 1986-1999 by restoring {{mono}}. My skin/browser uses a font with all digits of equal spacing except for a narrower "1"; others might have even worse jaggedness if the other digits differ in width. I think {{mono}} is the only way to ensure this works for all readers. You might not see this if your browser font has all digits the same width. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Separate all 3 red-link explanations from the references. You can look at old versions of the article to see what I did there which was not reflected on the talk page which you used as your starting point. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: There are four red links. I don't understand what you mean. Each redlink is accompanied by an explantion. Looking at older versions of the article didn't show anything different. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Of the four red links, one of them correctly separated the citation in ref and explanation in an efn. Three of them had both citation and explanation in the ref. I have separated all of them now. YBG (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) OK. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Try to find a better chemical icon. The current one has two issues IMO: (1) even at high magnification I can’t tell what it is meant to be; and (2) it doesn’t stick out boldly so nicely as the purple atomic icon. Using a background color with a mostly transparent icon might go a long way to rectifying this. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. Replaced both icons with typographical synbols. Sandbh (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh. I’ve restored the colors and put the icons before the year. Alas, in the process I accidentally undid two of your edits. Could you redo them please? Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) The G-H metalizarían criterion has an unsightly link underline in the hanging indent white space that did not exist in the talk page version. I’m not sure why. This might be browser dependent, I see it in the article but not the TP using the same browser, so there is some difference I don’t understand. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) This has disappeared YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. Showed on my browser. Now fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) The icon placement at the end makes it harder to notice the difference between the property types. I see several ways to rectify this: put the icons before the year. This would require ensuring that the icons are the same width and using an equal width of white space for physical properties. The extra white space might be a feature or a bug; I’m not certain. add background color to the year that matches the atomic or chemical icon. The two indicators would thus bracket the property description. put the icons before the year AND color the year. This might be too much. put the icons after the year with no white space for physical properties. I think this would be somewhat unsightly. put the icons after the year AND color the year. Offhand, this seems like the least likely to be visually pleasing. I think any of these would be better than what we have now. If you like any of 1/2/3 that works for me. If you choose 4 or 5, I’d want to see it before passing judgment. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. I trimmed the table title and incorporated the legend into it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC) I’ve moved the typographic "icon" marks to before the year and added color to make them more visible. They had almost disappeared before. YBG (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Still looked too cluttered. I've removed the icon "marks" and used underline or italics. The title has been streamlined. There's now no need to refer to the entries being listed by year. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh. I don’t see this listed as one of the uses under MOS:ITALIC. If I as a sighted individual find this hard to comprehend, I suspect it would be even worse for those using screen readers. I suspect that the bulk of the problems were caused by the cyan and pink colors, which I chose because they had only four letters. Please restore the left-justified °/^/nbsp and try to find some nicer colors. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I've dispensed with all the clutter and replaced the double table with a single table of four columns for year, property, type, and cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: I was skeptical when I read your talk post … but in the article is a thing of beauty. I’ve made a couple of small tweaks. What would you think of moving the non-cite efn notes into the property column? That seems a better place for explanations. YBG (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Thanks. Good suggestion about moving the efn notes. Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Check the double-year entries for 1956, 1977, 1999, and 2017 to make sure they are in the best order. (This is a real nit, feel free to completely ignore it.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: NFA. Double entries are alphabetic by author, or alphabetic by title if the author is the same in both cases. Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Ta YBG (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Do something about the 1811 entry. Maybe add a note explaining that this criterion requires that all three properties be met, possibly adding that all others are single property criteria- unless you add other multiple property criteria. Or maybe drop it from the list (but I don’t think this would be good.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Done. I've replaced the 1811 entry with an earlier version from 1803. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh, I’m fine with adding the 1803 entry, but I don’t understand why you removed the 1811 one. YBG (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: The 1811 ed. was the 2nd ed. of the work, which first appeared in 1802. The 1802 ed. is not online however the 1803 US edition is. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: The now-deleted 1811 entry said Fusibility, malleability, and ductility. The new 1803 entry says Density and electrical conductivity. Is there a reason why you chose not to include both combinations? YBG (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: I believe this is now the only remaining issue in this section. YBG (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Both references, among other properties, say that metals are denser than other substances, fusible, malleable and ductile, and good conductors of electricity. The 1811 version contradicts itself by then going on to discuss some brittle metals, and is outdated with regard to density given the discovery of Na and K in 1809. The 1803 version include arsenic and bismuth as metals, which is wrong since arsenic is not fusible and it and bismuth are brittle. The 1803 version is right when it refers to the high density of metals since this was the case at that time, hence I have included it in the list. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Now I’m really confused. Do they list either combo as definitively distinguishing characteristics? Or are they just descriptive? YBG (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Both sources say, "... their specific gravity is greater than that of any other bodies yet discovered; they are better conductors of electricity, than any other body." This would include "not" metals. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Ensure accessibility of icons for screen readers. Perhaps add {{abbr|⚛|Atomic property}} like ⚛ YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: NFA given #3. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) I’ve signed each item individually to facilitate threaded responses. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) More re Table of distinguishing criteria (section header added because I started this comment in the wrong section. YBG (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)) (section changed from == to === and moved into appropriate == section YBG (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)) Are fusibility, ductility, and malleability one or three properties? YBG (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Three separate properties. — Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh, Should they then be on three separate lines? YBG (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: No. The "and" in “fusibility, ductility, and malleability” denotes this source suggested three properties concurrently. So a metal is distinguished by being fusible, ductile and malleable, else it’s not a metal. —Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: So it’s a good thing I changed the title so it no longer says "some single properties…". YBG (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Indeed. I was looking for the "singular" unaware that it’d been removed, conveniently so. Sandbh (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Should the table have an entry for density and electronegativity? YBG (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: No, because: (1) aside from the 1811 first entry, all such suggestions have been based on single criteria; and (2) AFAIK nobody has ever suggested distinguishing metals from nonmetals using quantitative density and EN criteria. In any event, the table can always easily be updated. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) talk­refs References

Vast/Overwhelming majority

Marked as resolved by Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, I think the article was better before you removed "vast" and "overwhelming". In the lead - § top: Five nonmetallic elements—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—make up the overwhelming majority of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, biosphere, and crust. In § Abundance of nonmetallic elements: Five nonmetals—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—form the vast majority of the directly observable structure of the earth: about 84% of the crust, 96% of the biomass, and over 99% of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, as shown in the accompanying table. The revised lead gives the reader no clue of the superlative nature here - it could just as easily be a bare 51%. I think it would be better to express this superlative in both places, but especially in the lead. YBG (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I removed the first term per WP:PUFFERY. It could go back in if it has a cite. The second term is redundant given the figures provided. — Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh, I’m not sure WP:PUFFERY applies; nevertheless I think we can do better than the current or previous text. How’s this: lead: Four nonmetals—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—make up almost all of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere. body: Three nonmetals—hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen—form almost all of earth's atmosphere (99.4% by weight) and hydrosphere (99%) and, with carbon, its biomass (96%). These plus silicon make up 84% of the more diverse crust. By removing silicon and the crust, we can safely say "almost all" which is even more superlative but without sounding like puffery. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I’ve changed "majority" to "bulk" in both cases as it is shorter, one word, and conveys, I feel, an appropriate sense of a large portion of something. — Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) That is an improvement. YBG (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Some more thoughts re § Abundance of nonmetallic elements: I think it would be interesting to expand the table to include the mantle and core if data are available, perhaps using expressions like "nn metals (pp%)", and then (if it can be supported) add to the body text something like "In the interior structures metals are more abundant." or "The deeper structures are more diverse and more metallic." YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) I’ve added a paragraph about this. It doesn’t warrant being added to the table. — Sandbh (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh I’ve moved this comment to where I think you meant it to be. Please revert if I’ve got it wrong. YBG (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I added a table row for this and marked the *metals. YBG (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) On second thought I decided to remove it. YBG (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) What is the relationship between the Nelson reference in the table and the Steudel one in the body? Not suggesting any change at this point, I’m just curious. YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Steudel is now redundant here so I’ve trimmed it.— Sandbh (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Ok. YBG (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Could we use the more common 'oceans' in place of 'hydrosphere'? YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: No, because hydrosphere refers to water found on, under, and above the surface. —Sandbh (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Got it. YBG (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I think everything in this section has been resolved. YBG (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check

@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, Jo-Jo Eumerus, YBG, and Double sharp:

Since this article was last at FAC in Oct 2023, I’ve been fine tuning it with the help of the latter two editors.

Much of this work has been discussed on this talk page, onwards from the section "Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination".

Aspects of the article worked on have included prose, the definition, history, tables and images.

On a no obligation basis could you please now let me know if you have any concerns about the article before I list it at FAC? Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

'fraid that after the work on Llullaillaco, I'll be too burned out to help to any substantial degree here. I'll note that there are still some red links at "Suggested distinguishing criteria" that could be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. Those red links now have accompanying notes. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I am travelling at present, but will comment as opportunity arises. So far, I'm seeing Use of English issues, but no factual problems with the content. See also any copyedits to the article.

• Lead: since the first sentence is in the singular, the second sentence should start "These range ..." rather than "They range ...".
• Definition and applicable elements:
  • "... lacking properties common to metals namely shininess, pliability ...": we need punctuation before "namely". Perhaps just a comma will be OK since "namely" is itself introducing the list, otherwise a colon.
  • "About a fifth ...": Is this intended as a completely separate statement, or to place the preceding lists in context? In the latter case (and as a better stylistic choice) we could say "Thus about a fifth ...".
• Physical properties of nonmetals, Chemical properties of nonmetals: "of nonmetals" seems redundant in the section titles?
• Allotropes: "Over half of nonmetallic elements": "Over half of the nonmetallic ..." would be correct here.
• Chemical properties of nonmetals: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged or polarized atoms or ions, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions (or polarized) atoms.": this sentence need rephrasing, perhaps: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms." -- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Property overlaps: there is no information about why homopolyatomicity is regarded as a property of metals given that so many nonmetals can do this too. Perhaps the note can be expanded to give a bit more context.
• Higher oxidation states: "... that better tolerate higher positive charges.": this risks confusion since the bonding in anions such as NO₃⁻ is covalent and although the oxidation state of N is −5, the charge on the anion is only −1.
• Halogen nonmetals: "... under white light is a metallic-looking.": we need to lose "a", I think "... under white light looks metallic." would be better.
• Suggested distinguishing criteria: I suggest a section link for "electronegativity (revised Pauling)".
• Notes:
  • Those consisting of multiple sentences are terminated with a full stop. Others have no terminating punctuation. I would add the full stop for all the notes (including dagger notes for tables), but I guess that is the author's choice. I'm referring only to notes here, having the Citations section consistently without full stops is fine.
  • Note g: "These elements being semiconductors.^[ref]": The amount of extra information here is so small I think it can be included in the content: "Moderate electrical conductivity is observed in the semiconductors^[ref] boron, silicon, phosphorus, germanium, selenium, tellurium, and iodine." This will also avoid the problem that the note is not clear on its own without repeating the list of elements.

I have now read through the article. The points I have raised here are all fairly minor and this is very much an improvement on the previous FAC candidates. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for your astute pick up of grammar issues, and the other suggestions, and for doing so while travelling. I've rectified all of the issues bar the periods at the end of footnotes, which is a suggestion I'll look more closely at. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: FWIW, I think single sentence footnotes should always have periods, but incomplete sentences usually should not. But like @Mirokado, I’d leave the fragments up to your discretion. YBG (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mirokado and YBG: Done. For notes I use periods only when a note (1) has more than one sentence; (2) includes a bullet-point list; or (3) includes a quote that ends in a period. I've now checked the notes for consistency with this practice, and corrected them where needed. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the consistency. I would have used periods for all complete sentences; I suspect someone will complain about sentences without closing punctuation. YBG (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with YBG (and would make all the notes at least short sentences for general legibility). Complex formatting criteria for a single article are a long-term maintenance problem so I will leave this point open. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mirokado and YBG: All footnotes are now in sentence form, including periods. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. YBG (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Likewise thank you. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• There are four occurrences of "behaviour" although the article is specified as written in American English. Someone who can proofread for American English needs to check for other such problems. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Mirokado: Done. I believe I've now corrected all the UK/US spelling inconsistencies. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Chemical: I think it would be useful to wl oxidation state. -- Mirokado (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mirokado: Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is massive

See title. Are there any objections to upping the frequency which lowercase sigmabot III archives this page? I'd suggest something in the realm of 30–90 days, as opposed to the two years at present. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: I’ve changed the algorithm from 730d to 200d which will leave everything related to the current FAC preparation effort. YBG (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Colorize distinguishing properties?

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

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

Chemistry of arsenic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate Notes

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

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

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

• "The most stable forms are..."

No reference.

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

Core to topic.

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

Off topic, omit.

• Solid iodine has a silvery metallic appearance...

Off topic, omit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• sometimes counted as a nonmetal [hidden info]

could read

• metalloids, sometimes counted as nonmetals.

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

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

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

Hydrosphere?

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

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

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

See § Abundance, extraction, and use

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to give examples:

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

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

• The Earth's mantle and core...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does it look now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abundance chart

I’ve tweaked the chart in § Abundance so the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most common elements are in separate cells. This allows easy comparison. I did this after the 3% nitrogen was removed by @Sandbh from the biosphere row. Some other ideas for improvement occur to me:

1. Add a 4th cell to each row
2. Remove the inner vertical borderlines from the table
3. Add some color to the table by coloring the cells, either
   • (a) either using the four nonmetal types with the colors used in the previous section, plus a gray for metals
   • (b) or else using just 3 colors, one for the elements that dominate the visible structures of the earth, one for other nonmetallic elements, and one for metals.

These are independent of each other. Any thoughts as to which (if any) should be implemented? YBG (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read the topic on this Talk page "Abundance, extraction, and use" seems like synthesis.". Unless you have a reference that discusses the role of "nonmetal" in abundance of elements, the chart is not appropriate here. The origin of the abundance of elements in the universe, atmosphere, etc, are long and deeply studied, with hundreds of scientific papers. The section is creating an impression of a relationship by cited sources focused on various elements, rather than citing source that explore the root causes of the relative abundance. I claim "nonmetalness" has no role in the root cause. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have read that section, which I understand to be an argument to delete the entirety of § Abundance, extraction, and use. Your ideas are thought-provoking, but as my thoughts have not jelled, it seems inappropriate for me to respond at this point. In the meantime, i initiated this thread to suggest improvements to the abundance section, not to advocate for its retention. YBG (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I’d be interested to know what you (and any other editor) think about improving the abundance chart by (1) adding the 4th components, (2) removing inner vertical borders, and (3) adding color. YBG (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Astrophysics

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

==Other uses for the term==

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonmetal elements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and the first sentence of the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hatnote

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

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

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

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

Thanks, @Sandbh.

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

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

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

Neville Mott's definition

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

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

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

More WP:SYNTH

Sentences like:

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

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

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

Everything you say is true, but:

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

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

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

GA status needs reconsiderstion

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

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

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

@Ldm1954: I welcome whatever expertise you can bring.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll review your other edits in due course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brittle nature of graphite and diamond

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

Consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections for deletion

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

Add/Change

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

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

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

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

Requested move 12 June 2024

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)

Consolidated proposal for article names

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

---

1. Nonmetal (disambiguation)

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

---

2. Nonmetal (astrophysics)

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

---

3. Nonmetal (chemical element)

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

---

4. Nonmetallic substance

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

---

5. Nonmetallic conductor

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

---

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replying to Johnjbarton -- his comment lost the signature.

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

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

Replying to Johnjbarton:

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

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

Where do we agree re moves?

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

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

Questions for participants (and any other interested editors):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of answers to the above questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTOH, there are WP article title conventions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as the Nonmetal article goes, I will edit the hatnote to read:

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

— Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Notabilty of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" article disputed

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

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

Request for clear air during article review

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