Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

§ Classification of metalloids

resolved YBG (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1st paragraph § Classification of metalloids

resolved YBG (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

So what are the metalloids after all? Are they the Andorra of the periodic table? Or the Alsace–Lorraine? Or the Czechoslovakia? I have renamed this section and copy edited its 1st paragraph, pulling the first note into body text so the reader sees how impurities have complicated classification in several cases. I thought about mentioning this in the new topic sentence, but in the end decided not to. I haven’t tackled the other paragraph, which seems to subtly emphasize two related ideas: (1) (non)metal classification should properly be based primarily on chemistry and (2) the metalloids should properly be considered nonmetals, not an in-between category. Reading between the lines, it seems that when chemical properties are emphasized, the metalloids naturally align themselves with the nonmetal bloc, but when physical properties are emphasized, they assert their independence. Could RS be found to support this idea? If so, could we restructure this paragraph to treat the alternates (3rd super category vs. nonmetal subcategory) more NPOV-ly? ——— YBG (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I've copyedited the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Since the presence of impurities was only an intrinsic issue for Ge, I've restored the footnote. While impurities were present in amorphous forms of B and Si, these were nevertheless allotropic forms which natually lack lustre. I trust the 2nd paragraph reads OK now. PS. For the same reason I've removed the image of the two allotropes of B. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC) And I've now added an image of Ge. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: Can the boron pics be restored to § Allotropes? And while we’re at it, since it is the most common form, I’d like to restore the pic of graphite, either instead of or in addition to BFene. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) The issues raised here have been subsumed in § Allotropes below. YBG (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Pics for § Classification of metalloids

resolved YBG (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reused the two boron pics in § Allotropes. For this section, I’d like pics contrasting the metallic appearance of pure silicon (or boron) with its nonmetallic appearance when it has impurities. I will look in commons to see if I can find anything; failing that, we can leave the boron pics here and drop them above, leaving only the graphite and diamond pics under allotropes. YBG (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) This issue is resolved with the germanium pic. YBG (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids

resolved Sandbh (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh and Double sharp: I have rephrased the 2nd paragraph (diff, result) to eliminate the subtle emphasis I perceived. Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG and Double sharp: I've copy edited the Classification of metalloids section. The old sentence, "With their metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry recognized very early[294] metalloids came to be regarded as intermediate elements" was problematic given the historical existence of graphite, selenium, and iodine, each with a metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry, and which generally did not come to be regarded as metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Your change did not accurately reflect our RS, which says that metalloids have metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry. Consequently I have restored restored the mention of physical appearance to body text, trying to change the minimum amount required to accurately reflect the RS. Concerning this mixed nature (metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry), my previous text did not say that all elements with this mixed nature are metalloids, it merely said that metalloids (usually) have this mixed nature. Hence, graphite, selenium, and iodine do not contradict this statement. YBG (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: It looks OK now that I removed the reference to a metallic appearance, but left this in the footnote. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Should we state “While it was known as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a metallic appearance …”?? No, of course not, because by stating only half of what the RS says, we would be misrepresenting it. Likewise, it is misrepresentation to state “While it was known as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a nonmetallic chemistry …”. To accurately reflect this RS, we must accurately state both sides of what it says. To leave one side out makes it seem like cherry-picking. Please restore the physical side. YBG (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh ——— YBG (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Most of the citations in the article would then represent cherry-picking, since each citation is selectively chosen to support whatever statement is being made, regardess of what the rest of the book or journal article etc says. With regard to the metalloids, the fact of their metallic appearance is stated earlier in the article. There is no need to repeat this observation, in the context of subsequent develpments. That is to say, they came to be regarded (by some authors e.g. Pauling) as intermediate elements never mind their nonmetallic chemistry. This is the salient point and avoides redundancy. I am not dismissive of their physical properties since these are again mentioned in the footnote at the end of the first sentence. I feel this approach strikes an appropriate balance in text-source integrity. Sandbh (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) The RS, IMO, strikes a balance by mentioning both. By only mentioning one side in the 189x source, it sounds like you are disparaging Pauling and others, when in fact, thus source demonstrates that they are in a long line going back to the 1890s of scientists who recognized the mixed, in-between nature of metalloids. That you disagree personally with this POV makes it all the more incumbent to mention both. You find the nonmetallic chemistry aspect "intriguing"; I find the early mention of the mixed nature "intriguing". And I think my approach is truer to what this RS is saying. I cannot fathom your unwillingness to let WP accurately portray what this RS says. YBG (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: WP guidelines on NPOV instruct us inter alia to represent content "proportionately." The historical fact in question is that from as early as the late 19th century, metalloids were recognized for their nonmetallic chemical behavior, yet they became popularly regarded as intermediate elements. This transition in perception is the central theme of the paragraph and is well-supported by the subsequent content. The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance. The extracts from Newth and Friend were included to enrich the narrative with then contemporary scientific thought, not to overlook the role of physical appearance. Regarding the concern that the article may not fully portray what the reliable source (RS) says, it is worth noting that selective citation is a common practice on WP to support specific points without overloading the reader with information. The full content of the RS, including the reference to metallic appearance, is visible and accessible via the citation link, which readers can explore for more in-depth information. Thus, the paragraph in question does accurately and proportionately represent what the RS says, in line with Wikipedia's content policy. The reader has already been informed about the metallic appearance of metalloids earlier in the article, making it unnecessary to reiterate this detail in the current context. Our aim is to inform the reader without redundancy, ensuring each point made is relevant to the specific aspect of the topic being discussed. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Regarding metalloids representing an intermediate between metals and nonmetals, our sources show that Pauling popularized in the 1940s an idea already present in the 1890s. These sources show continuity, not contrast. YBG (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: The aim of the section is to capture the historical development of the concept of metalloids, reflecting a nuanced evolution rather than a stark contrast. The recognition  of their nonmetallic chemistry (1894; 1914) isn't necessarily at odds with their later sometimes classification as intermediate elements; instead, it marks the start of a slow and gradual transition in the use and meaning of the term metalloid which, before then, had been what nonmetals were called. By 1926, Webster's New International Dictionary noted that use of the term metalloid to refer to nonmetals was [still] the norm. Its application to elements resembling the typical metals in some way only, such as arsenic, antimony and tellurium, was recorded merely on a "sometimes" basis. Use of the term metalloid subsequently underwent a period of great flux up to 1940. Consensus as to its sometimes application to intermediate or borderline elements did nae occur until the ensuing years, between 1940 and 1960. This shift wasn't a reversal of the earlier understanding but a (badly) attempted clarification that took into account additional properties, such as semiconducting behavior. I say badly given the previous historical practice of calling what we now call "nonmetals" as "metalloids" i.e. there were only metals and metalloids. Pauling's work in the mid-20th century didn't introduce a contrast but rather highlighted this transition. He mentioned the elements he regarded as metalloids which (in some senses) were becoming increasingly relevant in the context of emerging technologies and scientific theories. The current text doesn't suggest a contrast but portrays the historical trajectory of the interpretation of metalloids—from initially noting their nonmetallic chemistry to a sometimes broader view of them as intermediate elements. This transition reflects a progressive evolution of terminological practice rather than a contradictory viewpoint. I have however changed the 2nd paragraph from "more populary regarded" to "more or less popularly regarded". Including "more or less" subtly acknowledges that while the trend towards recognizing metalloids as intermediate elements gained popularity, this consensus was not absolute and there were variations in how different authors approached the classification of these elements. The article mentions this earlier in the Types section, penultimate paragraph. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification, that you are trying to show the gradual development. This is not the impression this paragraph gives me as currently written. Restoring the wording I had about nonmetallic appearance imo would enhance this. As to "more or less" this is imo worse than before, being wordier and having the appearance of weasel words. The changing sense of the term "metalloid" did not seem to be in focus at all. — YBG (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: The impression of the subsection is given by the two topic sentences namely: 1. “Boron and silicon were recognized early on as nonmetals but arsenic, antimony, tellurium, and germanium have a more complicated history.”; and 2. “While it was known from as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a nonmetallic chemistry they came to be more or less populary regarded as intermediate elements.” The remainder of each paragraph elaborates the topic sentence. The transition is from 1 to 2. ”More or less” is historically more accurate. Pauling’s work, by its popularity, popularised the concept of metalloids, helped by concurrent developments in physics and technology. However, the concept of metalloids as intermediate elements was by no means universally accepted, as explained earlier in the article: ”The greatest discrepancy between authors occurs in metalloid "frontier territory". Some consider metalloids distinct from both metals and nonmetals, while others classify them as nonmetals. Some categorize certain metalloids as metals (e.g., arsenic and antimony due to their similarities to heavy metals). Metalloids resemble the elements universally considered "nonmetals" in having relatively low densities, high electronegativity, and similar chemical behavior.” On the non-inclusion of metallic appearance I explained this earlier: “The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance.” Sandbh (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) The topic sentence of the second paragraph gives me the impression of a discontinuity between its 1st and 2nd halves, that in the 1890s this handful of elements was considered distinct from metals but associated with nonmetals, but later, due to Pauling’s influence, as a 3rd category distinct from both. It sounds like Pauling disregarded or rejected something that was known and accepted from the 1890s. I’m sure you don’t intend to give that impression. Reiterating their mixed nature in the first half of this sentence effectively eliminates this impression, showing Pauling’s book as crystalizing or popularizing concepts that had been brewing for decades. YBG (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) @YBG: The first topic sentence notes that B and Si were recognised early on as nonmetals, and that the situation for As, Sb, Te, and Ge was more complicated. It was during the late 19th century that the idea of an intermediate type of elements was born, but the term metalloid was still being used in diverse ways. From 1920 to 1940 the situation was in great flux. It only really more or less sorted itself out due to the influence of Pauling and the happy coincidence of the development of band theory and the emergence of semiconductors. That, and the appreciation of Ge's status as a semiconductor rather than a metal. I've lost track of how many times I've said this: metallic appearance was not a criterion; here it is again: “The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance.” I suspect the reason was due to a combination of their amphoteric character; location in the periodic table next to metals like Al, Ga and Sn; and the semiconducting status of B, Si, Ge and Te. That, and Pauling's observation about their EN being close to 2, in the middle of his scale. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC) PS an appreciation of metalloids would have become easier once Deming’s periodic table appeared in 1923, and became popular thereafter to the point of displacing the 8-column form. The p-block is quite hard to discern in the latter. —- Sandbh (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you for rephrasing it so the text no longer sets out a contrast between Pauling and earlier authors. YBG (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) What exactly is meant by the notion of these elements as metalloids? Are you speaking primarily about the idea that "metalloid" is a significant category of elements? Or that these particular elements make up the set of metalloids? Or perhaps something else entirely? YBG (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Yes, thanks for your continuing line of question, which eventually drew a good dividend. The two topic sentences are, "Boron and silicon were recognized early on as nonmetals but arsenic, antimony, tellurium, and germanium have a more complicated history." and "The more or less popular notion of these elements as metalloids coalesced during the period 1940 to 1960." So I’m writing about your second option. The peculiar status of metalloids is earlier elaborated in the opening paragraphs of the Types section. — Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Ok, that wasn’t clear from the text. I’ll try to make it more obvious. YBG (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Ok, I’ve changed it from The more or less popular notion of these elements as metalloids coalesced during the period 1940 to 1960. to The identification of these elements as metalloids was solidified during the mid 20th century. Commemts I considered "identity" but settled on "identification" as is seemed less POV I said "solidified" but "popularized" or "coalesced" might be more appropriate; change it if you prefer. I said "mid 20th century" instead of "40s to 60s" because the paragraph continues to the 80s. There might be a better way to phrase the time frame. YBG (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I changed the topic sentence to, "It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids.” as that is more consistent with the citation. — Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 1st suggestion: Change: It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements … to this: Beginning in the 1940s, these elements … Reasoning: This is shorter, has no difference in meaning (that I can discern) and avoids the complexity of a negative statement. Thoughts on 1st suggestion? YBG (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 2nd suggestion: Change … these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids. to this: … these elements came to be commonly recognized as metalloids. Reasoning: "Commonly" is already a fuzzy term that doesn’t seem to need the extra fuzziness provided by "more or less" Thoughts on 2nd suggestion? YBG (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC) No, because not all authors recognise metalloids as a distinct type, as explained in the Types section. Hence the expression "more or less" commonly. Sandbh (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: As above. — Sandbh (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Commonly is rather much less than 100%, at least in my dialect. what percentage would you guess? YBG (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Your dialect doesn’t matter. What matters is how the general reader reads it. As noted, including "more or less commonly” subtly acknowledges that while the trend towards recognizing metalloids as intermediate elements gained popularity this consensus wasn’t absolute and there were variations in how different authors approached the classification of these elements. The article mentions this earlier in the Types section, penultimate paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC) So if I understand correctly, you're talking about recognizing metalloids as an intermediate top-level category, not about recognizing these elements as metalloids. Am I correct? YBG (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I’m talking about both. First in the sense that these six elements eventually came to be those most commonly recognised as metalloids, but they were individually by no means consistently recognised as metalloids. Indeed, some of them were instead recognised as metals or nonmetals. Second in the sense that not all authors recognised metalloids as a separate top category, unlike the 100% recognition rate of metals and nonmetals. Whiteford and Coffin (1939) were on the mark in saying that the introduction of a third category only compounded the confusion as to where metals ended, which elements were metalloids, and where nonmetals started.Sandbh (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (←) @Sandbh, how about this: From the 1940s onwards, these elements were increasingly called "metalloids" and, to a lesser extent, metalloids were considered a category separate from both metals and nonmetals. It is longer because it explicitly calls out the two senses separately, which I think is helpful. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Compared to the existing sentence... It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids. ...is not reader friendly. The existing sentence says all that needs to be said; it captures the essential information concisely and effectively. Sandbh (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) What about Beginning in the 1940s, these elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids. YBG (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Changed to… It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be increasingly recognized as metalloids, albeit not universally so. …which is a good outcome, I feel. —Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh- Thanks. Definitely an improvement. I’ve continued this improvement as follows: Beginning in the 1940s, these six elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids, though not universally so. YBG (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

More re 2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids

resolved — Sandbh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Sorry for the revert and unrevert. Somehow I’d missed seeing that you’d adopted my suggestion. The final text … Beginning in the 1940s, these six elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids, though not universally so. … is ok but I still think it could be improved. But if nothing occurs to me in a week or so, I’ll close this whole == section. YBG (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) @YBG: Refined so it now reads: Since the 1940s, six elements have been increasingly, but not universally, recognized as metalloids. Unless you have some major change in mind I feel this section could be closed; it can be revisited at any time. —Sandbh (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Looks good to me. YBG (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oustanding issues check

resolved —- Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG and Double sharp: Are there any remaining matters of concern? A week has otherwise passed and there have been no new additions to this page. I have yet to do a final quality check on article prose and flow, and still need to check there are no redunant references in the list of same. I also intend to look into the feasibiity of changing the footnote tags from { {#tag:ref|...|group=n}} to { {efn|...}}. Thanks, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) @Sandbh: I continue working through my list of issues. I think {{efn}} would be a big improvement. YBG (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Article style

Should the style of this article be adopted as follows:

Paragraph construction in this article follows the topic sentence method. The first sentence of a paragraph—the topic sentence—summarises what is elaborated in the rest of the paragraph. It should be possible to follow the logical flow of the article by reading only its topic sentences.

To enforce such a style decision without raising WP:OWNership issues, this should be adopted by consensus. Editors are invited to express their opinions here. YBG (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: I feel this would do:

The following note is offered as non-binding guidance on the structure of the article. It is not intended as a binding requirement for future contributions. The article was structured using the topic sentence method to enhance clarity and coherence, with each paragraph starting with a topic sentence that summarizes its main content. This approach was designed to facilitate understanding of the article's logical flow and improve readability by allowing readers to grasp the main points via these opening sentences.

— Sandbh (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh Two points

1. I would call this the 'topic-sentence-first' method, as a paragraph can have its topic sentence placed anywhere.
2. I still think it would be good to adopt this by consensus

—— YBG (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What is a nonmetal in physics?

Any thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Since "This article is about the chemical elements", the topic is not appropriate here. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s relevant in the context of the 32 properties, some of which have relied on physics-based notions, invoked in attempts to distinguish between metals and nonmetals. —- Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 26 June 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