Talk:Nonmetallic material

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please expand this quickly. At present this is just a dictionary definition,so should either by draftified or AfD'd. It also is not clear how this will be an improvement on existing pages, the quote from Mott is trivial and not standard. My personal opinion is that it is better to write a coherent sandbox first.

Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding, this article currently is not about nonmetals in physics, in fact I think it is largely inaccurate. Perhaps ask @Johnjbarton to rewrite it for you. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thanks for your interest. I've removed your posts to my talk page as I find it unhelpul to spread the conversation over two pages.

I've been endeavouring to bring the nonmetal article up to FA standard. To maintain clarity and focus, the nonmetal article is devoted to the chemistry-based conception of nonmetals.

That said, to cater for alternate conceptions of nonmetals, there is hatnote at the top of the nonmetal article referring to Nonmetal (astrophysics) and Nonmetal (physics).

While one might think a nonmetal is a nonmetal is a nonmetal, regardless of the field of science, this doesn't occur. In astrophysics, only H and He are nonmetals, all other elements being regarded as metals. In physics, C and As are metals, whereas in chemistry they are routlinely regarded as nonmetallic elements.

You further asked:

"Why are you only using nonmetal, semiconductor etc for elements? Is GaAs a nonmetal -- of course it is. Please be general, not just for elements."

Because the reliable source did so. That said, I've added another source (Edwards et al.) that applies nonmetal, semiconductor etc more generally, and placed this first. The narrower source is now second.

--- Sandbh (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Some points:

• New Page Review sends the originator a message and includes it on the talk page. You should put in a request to the NPR project talk if you feel this is inappropriate.
• As a grey-haired academic with a degree in chemistry, another in physics and more than enough pubs, sorry but your comments are incorrect. In terms of conduction diamond is a large-gap insulator and graphite is a semimetal, and As is an insulator. Hydrogen is metallic under pressure.
• In metallurgy and mechanical engineering graphite is a non metal.

The definition you are using is the electropositive/negative one we teach high school students and in intro chemistry, that needs to be clarified -- I know chemistry! Ldm1954 (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Thanks.

I wasn't aware of New Page Review. So noted, and no problem.

I don't understand the relevance of diamond being a large-gap insulator (correct) and graphite being a semimetal (correct). Your expertise has let you done if you believe As is an insulator. It isn't—it's a semimetal. The fact that hydrogen may be metallic under some colossal pressure is not relevant to the ordinary conception of it as a nonmetal.

There is no definition of a nonmetal using electronegativity in this article. Could you please add any concerns about this to the Nonmetal talk page? --- Sandbh (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that bulk As is metallic, I must have misread a quick check. I have corrected this stub. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Article notability disputed

Google Books and Google Scholar together return a total of three hits for the search term, "Nonmetallic compounds and elements".

Undoubtedly, the notion of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" is understood, but not as an integrated topic in a sufficiently cohesive set of reliable sources.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines require that topics have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Just three hits suggests that the term "Nonmetal compounds and elements" is not widely discussed or recognized as a distinct topic in academic fields. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue. The additional phrase "compounds and elements" is there for disambiguation purposes, to distinguish it from other nonmetal articles. IMO, this is not the best title for the article, but by disputing notability, what is proposed here amounts to deletion, not a rename discussion. YBG (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@YBG: Well, yes, it is an issue. If it's there for disambiguation purposes, then it needs to be a list, not an encyclopedic article. And it ought to be Nonmetal (disambiguation) which, of course, already exists, hence the current mess due to precipitous action.--- Sandbh (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh- I believe you misunderstood me. I was not saying this article is a disambiguation page. I was saying that the title is an attempt to disambiguate this article from other articles about other senses of "nonmetal". Just as "(planet)" serves to disambiguate the title of mercury (planet), so "compounds and elements" serves to distinguish this article from the other one. Now I happen to think "nonmetallic substances" would be a better title, but that is a different thing. YBG (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to "Nonmetallic"

According to the Ngram viewer and Google Scholar, "Nonmetallic" is notable. It must be true. It is a confusing name, but that does not seem to be a criterion here. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Rename, just do it please Ldm1954 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:NOUN, Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. As stated before, my preference would be Nonmetallic substance, but I am open to other ideas. I recognize that this title would expand the scope to include the vernacular usage of the term, but this would only increase the article be a few paragraphs. YBG (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nonmetallic material(s) appears more in ngrams. YBG (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

These are fine. I will just give a bit more time before moving. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

They are all fine with me (travelling) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disputed cite: A nonmetal has a gap

The general definition section starts...

"A nonmetal has a gap in the energy levels of the electrons at the Fermi level."

...citing chapter 19 of Ashcroft & Mermin's Solid State Physics (1976).

A&M chapter 19 says no such thing.

Alternatively, please provide the page number where they do.

They mention "nonmetals" twice in their 826-page book—on p. 2 and p. 60—and neither of these say anything about a nonmetal having a band gap. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I manually reverted your edit [1]in which you removed the disputed cite tag for the following reason:

"Added Chpt 8 as well. This is clearly stated in the description, albeit not in those precise words but the same meaning, dispute was inappropriate."

Your reasoning is in breach of WP:NOR, no original research. The cited source does not explicitly makes the statement concerned i.e. that "A nonmetal has a gap in the energy levels of the electrons at the Fermi level." — Sandbh (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Direct quote from The Classification of Stars

@Ldm1954 and Headbomb: Before considering an RfC I'd like to see if we can resolve the disagreement over this quote between ourselves. The full quote is:

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

The source is Jaschek, C; Jascheck, M (1990). The Classification of Stars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-26773-1.

Both of you have raised concerns about the last and first and last sentences of the quote to the effect that, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty."

There is no editorializing, OR or academic dishonesty applicable in the case of quoted content from a reliable source. — Sandbh (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

To Sandbh and Headbomb, I am going to reverse my comment a little as I had misunderstood who was doing what. The full quote has those two sentences so in a sense they are appropriate, as Sandbh is arguing. However they are both clear editorializing by Jaschek & Jaschek which is definite not appropriate, similar to Headbomb's edit.

I did not react when Sandbh added that paragraph as I thought it was harmless. However, on further reflection and reading the relevant pages on Google Books I think it is better to remove the whole paragraph. If included then their definitions of heavy elements, lanthanides etc should be included for context and rigor, a vast digression. Further, and most critically, they cite no sources for their statements which they attribute to others/a community. This is certainly editorializing and, IMO, should not be in any text, just as it is not allowed in Wikipedia. In many cases the rules are universal.

I don't see that paragraph as adding any useful information, so a propose Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to having a quote (with the irrelevant bits removed at least), but you are right that it doesn't really add anything to what's already there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)