Talk:Native metal

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Native metal is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Listed metals[edit]

I appreciate that this article is a stub. It certainly needs expansion. However I am very surprised to see galleries.com naming such reactive metals as Aluminium, Lead, zinc, iron and tin as native metals. I appreciate that iron occurs in meterorites, but that is a special case. I certainly remember being told of native copper and gold, and am prepared to believe that similar metals such as silver, platinum and palladium can occur geologically as native metals, but I find the appearance of the rest in the list most surprising. Can some one enlighten further, perhaps by exapnding this article to indicate what metals do indeed routinely occur as natvie metals? Peterkingiron 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They tend to occur in highly reducing environments. For example, aluminum has been documented in mud volcanoes, which are frequently associated with petroleum deposits. All of the reactive elements are extremely rare as native elements. For some odd reason most of them tend to occur in Russia. Search Mindat for locality information. Bear in mind that some of these metals (such as titanium) occur only as small inclusions in other minerals; there is even a variety of fluorite that (as a result of high background radiation) contains native fluorine. --Pyrochem (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Native metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705140930/http://www.uwfox.uwc.edu/academics/depts/tpleger/oldcopper.html to http://www.uwfox.uwc.edu/academics/depts/tpleger/oldcopper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non-oxygenated celestial bodies?[edit]

Earth before the Great Oxidation Event, as well as all the all the other bodies in our solar system without diatomic oxygen. The article talks about "Over geological time scales, very few metals can resist natural weathering processes like oxidation" but in some places that humans have explored far away never had an oxygen atmosphere, so this doesn't apply. How common are native metals in these places? 2603:8001:5B01:93E3:B1D:859F:F555:EACA (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the place. There are places here on Earth where truly native-iron can be found, but it's extremely rare. Mercury, for example, appears to be one, big, metallic ball. Venus, on the other hand, has temps high enough to melt lead and clouds of sulfuric acid raining down on everything. Probes sent to Venus barely survived long enough to snap a few shots of the surface. To my knowledge, no metals native to Mars have been found, but all indications are that Mars once had a dense atmosphere and possibly highly-acidic oceans before it lost its magnetic field. There is a lot of metal swirling around in the asteroid belts, which is where a lot of meteoric-iron comes from. Not so much though when you get out to the gas giants and beyond. I mean, Jupiter has a core of metallic hydrogen, but that's not the same. Out beyond the planets it's more ice than anything else, which is where comets come from. It might be worth mentioning that nearly all metals, and especially anything heavier than iron, theoretically were created during a supernova, so it's in the vicinity of supernova remnants that one would expect to find the most metals. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metal[edit]

This article abuses the term metal. One of the most egregious examples is claiming that Se, selenium, is a metal. I quote the second sentence from the Wikipedia Se article:" It is a nonmetal (more rarely considered a metalloid) with properties that...". QED. I also think it is misleading to say elements that occur as alloys are therefore "native". I also have issues with lumping metalloids in. So, since astronomers define ANY element above He in the periodic table to be a metal, I guess we need to include sulfur, argon, and carbon as metals here, right?? If the term "native metal" generally includes naturally occurring alloys and metalloids, then just say that. But it really is poor policy to leave the reader with false impressions. I've worked with antimony ores and it is not, afaik, considered a metal, either. Most of the list is correct, but there are some elements included that are just wrong. Oh, also. I think it should be mentioned that "found in nature" does not mean formed at or near Earth's "normal" surface temperatures or atmospheric composition (i.e N2 + O2 + H2O + CO2), nor in water (salt water, brine, or fresh). That is, mention should be made that "natural conditions" include highly basic, alkaline, oxidizing, and reducing (anaerobic) environments, as well as situations where high heat or electricity (lightning) may occur.98.17.181.251 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the term being abused?

If we look at the lede, A native metal is any metal that is found pure in its metallic form in nature. Now we're including elements here like selenium and antimony (we list them later). Both of those are found in the form of 'native metal' [sic], or as compounds, and we're distinguishing here because we're interested specifically in their native form. Now OK, there's a question here as to whether they're 'metals' or not. But still, I think we're justified in calling this a 'native metal' form because the distinction we're making for this purpose is about whether they're in a native form, rather than some compound (not whether they classify as metals or not).

If you don't like the terminology here, do you have any better ideas? Ones that are equally clear for the purposes of this article too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, this is a bad edit that makes the article worse, not better, and should be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (supposed to be) about native metals (not about native elements that are not metals). Wikipedia has another article (Native element mineral) that includes elements that are not metals. I suggest that the Native metal article should be clearer that "native metal" is not the same as "native element". Perhaps the article could also include explicit explanation that "native metal" might have slightly different meanings or emphasis in mineralogy/geology compared to chemistry. My experience is that "native" is more of a mineralogical/geological term or concept. My interactions with chemists suggest to me that when chemists describe a single element in nature they usually say e.g. "iron" rather than native iron.

Mineralogically, chemical elements found alone or in alloys in nature are classified in the class "native elements". This class has several sub-classes for metals, alloys, metalloids and non-metals.

Mineralogically, selenium is a metalloid not a metal. Therefore, mineralogically, selenium should not be included in this Wikipedia article about native metals. In addition, mineralogically, the following are also metalloids not metals: antimony, arsenic and tellurium. Chemically, they are sometimes regarded as metalloids. Although chemically a metal, bismuth is regarded mineralogically as a metalloid. Therefore, mineralogically, these elements should also be removed from this article about native metals.GeoWriter (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (supposed to be) about native metals

No, it's about native 'metals'. The crucial aspect is native. If other metalloids also have this behaviour, then we should include those too. Their native habit is the crucial aspect.

We can discuss the best wording for how to describe that, and where we put the balance between simple clarity (which is likely to lead to some ambiguity) vs. pedantic accuracy and losing readability for most audiences. But the scope should be based on the habit, not nitpicking over their location in the periodic table. We need to describe an aspect of their nature first, not the human label applied somewhat arbitrarily. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]