Jump to content

Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Density and electronegativity chart

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:

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 1 asterisk Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
Fr Ra 1 asterisk
                                                                                                                                               
1 asterisk La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
1 asterisk 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:
  1. 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.
  2. ”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

@Sandbh: More issues have cropped up with the legend.

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. Less vertical space (Reduced from 5 to 3 lines.)
  2. Wider legend (Still fits within the table.)
  3. Density properly aligned vertically (Added invisible subscript.)
  4. Clear metal/nonmetal separation (Added detail to note. Varied width of cell borders.)
  5. Note focused on content (Added values and removed unnecessary term 'quadrant'.)
  6. Col headers clearly separate from adjacent text (Removed space after </≥ which was almost the same as space around headers.)
  7. Quadrant rows/cols clearly defined (Removed dividing line clutter by changing from {{legend inline}} to full-cell coloring.)
  8. 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)

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)

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
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)

Astrophysics

@Bruce1ees/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.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Elemental Abundances | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian". www.cfa.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2024-06-03.

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

This page 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

See:

YBG (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I've reinstated the Notability template, there being insufficent sources referring to "Nonmetallic compounds and elements". The article does not cite any sources using this term. There is no field that studies it. Google Books has scanned over 40 million titles. Google Scholar indexes nearly 100 million scholarly documents. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar yields a mighty three hits(!) out of 140 million documents/books. The notability of "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" is laughable.
I will thank you to leave the Notability template in place until the longer-term status of the Nonmetallic compounds and elements "article" is resolved. --- Sandbh (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that everyone else views the title "Nonmetallic compounds and elements" as a temporary choice pending conclusion of the discussions on the name of this article. If you have a suggestion for a better name, please add that to Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton. Yes, this is my understanding. My personal choice for a naturally disambiguated title would be Nonmetallic substances, but that would also involve expanding the scope to include substances that are neither elements nor compounds, such as wood, paper, and the like. YBG (talk) 02:48, 18 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)
Friends (@Johnjbarton, @Ldm1954, @Sandbh) - can we please be careful to use the expression "primary topic" in the sense it is used in WP policies like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where it says Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. Thus it makes sense to ask what is the primary topic of the term "nonmetal", but talking about the primary topic of an article causes confusion. Thank you. YBG (talk) 02:58, 18 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 have edit[ed] 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)
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 18 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)
Unfortunately, wishful thinking and misconceptions are abounding here.
@Johnjbarton and Ldm1954: The primary topic of the article "Nonmetal" is most frequently understood in the context of chemistry and the periodic table. The latter, as an icon of science, commonly features a zig-zag line marking the fuzzy boundary between metals and nonmetals.
Nonmetal is already precise, widely understood, and appropriately concise for its context. There is no intrinsic demonsttated need to change it to the tautological "nonmetal elements", given the existing title effectively communicates the intended meaning without redundancy.
@YBG: I got offended when you used the expression "man on the street" and would prefer you use non-gender specific language.
The iconic status of the periodic table, and its associated concepts of metals and nonmetals, TRUMPS the field.
While the properties of nonmetals are studied in the context of chemistry, and this has been the case since Lavoisier in 1789, there is no single discipline encompassing the study of wood, paper, water, etc.
The sign in your workplace kitchenette is an instance of imprecise language. It should ideally read "No non-metallic items on top of the hot Toaster Oven" to accurately convey the intended meaning.
--- Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The sign at my workplace may be imprecise in the context of science, but it is using language in the way the term is most commonly used in the English language. The more restricted sense of referring to one of the 20+ elements on the periodic table is admittedly more common in scientific literature. Please keep in mind that WP is a general encyclopedia, not a science encyclopedia.
"Nonmetallic elements" may be a tautological article title in a science encyclopedia, but is not tautological in a general encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems we are at an impass. @Johnjbarton, @YBG and I all consider nonmetals to be a general term which includes both elements and compounds. The later does include wood etc, but we don't need that broad an article. This is, we argue, how it is used everywhere, including in chemistry. The overview name Nonmetallic compounds and elements is just a placeholder which we all agree will change.
In contrast @Sandbh has been arguing that the only use of the term in chemistry is for the periodic table. All other uses are for special cases. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Updating Nonmetal (disambiguation)

​​​​ I've updated the Nonmetal (disambiguation) page to accomodate five senses of "nonmetal":

  1. Nonmetal, a chemical element characterized by relatively low density and high electronegativity such as silicon, phosphorus, chlorine and argon
  2. Nonmetal (astronomy), the elements hydrogen or helium, with all others being regarded as metals
  3. In chemistry, a chemical substance or mixture lacking a predominance of metallic properties, such as water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), or table salt (NaCl)
  4. In materials science, all substances which are not metals or alloys, including biomaterials, ceramics, composite materials, polymers, and semiconductors
  5. In physics, a substance with an electronic band gap; or which would not conduct electricity at a temperature of absolute zero; or the insulator in a metal-insulator transition.

The first sense is the primary topic. Nonmetal (astronomy) redirects to Metallicity. I believe items 3 to 5, listed in alphabetic order, address the other conceptions, recalling that list disambig items should usually have not more than one blue link. The actual disambiguation page has the See also links.

I believe this addresses previous concerns.

The Nonmetal hatnote has been updated concomitantly.

The next step will be the review of recent edits [1] to the Nonmetal article. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sandbh, Thank you for your work on the DAB page. I have built on this, attempting to make it conform better to MOS:DAB YBG (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nonmetal/Archive_6&oldid=1246020423"