Talk:Metal/Archive 1

History/prehistory of metals?
In my personal opinion the article badly needs some short words at least about the history & prehistory of metals and how they were discovered. Anyone? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that go under metallurgy? Or perhaps this article needs summary sections on mining, ore, metallurgy and applications of metal? &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid?
As soon as I saw the phrase "metal is stupid" at the very beginning of the article, I assumed I misread it. When I confirmed that it did indeed say "metal is stupid," I then assumed it was vandalism. However, I don't know anything about chemistry (See: Soviet education system) so if the word "stupid" has some other meaning in chemistry, I would have no way of knowing or refuting it. Could someone that actually has some amount of knowledge on this subject confirm whether this is or is not vandalism or a typo or what-have-you?MVMosin 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Right now there's some nonsense about crap up there, I'd edit it out but it seems to be a recurring problem. Obviously, this article is a target for those who dislike the genre of music known as metal, and ought to be protected from edits by new and unregistered users. -AndromedaRoach 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Yeah... there are currently continually ongoing edits and reversions, but the reversions still contain vandalism. -AndromedaRoach 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverted to the version before the vandalism. I hope it's the correct one, since it was the last revert before today's vandals. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this one.
I've got a few books regarding metals/chemistry from the library, and will be adding references/content over the course of the next n weeks, where n = randInt(0,52). Z i g g y  S a w  d u s t  17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Diagram
Surely this article needs a diagram of the periodic table at the top to show which are and are not metals, rather than a description of same? IceDragon64 (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely, you are collapsing the chemical classification, with the material property, and leave the mention of the music out of it. The Musical discussion of Metal is, well really beyond the comprension of the author(s) of the Metal(music) article. It did get a long and loud laugh from Ripper Owens, and Rob Halford has yet to comment.
 * This artcle has been said to be in need of a total rewrite.
 * and btw, Precious metals refer to materials used since antiquity in jewelry. $$--~ Insert formula here$$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Precious metals - Plutonium and uranium
Regarding the statement: "Plutonium and uranium could also be considered precious metals." Why could plutonium and uranium be considered precious metals? That's doesn't appear to be explained in the article. -- Iotha 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are NOT precious metals. Precious metals are metals known since antiquity, used in jewery. l@@k it up. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC) does any one know anything about technology metals????. does copper rust ... that sort a thing ??????????

Electron gas?
The line

The electrical and thermal conductivity of metals originate from the fact that in the metallic bond the outer electrons of the metal atoms form a gas of nearly free electrons

I think it is clear what is meant here, but I think the way it is stated is kind of clumsy. Maybe a 'cloud' of electrons might be a better way to say it?


 * People unclear on the concept. a Gas is a free floating arrangment of atoms, distinct from a solid. According to the shell model of the atom, they share co-vailient electrons, that are shared (thermal) and flow( electrical) . Cloud of electrons is a diffrent model. I dont object to using either model, I just object to mixing metaphores from diffrent models. Tunneling (Q.E.D, and Quantum models) are a diffrent electrical property. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging
I support the merge of this page with Properties and uses of metals. And also agree that a periodic table would be a good idea. I am a lemon (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support the merge too. --Rajah (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the mearging of the Properties of metals, but not the uses of metals. That is much too large a topic....--67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect percentages
"The Sun and the Milky Way Galaxy are composed of roughly 70% hydrogen, 30% helium, and 2% "metals" by mass.[1]" <-- That can't possibly be right, where's this extra 2% coming from?. --Rajah (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Roughy its 3/4 Hydrogen 1/4 Helium and a pinch of the rest...if you want more precise numbers...
 * : "Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively. Despite comprising only a very small fraction of the universe, the remaining 'heavy elements' can greatly influence astronomical phenomena. Only about 2% (by mass) of the Milky Way galaxy's disk is composed of heavy elements."
 * i.e. 74+24+2=100, but "In astronomy, a 'metal' is any element other than hydrogen or helium." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
I have added a disputed label because there is a bunch of inaccuracies. Jcwf (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Band structures
Metals do not necessarily have 'overlapping' conduction and valence bands. (In fact that is the definition of a semimetal, not a metal). It is sufficient to have some incompletely filled band. I.e. the Fermi level needs to fall inside a band rather than in a gap between bands. (One might add that the band has to be broad enough that it overcomes any localizing potentials, but this is a refinement related to Hubbard's U etc.) Jcwf (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Off course. Fixed.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this really true?
..Covalently bonded crystals can only be deformed by breaking the bonds between atoms, thereby resulting in fragmentation of the crystal..

If it is all diamond processing should be forbidden! Jcwf (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha? Nergaal (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It all depends whether deformation is reversible or irreversible. Off course you can bend diamond without breaking bonds, but it will relax upon release. NIMSoffice (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiling points
Alkali metals have the lowest boiling points? Really? How about mercury? Jcwf (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And gallium... anyways, it probably meant on average. Nergaal (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The free-electron model
There is really only one element for which this model is more or less accurate (cesium). For all others the fermi surface is far from spherical. Nevertheless a metal like silver is a better metal than cesium. How is the free-electron model explaining that??? Jcwf (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Define better! While silver has excellent DC conductivity, the alkali metals generally (and especially the heavier ones) have lower interband transitions making them better optically. Since interband transitions are a perturbation to the free-electron model, alkalis are arguably the most "metallic" metals.

Thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity does not even primarily result from metallic bonding, see there for discussion. Jcwf (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition
✅

The metals of the periodic table are formally defined as Lithium, beryllium, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, gallium, rubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum, technetium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, cadmium, indium, tin, antimony, caesium, barium, lanthanum, hafnium, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, osmium, iridium, platinum, gold, mercury, thallium, lead, and bismuth.
 * Really? So praseodymium and uranium are not metals?

Jcwf (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and correct it. Nergaal (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Metalloid
The elements stated as metalloid on this page (the periodic table, just under "Definition") and this one: Metalloid are not the same. Mandor (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Metals Missing
✅

Why are Zinc, Molybdenum, Cadmium, and Mercury missing from the box on the right side of the page? They are all transition metals.Hangwire (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * added to the top 122.111.14.145 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
In the opening paragraph
 * In chemistry, a metal (Greek: Metallo, Μέταλλο) is a chemical element whose atoms readily lose electrons to form positive ions (cations), and form metallic bonds between other metal atoms and ionic bonds between nonmetal atoms.[1]

Should it not use "with" rather than "between"? "Between" seems to indicate the bonds are between two other atoms. Rojomoke (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, makes sense to me. Go for it! Wizard191 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was self-contradictory (mentioning non-metal atoms within definition of a metal). Brushed up, but I'll look the Classics on proper definition.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition unclear

 * Metals are sometimes described as a lattice of positive ions surrounded by a cloud of delocalized electrons[clarification needed].

Too technical, kind of, by itself. I think the definition could be clarified by something practical like (just an example):
 * Metals are chemical elements or compounds, that are characterized by:
 * high electrical [conductivity-something]
 * high temperature [conductivity-something]
 * [insertme more]
 * due to the aforementioned [lattice-so-so].

The intro almost looks like a circular definition, defining metals as something that forms metallic bonds. I think the intro should elaborate more, so that it becomes clear that metallic bonds can be defined without regard to the quality of metals. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodic table
I think there should be a picture of the periodic table more prominently in this article. There is a clear, interesting & very visible difference between metals & not-metals when you look at the periodic table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I second this, in fact I was just coming here to say this! There must be a usable graphic of the P. Table with a nice black zigzag line seperating metals from non- metals. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Would this do?

Daniel (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)



Would this do? -

Optical properties
Is it worth saying some more about the optical properties of metals here? If you asked someone to describe a metal, they'll usually talk about its "shininess". I think this article should give a simple overview, explaining why mobile carriers in a metal have high reflectivity at visible wavelengths, and a brief look at exceptions due to interband transitions. If you agree that it would be useful, I'll add a new section (maybe under "physical properties"). Papa November (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Molecular metals
Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a definition of "molecular metals" anywhere. What are these? Are they different from just plain metals? A subset? It would be great if someone who knows would add information about molecular metals and what they are as part of this metals article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.195.22 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Noble Metals
In the definition of noble metals it states that "Noble metals are metals that are resistant to corrosion or oxidation," Later silver is listed as a Noble metal, however silver does indeed oxidize. I suppose a definition of what resistant means in chemical terms would be useful. That or add Aluminum to the list, because if I remember my materials while it does oxidize it's thin oxide layer is very tenacious so it prevents the oxidation from reaching beyond the surface, unlike iron which with rust through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.97.45 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no simple way to quantify oxidation, and as I understand it, noble metals are selected by their electrochemical potential. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Metallic chemicals
Bronze, brass, steel, and a few more are metallic chemicals. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * they are indeed based on metals, but they are alloys. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sp41700, 17 April 2011
in the precious metal second paragraph the link to the jewellery page is spelt jewelry. I would like the link text changed so the link has the correct spelling. Sp41700 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The jewellery article is written in UK and this one in US English. There is no need to change that. Materialscientist (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo questionable
The lead photo currently shows a display of eight elements, five of which are metals, captioned merely as "Some metal pieces" - which implies that carbon, phosphorus, and silicon are metals. They aren't. Can we find a more appropriate picture? 210.155.216.178 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

... what?
I would have thought such a obvious article as this would have some kind section on the the relevent history... but it doesn't? Robo37 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

list of 3 non oxidizing metals is complete?
the phrase 'Others, like palladium, platinum and gold, do not react with the atmosphere at all. ' implies there are more in the list of 3. what are the rest? Clf99 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Metallic hydrogen
Hydrogen is a liquid metal when compressed. It makes the strong magnetic field of Jupiter. I am pretty sure other elements can change state, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklewickleukulele (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

metal forming
How is metal processed in a way to punch a hole and then thread it, with hole boed in the direction of how the hole was made?


 * Boring is machining with a rotary drill, punching is done with a non-movable bit and a press or hammer. The diffrence is that since Boring is done with less orthagonal stresses, the subsiquent threading operation, i.e. cutting of threads, is more likely to produce threads of uniform pitch, and less likely to deform under fatigue. On car parts, it is common practice to electroweld a nut so that the resulting thread anchor is much stronger. Go and ask a machinist. --67.174.157.126 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to add my own post, but I would like to point out that not all metal is a good conductor of electricity. Lead, for example, is a very poor conductor. Thus it is not appropriate to have that description in the first definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.131.133 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is all relative - lead is a poor conductor among metals, yet it is much better than wood or glass. Materialscientist (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A Jumble of Information
While trying to get an overview of metals, especially alloys, for a non Wiki article, I arrived at the 'Metal' page. I couldn't make head nor tail of it. All the hard work has been done and most of the facts are there but, unfortunately, they are jumbled and misleading: "metals are solid", "Visible material in the universe" and so on.

I hate all the notices overpowering the Wiki pages, mostly demanding 'more references'. I'm reluctant to place an 'inaccurate and needs input from an expert' notice, followed by, 'needs copy writer' notice. But perhaps the consensus, after consideration, would think this the best approach. The other comments above on this talk page seem to indicate so.

I always feel really guilty messing with other peoples work, especially the young and inexperienced, who often sweat their guts out writing a Wiki article about a subject ín which they are probably an expert, but haven't quite got the hang of technical writing yet. I was in that position myself, but eons before PCs, the internet, Wiki, and man-made global warming.

If you do sweat over presenting your specialist subject, don't be like me and leave it for years. An old boy at our technical publications department put me straight after I had submitted a rambling spaghetti. Once you learn the basics, writing becomes simple, quick, and even enjoyable. From then on, you will develop as you write. If you're bright enough to learn about metals, you could pick up the basics of writing in a few lunch hours. You would think they would be taught at school as a core subject. Enough rambling!

If this is your article or you have contributed greatly... sorry. Please don't give up as I have; keep supplying core material to Wiki. CPES (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Liquid Metal
There is also the possibility that metals exist in a liquid state, for example mercury at standard conditions. However, this doesn't seem to be very well indicated in the sections concerning the physical properties of metals. They can, for example, also be electrically conductive even when in the liquid state. Is there an easy way to add some form of clarification?

Tschoppi (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion on the division of information
I suggest that a mention of metal, semi-metal and non-metal classification of the elements be made in the first paragraph. However, I couldn't think up proper wording that didn't step on the definition in the second paragraph. My personal belief is that the 1st paragraph of any entry should be written at the 8th grade level so that it is useful to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.46.254 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the general chemical and physical properties of metals, all metals appear here, along with a little historical perspective. I'm working on some historical perspective in metalworking but it's slow because I'm trying not to trash completely was is/was there. Additionally, there is way more there than belongs there.

I suggest that the commercial, physical, and engineering application of metals be done in metallurgy with a link from this article to that. I suggest that the article Properties_and_uses_of_metals would be a good fit in metallurgy under the topic of the top five commercially used metals. Begs (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this nice graph be added to the physical melting points area to provide a quick reference visual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykiscool (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Table
Should be table of all metals115.241.241.2d (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
Please change the mechanical properties listed on this page as they are incorrect metals are not Ductile they are "Often ductile" and are not always "strong" there for it should state "Often strong".

Adam Sleigh (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I couldn't find the word strong in the article. As for ductile, in the lead it states, "Metals are generally malleable - as well as fusible and ductile." The word generally in this case would mean the same as often. There may be room to make it a little clearer, so if you have any suggestions on how to improve or rewrite it, please feel free to reactivate the request with citable sources and in the format "Change XXX to YYY". Thanks. Inomyabcs (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015
The following is intended for section 8 (Applications):

Metals can be doped with foreign molecules – organic, inorganic, biological and polymers. This doping entails the metal with new properties that are induced by the guest molecules. Applications in catalysis, medicine, electrochemical cells, corrosion and more have been developed.

David Avnir (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

David Avnir (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a link above to dopant. YBG (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you. Inomyabcs (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20160101194304/http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/tabid/54044/Default.aspx to http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/tabid/54044/Default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101194304/http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/tabid/54044/Default.aspx to http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Publications/tabid/54044/Default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new metal-nonmetal periodic table.
 Element categories in the periodic table Unsigned - 05:09, 3 December 2010 User:Wd930


 * Note: The colors used for this table have changed. See periodic table (metals and nonmetals). -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work which does not seem to have found its way in the article until now. So I have just inserted the version cited by De Piep, with all elements to 118. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No edit war
I don't want to start an edit war, but some of the alkali metals can be cut with a knife, which means they are soft. The reason why usually high melting-points is necessary is mercury, rubidium, gallium, and cesium are all liquid at or near room temperature. While the concept of high MP or low MP differs, everyone on the planet would agree that these are low in comparison to the melting points of other metals (eg. tungsten). Mercury's melting point is below 0C. All people would agree that that is low.

What metal oxides are basic? Most metal oxides are completely inert. Al2O3, SiO2, TiO, etc. Metal hydroxides are basic (NaOH, KOH), sure, but that's an entirely different animal.
 * Eric 22:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add a little more about acidic/basic properties of metal oxides. Some metal oxides in their highest oxidation state are far not inert being extremely aggressive oxidizers (dangerous in handling!) and definitely acidic because they produce pH < 7 when mixed with water (or willingly soluble in alkali) e. g., CrO3, MoO3, WO3, V2O5, Mn2O7 unlike those of low oxidation state, which are neutral or even somewhat basic like TiO and PbO soluble in sulfuric acid. From another hand, TiO2 and Pb3O4 are soluble in molten NaOH. Thus, yes, basicity/acidity conception is hardly helpful for definition of what metals are, though nevertheless, it is true: most of metal oxides in their low oxidation states are basic or amphoteric. In general, the higher group number of an element in Periodic Table the less basic is the corresponding oxide. {Nick Moskalev, September 25, 2005}

The article does point out that the alkaline properties of metal oxides is a rule of thumb, not an absolute truth.

Comments from YBG: More lead refining
The last sentence of the 1st paragraph says A metal may be a chemical element such as gold, or an alloy such as stainless steel, or a compound alloy such as nickel aluminide. It seems to me that nickel aluminide is a poor choice as it could be any of three different substances. YBG (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ta, I changed this to: "such as one of the nickel aluminides." Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still bothered a bit by the three category names: the current scheme (element ... alloy ... compound alloy) makes the 3rd item seem like a subcategory of the 2nd. Maybe change to element ... alloy ... intermetallic compound or element ... alloy ... compound.
 * And I'm uncertain of the order. The current order (element/alloy/compound) seems to go in historic order or perhaps from most common to least common. An alternative is to go from simplest to most complicated, i.e., element (pure) - compound (whole number ratio) - alloy (arbitrary ratio). Comments? YBG (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe the lead is looking good now, thanks to your incisive prompting. Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph makes no distinction between those characteristics which are defining and those which are merely descriptive. Ideally, a lead is something like "[term] is a [generic category] that [defining characteristics]. They are frequently [descriptive characteristics]". This may not be possible due to the lack of a universally accepted definition of metal. YBG (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are no sharply defining characteristics I've been able to find. The closest I've seen are physics-based definitions that are too obtuse for the general reader e.g. 'a solid with a Fermi surface' or 'It's a metal if and only if it has a huge density of states at the Fermi level' (but this one doesn't work in the case of bismuth, which a low density of states at the Fermi level). How does the lead look now? As you alluded, I hived off malleability and ductility since these are not universal. Conductivity and lustrousness are reasonably defining. Oh, and I added mention of density since this is fairly characteristic. I get reminded of this every time I heft a piece of garden furniture. Sandbh (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking good. I'm just wondering if, for a non-technical lede, we might treat shininess as defining and treat both conductivities as descriptive. Certainly the layman would think primarily of shininess, maybe consider electrical conductivity, but very likely be unaware of thermal conductivity. YBG (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ta. Shininess by itself doesn't seem "defining" to me since that would include graphite, black P, selenium, and iodine. Shininess + conductivities make it defining. I presume anyone who has ridden a subway would know that metals conduct electricity, and that anyone who has worked in a metal garage on a hot day would know that metals are really good conductors of heat. Sandbh (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Two asides: (1) I should think that plugging extension cords into the mains would be the more common way people come to recognize the electrical conductivity of metals. (2) Granted that graphite and iodine are shiny, but there's something decidedly non-metalic about their shininess, don't you think? But why is that my knee-jerk reaction? Is it the color? YBG (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Could be. How about the power lines that carry electricity? (2) I agree. In the case of iodine I understand this is due to it not having as many free electrons, so there is less interaction with incoming EM radiation. Stephen Hawkes described this as "the usual appearance of opaque nonmetallic crystals like iron pyrite (“fool’s gold”)". Here iron pyrite is another semiconductor like iodine except that iodine is only a semiconductor across its planes. Graphite is a semimetal across its planes and a semiconductor in a direction parallel to its planes, so I presume that may also limit its capacity to interact with EM radiation. Whereas true metals, whether polycrystalline or crystalline have no such encumbrances. Mind you, I always though that tellurium, a metalloid and semiconductor, looked quite like a metal so I don't fully understand what's going on. Sandbh (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What is a metal?
There does not appear to be an actual definition of what a metal is anywhere in the article. The periodic table is divided into metals, metalloids and nonmetals, so surely there is a definition to explain the difference. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no definitive definition. The question is covered at Metalloid and Dividing line between metals and nonmetals. William Avery (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I edited and refined the lead [excuse the unintentional pun] section to address this question. Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a lot clearer now. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 September 2018
Please add American English as a WP:EDITNOTICE to the article page Metal. (Note: I use Edit template-protected becasue this edit requires TE rights). - DePiep (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the edit request templates are too smart for their own good here. The template sees that this page is semi-protected, and adds it to the semi-protect queue anyway. I've swapped out your tag for an  tag instead. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I dug through the documentation and found the force parameter. Switched back! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a strange route to go. Done fine. Thanks all. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Part 1

 * A metal (from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is a material that, when freshly prepared, polished, or fractured, has a lustrous appearance, and conducts both electricity and heat relatively well. -- is it (that's an actual question) entirely correct to say in the first sentence metal is, undoubtedly, a material? As far as I understand, the concept of "metal" can be expanded toward a classification of chemical elements as opposed to the material these elements form?
 * I believe it is a material. Our article on material says that 'material' is a broad term for a chemical substance or mixture of substances that constitute a thing. This is appropriate as a metal can include a pure chemical element as well as a mixture.
 * Okay. I am still somewhat uncertain but Double sharp has brought to my attention it can be a problem of understanding between native speakers of different languages. That said, I am not sure, but I will trust youк judgment.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above definition is somewhat generic (not that there's anything wrong with that) and it lists a few properties. Why are, however, malleability and ductility excluded from that list? Are there non-malleable metals? Or does this definition simply come from a multitude of sources? A note on that would be very welcome
 * Malleability and ductility are excluded from the lead sentence since not all metals malleable and ductile. This is elaborated in the Brittle metal section. This definition is based on the one given in one of the ASM Handbooks. I'll see if I can add a reference.
 * I'll note I'd written this long before I first read the Brittle metal section. But now that I've read it, I still am not sure whether there are any metals that are not malleable or ductile. The subsection in question does not list any examples. Anyway, there reference would be very welcome.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The subsection gives beryllium, chromium, manganese, gallium, and bismuth as brittle metals. I've added a citation. Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In physics, a metal is regarded as any substance capable of conducting electricity at a temperature of absolute zero -- I am under impression this is an overly broad statement when put under "in physics." I am confident many physicists don't even operate at such temperatures and still have their professional understanding of what a metal is. I am not sure what should be done; maybe try "in low-temperature physics"?
 * I think this would be OK, since low-temperature physics is a subset if physics. And I want to maintain the distinction between physics, chemistry, and astronomy, at the whole of discipline level. I'll see about adding a note to the effect that in physics, a metal is something that has a high density of states at the Fermi level. I don't want to use this in the lead because it will be above the common reader's comprehension.
 * "low-temperature physics is a subset if physics" -- here's the counter-example that immediately comes to my mind: imagine if the causes for the Seven Years' War was listed in Big Bang? Theoretically, that would be correct but sort of too specific to tie the the whole of the "aftermath of the Big Bang," don't you think? That's the feeling I'm getting here: that might be correct but is it really right to put this low-temperature understanding of the term to the whole of physics? I am sure the reader won't think you're talking about chemistry or astrophysics (which, come to think of it, is another subset of physics!) if you go with "low-temperature physics". I sort of expect "brittle" or "shiny" or "good conductors of electricity" after the general "In physics."--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the paragraphs concerned, and their order, and added a citation quoting Sir Nevill Mott, where he (as a physicist writing to another chemist/physicist, refers to defining a metal as something that conducts at absolute zero. Many physicists don't operate at such low temperatures but my reading of the literature suggests that Sir Mott's definition is widely understood, and is the easiest to set out. Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In chemistry, two elements that would otherwise qualify as brittle metals [...] Around 95 of the 118 elements in the periodic table are metals. -- I think the fact that there are ~95 (while we're at it, there are only 85 metal cells in the periodic table in this article) in the metals in the periodic table is more important than classification of two particular elements so you may want to reorder sentences in this paragraph.
 * I worded that this way because when I was trying to define what a metal was I was being driven around the bend by the fact that physics views arsenic and antimony as metals whereas this is not the case in chemistry (not generally, anyway). It was only when I realised that I would have to spell out the differences between the disciplines that the whole thing cam together. On the number of metals I've edited the lead to say that around 95 of the elements are metals or are likely to be such, and I've amended the Periodic table distribution section.
 * Again, consider the above comment as nothing more than a comment; I trust your judgment.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * frequent use in high-rise building and bridge construction, as well as most vehicles, many home appliances, tools, pipes, non-illuminated signs and railroad tracks --this doesn't strike me as the best description of metal usage possible even though I'll note I am not sure how I would describe the use of metals if I were faced with a need to do so (so please give it some more thought but feel free to ignore the above statement); maybe try to go with general words like "engineering" and "construction"? Regardless, while engineering seems like a good example, non-illuminated signs seem too specific for this general description, don't you think?
 * Yes, I've now referred to these uses as examples, and removed the non-illuminated signs bit.


 * Physical -- this is a confusing title. Mechanics is physics, too, and so is electromagnetism (have you, by the way, considered covering the magnetic properties of metals?). Also, I can't help but think density is best described among other mechanical properties, and so is ductility. Maybe limit this subsection to atomic-scale properties and the next subsection to macro-scale properties?
 * Good. For the moment I've reorganised the section and changed the titles. It would be very worthwhile adding something about magnetic properties. Sandbh (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears inconsistent to me that you describe metals simply as "relatively good conductors of electricity and heat" but then go for a longer talk about densities. How "relatively" is that?
 * The electrical conductivity of metals is compared to that of a semiconductor in the electrical and thermal section. I think that gives a good idea of the relativities involved. Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fine now.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Their densities of 1.7, 2.7 and 4.5 g/cm3 range from 19 to 56% of the densities of the older structural metals, iron (7.9) and copper (8.9) -- somehow, this confused me at first. Maybe try something like "compare their densities of 1.7, 2.7 and 4.5 g/cm3 to those the older structural metals, iron (7.9) and copper (8.9)"?
 * Yes, I don't know what I must've been doing then. I've had a go at editing this to make it clearer. Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * the older structural metals, iron and copper -- weren't there more, like lead?
 * I don't recall lead being used as a structural metal? I've edited the text to say "like the older structural metals…." Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just about to suggest not to use this ambiguous term but then I saw you decided to go with "like." That's fine.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The transition metals (such as iron, copper, zinc, and nickel) are slower to oxidize because they form a passivating layer of oxide -- from what I've learned from working on aluminium, aluminum does this passivation trick, too, yet it is listed among main-group elements that rust? Also, the reactions seem unnecessary anyway, as rusting and passivation are both metal + oxygen -> metal oxide.
 * Yes, I've trimmed and edited this section. It needs more work to at least explain the difference between rusting, and forming a surface patina, but what is there will do for now. Sandbh (talk)

Part 1A

 * Some metals form a barrier layer of oxide on their surface which cannot be penetrated by further oxygen molecules -- that's exactly what passivation is, isn't it? we don't need to explain this process twice
 * Agree, and duplicate text has been removed. Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * An alloy is a substance having metallic properties and which is composed of two or more elements at least one of which is a metal -- I expected this section to mention that some alloys are solid solutions of metals while other form granules within their co-alloying components
 * I've expanded this sentence to give an example of a solid solution alloy and a fixed composition alloy. Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do the "less systematic" (why are they less systematic, by the way?) categories get their own subsections while the chemical ones don't? Also, there are more chemical categories than just AM, AEM, Ln, An, TM, and PTM; for example, there are the rare earth elements and the platinum group elements.
 * OK I've edited and expanded this paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In the list of metals in the right-aligned box, I notice than oganesson is not listed among "possibly metals". I think there is a certain possibility that oganesson is a metal, too, though you may want to ask to make sure.
 * Yes, I'll leave Og out for now subject to any thoughts from . Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_34 has a review of everything I could find in the literature about this in March. The Royal Society of Chemistry's website calls oganesson "A highly radioactive metal". Granted, it says something similar for all the transactinides, but since it says for copernicium that ""It is thought to be unreactive and more like a noble gas than a metal", this may be more than a pure copy-paste. AFAIK nobody else is willing to make a clear stand on what is predicted (unlike for Ts), but since OgF4 is predicted to be salt-like (10.1021/jp983665k: "The local (118) atom in (118)F2 and (118)F4 will loose [sic] electron densities due to highly electronegative fluorines and become an open-shell ion"), I think it would be justified to call oganesson possibly a metal, though I would not go further until we have some calculations on the solid-state structure of bulk Og. Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Formation -- nucleosynthesis in general seems more an element-specific thing than metallicity-related; what's the need for that in this article? I thought this maybe (just maybe) could be justified by the mentioning in the lead that there is a specific astrophysics definition that metal is anything heavier than helium, but it's not even used!
 * You must have missed that part of the lead where it gives the astronomy based definition of a metal to be any element with Z > He.
 * I've seen that part of the lead and that's exactly why I'm bringing that up. There's no way of telling what definition is being used here and the nearby periodic table goes with the chemical delimitation.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a hat note to the top of this section, clarifying what kind of metal is being discussed. Sandbh (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Abundance and Occurrence are so related I'd put them under a single title. Abundance is very short anyway.
 * Done.


 * Metals are often extracted from the Earth by means of mining ores that are rich sources of the requisite elements, such as bauxite -- is it the whole story, though? doesn't pricing of the process of extraction of metals from a particular ore play a big role?
 * Agree, and fixed. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * US$0.07 cents -- I think that's just "US$0.07"
 * Done.


 * Pure iron may be the cheapest metal of all -- it would be great to say this is for a reason: not only is iron widespread, but also easy to work and the technology has been so developed therefore.
 * Very good; done.


 * Also, many people count alloys as metals and we have to account for that. Is cast iron really more expensive than pure iron?
 * Good; cast iron is indeed cheaper. I've edited this section to make it clear it only applies to metallic elements. I'll revisit the cast iron question in a later checking and editing round. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. It's certainly better now though I'd advise something like a italicized note like This section only deals with the elemental metals and not alloys to avoid any confusion; though note this is only how I would do it and that doesn't mean you have to as well.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given it some more thought and I really don't think you should limit yourself to elemental metals. Your title is "metal" and this is a popular encyclopedia which brings me to thinking that we should use term as broadly as possible; that's what the readers will expect. If you mention that cast iron is cheaper because purification has obviously not been accounted for, that's going to be a great addition. Also, I am a little puzzled about platinum being ubiquitous; could you perhaps explain it (in a note) or choose another metal?--R8R (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have added cast iron and elaborated why Pt is so ubiquitous. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * at a cost of about $100,000,000 per gram -- it would be great to maybe state the obvious for some, but surely not everyone, and say this great price comes from the scarcity and the micro-scale production. Can you even buy a whole gram of polonium? (Also IIRC Cf is more expensive)
 * OK, I've added some text to explain this. I did check Cf; Po is more expensive. I will add a note about a whole gram of Po not being buyable. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

More to come later.--R8R (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to this. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I haven't responded to something, it either means I agree or that I'm waiting for you to do something you've said you will.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

 * The strength and resilience of metals has led to their frequent use in [...] non-illuminated signs -- how are strength and resilience exactly desirable here?
 * I removed the reference to non-illuminated signs. Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Home electrical systems, for the most part, are wired with copper wire -- this lacks a reference for now so I'll just ask: I've seen that wires in the U.S. are now usually made from aluminum (doesn't mean that's the case, but that's what I've learned). Can you confirm the above statement is still correct?--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did some Google searching. I wasn't able to find anything saying that wires in the U.S. are now usually made from aluminum. It looks like aluminum wire never fully recovered from problems experienced with its use in the 1960s to mid-70s. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * jewelry -- is it not jewellery in Australian English? (as a non-native speaker, I can get to concentrate on small things even if sometimes possibly I miss the bigger picture)
 * The first English language variant used in this article was American ("luster"). Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This last property -- this is confusing, I had to re-read that a couple of times. You meant reflectivity, right?
 * Indeed I did, and I can see how it was confusing. Now fixed, I hope. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Some metals have specialized uses; radioactive metals such as uranium and plutonium -- something tells me radioactivity is too specialized a thing to start off the list of specialized uses with (I only suggest rewording)
 * Agree, and I've change the order of the sentences. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Shape memory alloy is used -- from what I'm getting, there are multiple shape memory alloys; maybe try "Shape memory alloys are used"?
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Demand for metals is closely linked to economic growth. -- almost wanted to put a why there. So, why? I'd put a summarizing sentence or two there
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * US -- unless it's really natural for you to write it this way, I'd try "U.S." For instance, the article United States Army mentions "U.S." in its text 147 times (again, see the comment re fixating on smaller things)
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For example, 95% of the energy used to make aluminium from bauxite ore is saved by using recycled material -- that's a really helpful comment! (no action required)
 * Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Levels of metals recycling are generally low. -- this is unnecessarily complex-sounding, this is really asking for a rephrasing
 * Thank you; done. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) -- you don't need to introduce an acronym if you're not going to use it later
 * Trimmed. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * published reports on metal stocks that exist within society and their recycling rates -- aaand? I mean, I know this report can support a lot of statements and I've even referred to it myself, but by itself, why is it even important? sorry, just read the next para Since you're making a point, you might want to keep it in one paragraph so it is easier to track. I was really confused by the penultimate para until I read the last one. Really suggest merging them.
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Part 3

 * Gold, silver, and iron (as meteoric iron) were likewise discovered in prehistory. Other metals known in antiquity were lead, mercury, and tin. -- why are gold, silver, and iron (do you use the Oxford comma btw?) on one hand are treated differently than lead, mercury, and tin?
 * I've fixed this. It was something I missed when editing the history section early on. I do use the Oxford comma more or less routinely in order to be clear on my intended meaning. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Native copper -- this is a misleading link, I thought it would lead to something related to native copper and not copper in general; you could try native copper.
 * Redirected to native copper, in the native metals article. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The discovery of bronze -- this starts off as if the reader is expected to know what bronze is, when it was discovered, etc. I'd certainly add a link and quickly mentioned when it was first made and from which elements. You mention the elements later but it would be better (I think) to start off with that
 * Done, I think. Checking for wlinks is something that still needs to be done for the whole article. I'm not to worried about this for now. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The ancient Europeans never attained the concept "metal" as a distinct elementary substance with fixed, characteristic chemical and physical properties. -- this is a very cool comment (no action required)
 * Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Arabic and medieval -- this isn't right, one does not exclude the other
 * Changed to Middle Ages. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * mercury, the mother of all metals -- Question. I've learned from working on lead that lead was the father of all metals; does this mother mercury complement or contradict that?
 * I've added a note about this saying that lead was regarded as the father of metals in ancient times


 * Paracelsus -- is from the Renaissance rather than medieval times
 * Fixed by turning it into a note.


 * Albert the Great, 1193–1280 -- other people haven't had the honor of having their lifespans included
 * Deleted the lifespan. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * He gave the following description of a metal -- the description is good but somewhat long. I find history of stuff fascinating, too, and I've learned the best way to have the whole story in is to keep it in a subarticle, whereas you can stick to the essentials in the main article. Probably same applies here. If you decide to go for a subarticle (I suggest you do), I'd love to help you shorten this section
 * I'll leave it here for the time being, and review its inclusion later on. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Question. Why is uranium given more coverage than, say, nickel?
 * I always found it astonishing that the metal that gave us the nuclear age had such an old lineage. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Platinum, the third precious metal after gold and silver, was discovered -- maybe try simply going with "over the Age of Enlightenment, many new metals were discovered, such as platinum and nickel" or something like that? Why do Pt and U enjoy more coverage than the non-precious metals?
 * Platinum has bling appeal, along with gold and silver. I though it was interesting that so many years elapsed before the third precious metal was discovered. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Aluminium was discovered in 1825 -- aluminum was discovered in 1824; the discovery was only announced in 1825
 * Done. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * jewelry -- again, "jewellery"?
 * As per previous response. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (ACSR); (AAAC) -- see comment re unused acronyms
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Production of aluminium-scandium alloys began in 1971. Aluminium-scandium alloys were also developed in the USSR -- does the first sentence imply the 1971 thing happened somewhere other than the USSR?
 * Yes, it should have referred to the U.S. Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The age of steel -- no immediate comments, just glad you included this (no action required)
 * Thanks :) Sandbh (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The last stable metals -- they are of relatively little importance but take lots of space; do we even need this in the main article? I'd reserve this for a subarticle. Besides, I don't see why Re gets some coverage while Np or Tc don't. The synthetic metals could even use a summing up sentence like "Since 1940, only metals have only been discovered via nuclear synthesis." Am I correct in thinking that many metals discovered in the 1940s were discovered to see whether they could be used as weapon? If that's the case, that would be cool to mention. But please take this comment with a pitch of salt; I would generally try to go a lot differently, emphasizing not on how some elements were discovered, but rather on how metals were used overall. That's why I liked your "The age of steel" subsection, for instance. The above review of this section was mostly about how this current text could be improved rather than about what kind of text even should be there in the first place. I'd like to try to write that separately if you want me to.--R8R (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead with writing something separately. Let's see what that looks like. Note that I'm going to add a Post WWII section. Sandbh (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to go for another round once you ask me to.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Will do. Note that RL commitments will slow me down in responding to your latest feedback comments. Sandbh (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

History
My general advice would be to concentrate on metals in general, not just the metals from the chemical definition (that is, some chemical elements). For instance, I love that you include bronze from the Bronze Age or steel from the age of steel. So that you are more comfortable with editing, I strongly suggest creating a spinoff article called History of metals or the like, copying existing information there, and edit this section more freely (I did it with aluminium and now we have very good, information-dense Aluminium as well as a GA and a to-be-FA called history of aluminium). I sort of think my advice won't get through if you don't do this; I'd also really want you to do it not least because this section is currently very very long compared to the other ones.

If you agree with this, I'd be happy to tell you my recommendations for both this section and the new subarticle.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell me of your recommendations. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently my focus is on getting the chronology of the history section right. Over five years since a history section was added to the article, I think it is basically right now :) apart from still having to add a section on modern developments in alloys. Then there is getting the structure and coverage of the whole article right. Then there is adding citations and wikilinks. So I'm not so fussed right now about the length of the history section. But I am still interested in your recommendations. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, it is actually fine to work on this section before splitting it off into a subarticle, I didn't think of it first. But I still strongly recommend doing so after you're done.
 * My main recommendation would be to remember this is a story of metals, as broadly as it can be in our overview article, but with a focus on metallicity. The term "metal" is more than just a few chemical elements as I conclude from this section right now. There are a few things that (again, given the overview character of this article) are far too long. For instance, the bit on classification of metals seems too long, discoveries of particular metals were given too much room, you don't need these pictures, etc. I find it difficult to give an actionable advise but my recommendation would be to cut as much as you could without touching the metallicity part and try to focus more on how metals were actually used, with perhaps a side story of classification of metals.--R8R (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I currently think the article is OK. It is one of the shortest I've worked on. The history (which is fascinating) section is long, as is appropriate for materials that have underpinned the development of civilisation. I had a quick look at the nihonium article (hearty congrats on the bronze star) and the history section there looks comparably long. I'll look again at the classification section. The categories there seem like the most recognisable ones. Bearing in mind there are nearly 100 metals it's probably a good thing to try and group them into more manageable chunks. I love the spectacle of all of the pictures, and the featured metals showing their form. I've never seen anything like it, apart from Vincent van Gogh. Sandbh (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidents
(Opening line now:)

A metal (from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is a material that, when freshly prepared, polished, or fractured, has a lustrous appearance, and conducts electricity and heat relatively well. Metals are typically malleable (they can be hammered into thin sheets) or ductile (can be drawn into wires). A metal may be a pure chemical element such as gold, or an alloy of variable composition such as stainless steel, or an alloy of fixed composition, otherwise known as an intermetallic compound, such as one of the nickel aluminides, Ni3Al, NiAl, or NiAl3. Most elemental metals are denser than other elements; iron, for example, is heavier than carbon, and sulfur.

My comments:

A metal (from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is a material that, when freshly prepared, polished, or fractured, has a lustrous appearance, and conducts electricity and heat relatively well. Metals are typically malleable (they can be hammered into thin sheets) or ductile (can be drawn into wires). A metal may be a pure chemical element such as gold, or an alloy of variable composition such as stainless steel, or an alloy of fixed[???] composition, otherwise known as an intermetallic compound [too much detail, DePiep], such as one of the nickel aluminides, Ni3Al, NiAl, or NiAl3 [!!!??? in the opening line of the article???]. Most elemental metals are denser than other elements; iron, for example, is heavier than carbon, and sulfur. {lede level?}
 * The clause about "when freshly prepared etc" needs to be included as many metals don't have a lustrous appearance due to surface oxidation. I made mention of the density of metals since, historically, the heaviness of metals made them stand out from other substances. Sandbh (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Current status of this article
With the help of, , , and other passing editors, I've been editing this article with a view to bringing it up to speed. I had often looked at it over the years and, for such an important article, had always felt disappointed. I guess the broad nature of the subject may have put some editors off.

Impressions
 * I'm especially pleased the article now has an all-encompassing explanation of what a metal is
 * I'm now happy with its structure
 * I'm very happy with the chronology and coverage of the History section as it currently stands
 * The article now has everything I'd expect to see in article about metals.

To do list 1. R8R has suggested hiving off a few of the larger sections into their own articles, and I'll look at that down the track 2. The images are nice, and need to be checked for alt-text inclusions 3. Citations and wikilinks need to be added 4. Add a Social and environmental impact section Sandbh (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add further suggestions. Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So far, everything in the Post-World War II developments section has to do with alloys. Maybe label these sections "Modern alloy advances" or the like and have a separate section "Synthesis of new elements" or the like. Certainly these two aspects of recent history are quite distinct with little overlap. YBG (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined not to change the section title, since alloys are metals. Sandbh (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The recent history completely omits any mention of period 7 discoveries. I see two ways to go here: (1) include a paragraph about these recently discovered synthetic elements or (2) decide that the history section is focused primarily on use not on mere discovery/synthesis. In the latter case, everything post-WWII is about alloys, and I'd reiterate my suggestion to change the title to something re alloy advances. In the former case, it might be good to condense all the one-paragraph sections into a one or two paragraphs about alloy advances. Condensing it and placing it parallel to a paragraph about discovery & synthesis would contrast two very different kinds of advancement: advances in alloys and their application, and filling in the periodic table. Both very exciting, but in very different ways. YBG (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In Metal there is a periodic table colored by abundances [always good with me]. Since these are scaled abundances in 5 classes (i.e., sequential), can we look for a scaled color sceme? In this list of options, I happen like the red-yellow-blue one (and is colorblind safe, and not using white = #6 non-metals).
 * Will do; I like this scheme a lot. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried it. The red and the blue shades make the element symbols hard to read so I haven't done it. Sandbh (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the same table: do mention synthetic elements like Te? And keep white, or an extra color for synthetic, but I dont know if that is helpful.
 * No, won't mention these as they don't exist in the Earth's crust. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the same table, explain the Au and Sn markings. - DePiep (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done; the text accompanying the legend explains what is going on with Au and Sn. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Rhenium single crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg appears twice. Intentionally? -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's a refactory metal, as well as being one of the last three stable metals to be discovered. Sandbh (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The third image writes "intermetallic compound". Isn't alloy more common, esp in the lede? -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is but the intention of the pictures in the lede is to show one metallic element, and one of each kind of alloy (one of variable composition; one of fixed composition i.e. an intermtallic compound). Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Too complicated. This answer itself here, and so it must be for the Reader reading the lede. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I think this is fixed now. Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, setup is clearer now. Now to me the examples and their distinction is still confusing (=I needed research to get it). Maybe other readers meet the same. I now understand there are: (a) elemental metals/intermetal alloys (metal+metal)/non-metal alloys (steel). (b) And there also is the distinction fixed/nonfixed ratios (fixed=by chemical formula). I think my confusion stems from the current aim to mix examples for both lines-of-distinction into three examples only. This also shows by the long descriptive caption in image#3 (not helped by the double feature in there to describe). btw, Intermetallic compound is a redirect, see the 2nd paragraph in the target article.
 * My resulting suggestion from this: we could aim for these four examples: elemental metal/non-metal alloy (steel)/varying metal-metal/fixed metal-metal. These are mutually exclusive and together they are complete (nice twice). The two metal-metal alloys could be merged into one for lede-level (reduce level of detail). Also replace the double-feature image with a single one at all cost. Then try to describe these four (or three) along a single line of distinction. The examples & captions should be exactly parallel to the lede text. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I see it there are three main categories of metals, with subdivisions as follows
 * Elemental metals, e.g., Fe, Mg, Au, U, ...
 * Variable ratio alloys
 * (a) (2:n)2 or more metals
 * (b) (1:n)1 or more metal + (1:n)1 or more nonmetal
 * e.g., Amalgam (chemistry) or Steel an alloy of iron and carbon and other elements ... carbon in typical steel alloys may contribute up to 2.14%
 * Fixed ratio (stoichiometric) alloys
 * (a) (2:n)2 or more metals "Intermetallic compounds"
 * (b) (1:n)1 or more metals + (1:n)1 or more nonmetals
 * I think the problem is that the article (at least as I have been reading it) has been treating 3(a) as synonymous with 3, thus completely ignoring 3(b). YBG (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For completeness, should '4. ore' be added? Quite an appearance. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I'm not sure. Some ores such as native copper already fall into one of the one of these categories; but others such as bauxite would be considered rocks and not metals. YBG (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC) I've added some explanatory text in superscript. YBG (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are talking the Lede. It should reflect the whole article. I did not check whether ores &tc. are described in here. - DePiep (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ores such as native copper are metals; those like bauxite are not metals, but merely the source from which metals are extracted. I believe the article treats them in this way. But I confess that I've gotten caught up in the classification issue itself, which is beyond the scope of this § and from which I have stayed rather too much. YBG (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Status = pending. I still need to work through this suggestion thread to see if there is any further action required). Sandbh (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have created a list Talk:Metal/images used, just to get an overview of the metals shown (elements and alloys). -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you DePiep. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like I should add a lanthanide, since I have a rep from all the other periodic table categories of metals. Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Crystallites ??
I notice in the section on the crystalline structure of metals that there is no mention of crystallites.

I am nearly certain that just about all macroscopic specimens of metal are composed of crystallites bonded together. I am confident in this because I recall back in the 1980s reading about the new turbofan engines being developed for the ATF fighter jet (now F-22 Raptor). The author I think Bill Gunston explained that the turbine blades being researched would be "monocrystalline" without any grain boundaries between crystallites, yielding much greater strength at the extreme temperatures that obtain in the engine's turbine directly aft of the combustor section.

Besides mentioning that most ordinary metal objects are composed of aggregations of crystallites bonded together, something should be mentioned about the intercrystallite bonding forces and their strengths.

I myself don't feel qualified to perform this edit, so any help would be appreciated! Wikkileaker (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
2606:A000:7880:7300:CDAA:3FD:D902:CED5 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) n vbb
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020
Change "oganneson" to "oganesson" in the section Metal. It is in the paragraph on transcurium metals. 2601:643:8101:64E1:604C:6BC6:3086:6F6 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Second Reference is a Dead Link
https://edocs.uis.edu/jmart5/www/rrlyrae/metals.htm, or "What we learn from a star's metal content" leads to a redirect that leads to a 404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug2266 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am an IP user and I agree. Maybe use web.archive.org? 2601:643:8101:64E1:7C26:E393:39F1:47D1 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020
In the section "Biological interactions" it is stated that ruthenium is relatively harmless but actually the metal and its compounds are highly toxic (see https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/ru.htm). I suggest changing "ruthenium" with "titanium" that is an example of a metal with no known biological role in animals and non-toxic even in large quantities. "indium" too could be replaced with "zirconium" because altough the metal itself is quite harmless all its compounds are very toxic, while zirconium is much safer (https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/in.htm and https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/zr.htm) Also I suggest the section should begin with "In humans," because the metals listed have sometimes different effects on other life forms: an example is cadmium. A new paragraph could be added to explain this: "In nun-human metabolism metals can have different functions: an example is cadmium which is highly toxic to humans but an important nutrient for phytoplankton. " Prsdnt (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The metal itself is inert, there are only a handful of ruthenium compounds known to be toxic. As little is known about these compounds, your source recommends that one should treat them as if they were highly toxic. That does fit with the current sentence ("Relatively harmless, but can be toxic in certain forms"). Leaving request open because switching ruthenium out with titanium would probably be fine. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lenntech sources are not reliable, see WP:RS. I've changed the start of the section to "In humans…" as requested. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Predominately? Eesh.
Could somebody with permission to edit this article please correct any instances of "predominately" to "predominantly"? Thanks. Mpaniello (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, although I found only one such instance. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Mpaniello (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, a recent edit was made suggesting that helium is not considered a metal in astrophysics. This editor is incorrect. I request that the words "and helium" are reinserted after "hydrogen". At present, this line contradicts the rest of the paragraph (and, indeed, the entire page on metallicity!).

If you want another source for this, see (for example) section 17.3 of this textbook: https://openstax.org/books/astronomy/pages/17-3-the-spectra-of-stars-and-brown-dwarfs

Thanks! 2A00:23C7:712:2601:F87D:E1D9:FAC0:A0 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good catch! I simply changed "heavier than hydrogen" to "heavier than helium", though, because any element heavier than helium is implicitly heavier than hydrogen. ComplexRational (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References with potential for inclusion

 * Kim, SH., Kim, H. & Kim, N. Brittle intermetallic compound makes ultrastrong low-density steel with large ductility. Nature 518, 77–79 (2015)., citations as at today: 1,027. Sandbh (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Phillips et al. Stranger than metals. Science 377, 6602, (2022). . Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Biological importance section
Biological importance section mistakenly states that Molybdenum is an essential component of vitamin B12. This needs to be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.160.105 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Cobalt is an essential component of vitamin B12 191.185.21.115 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hyper link edit request
The introduction discusses the "malleable" property of metal, but the hyperlink redirects to the "Ductility" page instead. Aeronchair (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That is because malleability does not have a standalone article. It instead redirects to ductility, an article which discusses both properties, so the link is not broken. Complex / Rational  11:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Physical science
About uses of metals in our daily life 49.204.1.11 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Small typo in "Quasicyrstalline alloys"
Change to "Quasicrystalline" Pingohits (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)