Jump to content

Talk:Alkali metal/Archive 1

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

remove the words "not at" in the first sentence of para 2

The article says: "The alkali metals are not at all highly reactive..."

Shouldn't it be: "The alkali metals are all highly reactive..."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard M. Childs (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

alkali metals

What is the relationship between the melting point and the atomic radius of alkali metals. and what is the reason for this?

  • Alkali metals have a large atomic radius, which causes the melting point of Alkali metals to be lower than other elements because the atoms are less tightly bonded to each other by London Dispersion Forces and other transient bonds. Picture two planets - a huge, but not very dense planet and identical planet rotating around each other will not be as strongly attracted to as two extremely dense bodies orbiting around a common center. Inhuman14 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexual behavior"?

"The alkali metals provide one of the best examples of group trends in properties in the periodic table, with well characterized homosexual behavior down the group." Looks like trolling to me. I don't know about chemistry; someone else with more knowledge want to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.75.59 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw another, similar example under the Properties section: "The alkali metals are all high hormones and are never found in elemental form in nature." This looks like another recent vandalism attempt, as the edit dates from 6 October. The original reads: "The alkali metals are all highly reactive and are never found in elemental form in nature." I will revert this vandalism. 204.17.26.4 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alkali metal/Archive 1/GA1

More points

I'm not sure the article should go anywhere in it as far as element 169, it's very speculated and not so important (if at all). By the way, calculations[1] show that the element 169 would be [Uuo]8s25g186f147d108p39s29p2... See, it's complicated. It may also be interesting that element 119 may be actually closer in behavior to rubidium than caesium or francium, but also show oxidation state +3 as well.[2] See also section doesn't need to link the metals and other stuff mentioned in the article (that's what I learned from fluorine FAC)... (This maybe not needed, but I strongly recommend not to breaks each section into subsection with titles like "Lithium"...it makes the sections look more like lists, and doesn't look so good) Oh yeah, with its [citation needed] tags and missing application section (come on, wikilinks don't count as a real section), as well as many unreferenced paras, I'm turning it back to C-class. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to bring it back!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 1722. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) (right, it had an appearance on WT:ELEM)
  2. ^ same source, pages 1729-1730

Perhaps this material would be more suitable in ununennium? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

At least the referencing is not too bad (I'll soon rewrite the last sections). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not. Regardless [citation needed] tags, I found 14 unreferenced paragraphs.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I know, but it's better than some other C-class articles. ;-) I'm now adding more references. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation without reference book

This [1] cite does not seem to point to any book. Does anyone know what this cite is referencing?MW ℳ 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alkali metal/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am excited to review this article; however, it might take me a few days to complete this. I want to do a thorough review of this to make sure everything is accurate since I feel this article covers an important topic. --Tea with toast (話) 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed

 All Done StringTheory11 (talk)

I have completed my review of the body of the text in the article. I will still need to take more time to work through the references, but here are some tasks that need to be taken care of in the meantime. From top to bottom, here it is:

  • Lead When writing a lead, I feel an important part of it is to give the audience reasons why they should care about this topic. The lead should have a paragraph that states that these elements have important industrial uses and biological functions.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • History While the article states when the elements were first isolated in metallic form, I feel it should also share some more history about the knowledge of these elements before then. For example, in the first sentence of the "Sodium" subsection: "Although sodium has long been recognized in compounds...", there should instead be a sentence more like this: "Sodium was known to exist in compounds x, y, z, but was not isolated until..."
 Done for sodium and potassium. The others seemed to already have had enough info. StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Occurrence Being that these elements do not occur as metals in nature, it is important to state the form in which they do occur in nature, namely as different mineral types. There were important sentences that were hidden, likely because there was a "citation needed" tag, but I don't think it should be too hard to find refs for these. You might try looking through refs that are found in the main articles for the elements, or they might already be stated in some of the refs that are already a part of the article.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Biological Occurrence Many citations are needed here, and this section could also benefit from expansion.
    • Sodium and potassium are hugely important – not just for humans, but for plants and animals too. You do not have to go into as much detail as the Sodium and Potassium articles do, but I think an overview would help the audience appreciate the topic more.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
    • Cesium is highly toxic; its toxicity should be given more prominence here.
 Done} StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Precaution I don't see the point of this section unless it is expanded. Most of the biological precautions should be noted in that section. (For example, the last sentence about Francium could be moved to the previous section). If you want to write more about the explosiveness or how it should be handled in industrial purposes, write that here.
 Partly done, I don't really think how the metals should be handled is necessary for an overview. StringTheory11 (talk)
  • References I will need some more time to go through all of these, but please take a look at them yourself to make sure that all of the items are in formal citation style. For example, I see that some refs have nothing more than a title and retrieval date. If authorship and publishing data are available, please list them.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)

Overall, I see that this article has seen many improvements since its last nomination, and I hope to see this article improved even further. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues with references

Alright, I've finished with my review and here are the following items that need to be taken care of, specifically about the references:

  • Ref#7, the reference about mineral oil is not there. Find a new one
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • I assume that Ref#11 is the one used for the each of the elements in the table given in the article; however, from the placement of the citation note, it looks to be only referring to Francium. Also the link does not direct to the page where the information is given. It looks like each element has a separate page, and I think to be correct about it, you will need to produce a link to each page you are taking information from. While you are doing this, notice that Ref#74 also links to the same website, so be sure not to produce a duplicate ref.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • The following refs need full citation: #12, 13, 18, 42.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Ref#15 is dead, but I don't think you need it anyways as Refs 16 and 17 are sufficient
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Ref#3 and 36 are citing the same paper. Please remove the duplication.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Ref#52 and 53 links both time out. The webpages probably moved; if you can't track them down, then find new refs.
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Ref# 39, 77, 83 are all citing pages from the same website, but the citation styles are different. Please cite them as follows: e.g. Mark Winters. "Title".(with the title linking to the website) WebElements. Retrieved...
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)
  • Finally, the Bibliography should be alphabetized by author
 Done StringTheory11 (talk)

I will place this article on hold until these, and the above items, have been addressed. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Unfortunately, I will not have much time to be on Wikipedia most of next week, but I will respond to you when I can. For this reason, I will permit a time frame of longer than one week if necessary. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Thank you for addressing all of the items that I had listed above. I am impressed with the changes that have been made. Good work! --Tea with toast (話) 06:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Francium images

Would it be possible to use any of the images of francium in the francium article under a claim of fair use to illustrate francium for this article? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Further, I am rather skeptical about the use of those images even in the francium article. They show not francium but its emission, which is difficult to relate to anything and which depends on how it was excited. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What was meant by "fluorescence image" for File:Francium.jpg? I'm not sure. Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I found out from Materialscientist that it means an image of light emitted by the sample. Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Concept" of the alkali metals

I have removed this heading because I thought it sounded silly and inappropriate. It makes it sound like the 'concept' for a movie or TV show or some other artistic work. I've never seen any chemistry text book which has a similar heading within a chapter. I do agree that it would make a useful addition to the article to state when the term 'alkali metals' first came into common usage, but this could be done with a simple sentence in the intro, not in a sub-section called "concept". Also it might be informative to explore whether the term predated the periodic table. (There were certainly three alkali metals as one of Dobereiner's triads, I recall...?). This is also applicable to the alkaline earth metals article.--feline1 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get where you're coming from. The "concept" section of alkali metal and alkaline earth metal is to explain how they were noticed to be related, who noticed that, etc.. I don't get why you believe this isn't important. I don't want an edit war; I'll leave your version until something is decided. StringTheory11 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote, you'll see I *do* think the content that might go in this section is important: what I think is silly is the wording of the sub-heading, which is not a style of language I have ever seen used in that manner in a chemistry book. I agree with DMacks that the sort of content you have in mind should simply go directly under 'History' at the top level.--feline1 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that (pending actual content to prove me wrong) this section-title seems vague and informal. It sounds like the intent is something like the history as a cohesive group (identification of their commonality and trends) rather than the other sections in "History", which are the histories of each individual chemical? If so, that's really the top-level "History" of the whole article-topic (which is the "concept" of the group, not just a container for the individuals). A general pattern I see here is that the top-level sections are just being used as containers for subsections, which is definitely not necessary--they can have actual content and then subsections focusing on certain aspects of it. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The section was originally titled "Concept of the alkali metals", but I removed "of the alkali metals" because of the peer review. I think feline1's format is better, though. Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I definately think some very valuable material could be added here - all too often, students are presented with the periodic table as a given, and don't get the message that empirical observations came first. One of chemistry's biggest pedagogic failings is making kids think the models came first and are set in stone, rather than just being handy ways to conceptualise and make sense of messy reality. --feline1 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! That's why there's all this ridiculous debate over which elements are in group 3. Döbereiner includes Li, Na and K as one of his triads. I'll add this to the article soon. (We still don't know who coined the term alkali metal, although one person at WP:RD/S speculates that it may have been Humphry Davy. Also, we don't know when Rb and Cs were recognised as belonging to the same group, although Fr was recognised to be in Group 1 at the moment of its discovery as it was recognised by noting that it coprecipitated with Cs salts.) Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Another even more ridiculous debate is over which elements should be classified as metalloids. There are good arguments for all the reasonable candidate metalloids; full details are at the metalloid article. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to group hydrogen under the concept of an alkali metal then you need to consider the hydrogen atom as being the deuterium atom. Then the grouping is that of elements that have just accumulated a deuteron which is the first half of an alpha particle that is being added to the nucleus.WFPM (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs comments

After first read

This is a good, faithful work. I don't quite think it is perfect, and it will take some time to make it perfect in my view, but I'd say, the job is way past the equator. If you keep up with your work, you'll get through it. Remember, most of all was already done.

Things seen without getting deep:

Watch out for WP:SANDWICH
[2]:28 It is a book style for ref formatting. In Wiki circles I'm aware of, a Harward-like system is the best one. Strongly suggest it (will make you less trouble for FAC) See fluorine for example.
This article has a noticeable problem of deeply explaining a thing and not explaining another. So it doesn't always screw you. Yet this happens sometimes. In general, the level of details is sometimes so high, so I'd recommend giving explanations for all situations (just getting you ready, examples to go later)
More about details: Do you think you really need four separate sections for reactions with different substances? (I'm OK with them, but make sure you'll have what to say at FAC.)
Radioactivity is a weird section. You could have a section called Isotopes or Nuclear stability or whatever, and discuss there more things like that all alkali metals are odd-Z, thus few stable isotopes, and such. Strong suggest it.
In the table, why two separate columns for mp (K) and mp (deg C)? It's quite confusing
I'd rather have first six (up to Fr) aside from 119 and 165. You made nice room for them, so just leave them in there. No need for them to appear anywhere else (such as in the article's first table)

More to come--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More

Note: Not everything here is worth any action. Just sharing my reader experience through the article. Some are only for you to know. Some ask for no action while you should use your judgment and see if it's needed. It may be. Also remember the possible style differences.

Also: I wrote this with no Internet available (made some screenshots in advance). There may be minor points I'd rather fix myself. Please be tolerant with that.

The whole first sentence is too informative. The reader's just making it to the start, and you put the info like a firemen's hose. Try splitting. This is a generally good advice (that took me some time to realize): Avoid long sentences when you can. Especially for the lead section.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is an organizational question, but I think that you should list them before you say you can oxidize and cut them. It makes more sense for me in this way. Decide for yourself.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You focus too strongly on the extensions in the lead. This is an interesting, but also quite a minor question compared to abundance and other stuff (165 shouldn't have a place here, I'm sure). You'd better say how rare francium is. Or that they're all only in salts (which, in fact, is a major fact here).

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You should also note the bio role in the lead. This is more important than extensions.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sodium lamps, very common -- really? Never seen one or heard of one. Isn't sodium more important as a bio ion for diets, drugs, like vitamin A? This makes me scratch my head. There are uses of sodium (a common man) I'm aware of, like those I mentioned -- why not trying them?

Electron configuration[note 3] --> Electron<br/>configuration[note 3] -- how about that?

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The para just under the table contains two (well done by themselves, but still) different thoughts. How about splitting?

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Color, mp, bp, density -- not really Chemical, huh?

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You say in the subsection twice(!) that LiF is not water-soluble, and don't say why. I wanna know already! Try limiting that to one time with a small note -- (see [[#(The subsection where the explanation is)|below).

 Done I put in the reason the second time this is mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Alkalides are a major exception -- don't think so. They even can't be stable by themselves -- so how can you call them a major exception?

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

H+Na- -- either explain how come this salt can be isolated or (only if it can't be) remove it. This one is cool. Give me a single sentence more (won't take much space).

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Li and Fr chem -- is the word "anomalous" really the best one? The differences are notable, but not an anomaly. Also, link the word "polarises"

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Li-Mg diagonal relationship -- cool, so what? That says nothing to me unless you develop your thought.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Among the next four sections, you really need only the oxide one. You know, the halogen or hydroxide sections add nothing principally new to the picture. This one could be questioned at the FAC. I'd suggest this one: cut the hydroxide and halide info, contract (or partially move to notes) oxide info and leave as is but without the header, and create a small subsection for Li differences where you can also leave the nitride info also. Decide for yourself, but note the need.

I'm not so sure. The hydroxide section does allow the discussion of the reaction of the alkali metals with water, which is certainly a very well-known aspect of the alkali metals. And then I thought that if I was going to cover the hydroxides that way, I also might as well cover the other major ionic compounds. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
hmmm... This is a piece of info that is important only to schoolies. I was one. I did do this stuff. I was happy as hell after we could break in water some ampoules stolen from the school chem lab with a hammer. It was very unsafe-- just as unsafe as awesome. I'm happy that we didn't break anything and didn't hurt anyone back then. But this isn't important. The water--alkali metal is not such an important point-- it's just water's common, so that it was more illustrative. Not because of its properties. This is just a good illustration of a chemical law. Good image, and no more. Nobody really does this for a purpose other than that. The halogen stuff is exactly the same (except that this one, none does it for any purpose, water's easier to get anyway, they're only writing reactions), except that it utilizes a more science concept than a common concept. It's not that worthy.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Went on a high with describing the pnictides and chalcogenides (and removed the equations). Still keeping halides in for completeness (there is an alkali halide article after all, so might as well just give a short overview). Water is in not so much for science (though the physics behind the explosion is described there too since the chemistry involved is not that interesting) but for the popular culture behind it (MIT Sodium Drop etc. etc. etc. which I should include but haven't yet). Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Physical info-- you have the data but no text. Try to help people read it. Write some text based on it, no more than that. Horizontally contract the table, also.

Do you have any ideas on what I could write here without straying into the content of the "Periodic trends" subsection? Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
One would be that in the Periodic trends, you describe the trend itself and in Physical you describe why the density/mp/whatever is so low. Merger could also be a good idea: Remove the title Periodc trends, and just write in each subsection why the density/mp is so low. This wouldn't ruin the magic of the section at all. I even like this one more.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You know about isotopes problems.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The periodic trends subsection is cool. Real cool. There are small points of concern, but I have to admit it this one's just awesome.

Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You give twice parenthesized notes (Trend's broken because of relativistic effects) and (Nuclear charge's neutralized by the shielding effect) with no explanations, just blue links. How about a couple sentences more for each?

 Done Added more information for the first one. The second one is already explained in the "Atomic and ionic radii" subsection. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also reverse the color schemes for radii and densities.

119 has too much properties in the table. More than in the main article or than even the stable elements in this article. You also make another sandwich by this. Are you sure you need the table? Also, how about adding this info into there? You can also copy it there, slightly cut in here, place a see also template above the subheader and be OK. This makes the most sense to me.

 Done I cut the table from this article. Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The ammonium cation could get more text. Also, there are alkali metal salts not soluble in water. An example I know is K2ThF6.

Well, that explains why it's remained as "citation needed" ever since it was copied from another article. Changed to "most" temporarily before I write more on this. Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Bunsen (Cs) -- the same one who invented the famous burner?

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, rather than subsections, try the same without the headers and ordered chronologically. Add also some periodicity history stuff, like the Li-Na-K triad and a periodic table column.

119 -- focus on history and not properties (there's room above for that).

Occurrence is good, but I suggest changing the order to the reversed to abundance (Na-K-Li-Rb-Cs-Fr?) Para division is good.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Application -- I suggest first telling the well-known or consumer applications, then the industrial or scientific. For example, the things about lithium that come to my mind are lithium ion batteries (is it possible to describe in short how they work?) and lithium drugs for mood stabilization (Nirvana even has a song honoring it... In their way.). The same goes for that fireworks should go before atomic clocks (which are cool, thus should stay, and I love the pic, but fireworks are a concept much easier to imagine.) Also, doesn't sodium also commonly "hold anions"?

O you have the lithium stuff here, neat! Still, while having a simple mention above (a see below note like much above is also possible), you talk about it here in detail. Again, any possibility to describe in short what lithium blocks/activates/whatever to get the effect

Please don't list th e potassium channels. They add nothing, but instead make me scratch the head again.

 Done Removed. Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the quote translated into English? (Also, I can't even recognize the language... That would be really needed to be translated)

Google Translate recognizes it as Latin, translating it to "Moreover, our enemies being slain by the ancient Greeks, which is what has been said, as Nigidius says, as it were, from the color of the sky of heaven." But I'd prefer an official translation. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Found at [2]: "Moreover, our earlier writers used caesia as the equivalent of the Greek γλαυκῶπις, as Nigidius says, from the colour of the sky, as if it were originally caelia." Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Summary: It's a golden nugget. There are some really really cool points, like premature sodium deaths or alkali metal extensions, and they build the neatpoint skeleton of what the reader will enjoy when reading this. The facts in the base of the article (periodic trends, etc., the things they came here for) are very important to be delivered right and, when possible, understandable, but these minor nice points is what makes them love your texts. They are sometimes also a cheaper way to make them love what you write (if you don't take too much and know the facts). They are your second wave and what makes a good article an outstanding one. And you got'em. Always have that in mind. That said, the required changes will not require much research (but some will be needed, sure) to make an awesome article, but there are important things yet to be done. Some time, some persistence, a copyedit (you'll need one, just to make sure at least), and you'll have a very decent article you should be proud of. I really love the article and sympathize it much, so of you have problems with it, write me, and I'll try to help (if I have time, of course). I want you to make it at the FAC, and it's your work... So just take your time to develop it. It'll be awesome.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

Some first look quickies:

  • Experiments have been conducted to attempt the synthesis of ununennium (Uue), which is likely to be the next member of the group, but they have all met with failure as of 2012.[19] Okay in the main text, but let's simplify the lead?
     Done Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • History section:

5 History

(empty)

5.1 Etymology

(empty: who & when gave the name? etc.)

5.2 Discovery

(You don't need this header and its subheaders, make it a single chronologized piece of text, then move to directly under the main History header. Will be 100 times better. Add then post-discovery stuff like or whatever good else happened. When were they put into atomic clocks? Caesium was the first element to be discovered spectroscopically-- then I'd add more about it, a para or two for that alone mb. Neat-os like after photoeffect was discovered, the production of cesium went on and on because cesium is useful there. Maybe it didn't happen, I'm writing some quickies, but look for it. See fluorine to understand that you don't need to be scared of details, even if here you don't have to dig that deep. I'd be happy to successfully complete such a task. Alkali metals sure have some some fun in history, like fluorine and the Teflon discovery.)

5.2.1 Lithium

5.2.2 Sodium

5.2.3 Potassium

5.2.4 Rubidium

5.2.5 Caesium

5.2.6 Francium

5.2.7 Eka-francium

(also, we don't need this last one at all, move it to Extensions, since it's not been proven 119 is an alkali metal. Even better, bring the Tl as alkali metal info here in details that you can find. This section is a treasure of the work needing to be done)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Isotopes: too long, just look. Italics are my proposals

(table)

All the alkali metals have odd atomic numbers; hence, their isotopes must be either odd-odd (both proton and neutron number are odd) or odd-even (proton number is odd, but neutron number is even). Odd-odd nuclei have even mass numbers, while odd-even nuclei have odd mass numbers. Odd-odd primordial nuclides are rare because most odd-odd nuclei are highly unstable with respect to beta decay, because the decay products are even-even, and are therefore more strongly bound, due to nuclear pairing effects: out of the 254 stable or observationally stable nuclides, only five have both an odd number of protons and odd number of neutrons: hydrogen-2 (deuterium), lithium-6, boron-10, nitrogen-14, and tantalum-180m. The first four of these have low mass, for which changing a proton to a neutron or vice versa would lead to a very lopsided proton-neutron ratio; the last, tantalum-180m, is the only primordial nuclear isomer, which has not yet been observed to decay despite experimental attempts and theoretical predictions that it cannot truly be stable (its decay is greatly inhibited by its high spin).[61][62] Also, four long-lived radioactive odd-odd nuclides (potassium-40, vanadium-50, lanthanum-138, and lutetium-176) occur naturally.[62] (br missing) Due to the great rarity of odd-odd nuclei, almost all the primordial isotopes of the alkali metals are odd-even (the exceptions being the light stable isotope lithium-6 and the long-lived radioisotope potassium-40). For a given odd mass number, there can be only a single beta-stable nuclide, since there is not a difference in binding energy between even-odd and odd-even comparable to that between even-even and odd-odd, leaving other nuclides of the same mass number (isobars) free to beta decay toward the lowest-mass nuclide. An effect of the instability of an odd number of either type of nucleons is that odd-numbered elements, such as the alkali metals, tend to have fewer stable isotopes than even-numbered elements. Of the 26 monoisotopic elements that have only a single stable isotope, all but one have an odd atomic number — the single exception to both rules being beryllium. All of these elements also have an even number of neutrons, with the single exception again being beryllium. Write: (Beryllium is a falling-out-of-line exception due to its special position in the PSE.)[62] All of the alkali metals except lithium and caesium have at least one naturally occurring radioisotope: sodium-22 and sodium-24 are trace radioisotopes produced cosmogenically,[63] potassium-40 and rubidium-87 have very long half-lives and thus occur naturally,[64] and all isotopes of francium are radioactive.[64] Caesium was also thought to be radioactive in the early 20th century,[65][66] although it has no naturally occurring radioisotopes.[64] (Francium had not been discovered yet at that time.) The natural radioisotope of potassium, potassium-40, makes up about 0.012% of natural potassium,[67] and thus natural potassium is weakly radioactive. The Soviet scientist D. K. Dobroserdov observed this weak radioactivity in a sample of potassium in 1925 and incorrectly assumed that eka-caesium (currently known to be francium) was contaminating the sample.[68] He then claimed to have discovered eka-caesium and predicted its properties, naming it russium after his home country.[69] Shortly thereafter, Dobroserdov began to focus on his teaching career at the Polytechnic Institute of Odessa, and he did not pursue the element further.[68] This has become a basis for a mistaken claim of element 87 existence in 1925 (see below).

(pic): What accident? Can be described in 5 (not more) words? The description is, like, only below

Caesium-137, with a half-life of 30.17 years, is one of the two principal medium-lived fission products, along with strontium-90, which are responsible for most of the radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel after several years of cooling, up to several hundred years after use. It constitutes most of the radioactivity still left from the Chernobyl accident. 137Cs undergoes high energy (? add any adjective) beta decays to barium-137m (a short-lived nuclear isomer), which then decays to nonradioactive barium-137. It, and is a strong emitter of gamma radiation. 137Cs has a very low rate of neutron capture and cannot be feasibly disposed of in this way, but must be allowed to decay.[70] 137Cs has been used as a tracer in hydrologic studies, analogous to the use of 3H.[71] Small amounts of caesium-134 and caesium-137 were released into the environment during nearly all nuclear weapon tests and some nuclear accidents, most notably the Goiânia accident and the Chernobyl disaster. As of 2005, caesium-137 is the principal source of radiation in the zone of alienation around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Together with caesium-134, iodine-131, and strontium-90, caesium-137 was among the isotopes distributed by the reactor explosion which constitute the greatest risk to health. The improper handling of caesium-137 gamma ray sources can lead to release of this radioisotope and radiation injuries. Perhaps the best-known case is the Goiânia accident of 1987, in which an improperly-disposed-of radiation therapy system from an abandoned clinic in the city of Goiânia, Brazil, was scavenged from a junkyard, and the glowing caesium salt sold to curious, uneducated buyers. This led to four deaths and serious injuries from radiation exposure.[72] (Worth saying in history or precautions POSSIBLY, but not in here)

Overall looks still better than in late 2012.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

juicy sources

main-block groups: 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (sorry, no f-block elements!) Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
...and the notorious oddball, hydrogen. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It also gives a few applications. Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, give the subarticles a try

This could be a very nice solution. I never considered them really to be one before fluorine was all broken into them, but now I see they work.

This article is very interesting to read. Say, I enjoy reading articles that have notes like your note 1. It means the author cares about the subject. I would probably add to the note 19 a very short description of what an excited state is, but that's it.

There are two bad things about this article. First, it has a "entrance barrier." You need to be familiar with at very least the basics of chemistry. However, I admit you mostly deal well with it, you can't completely lower the barrier for such a topic, maybe some comments during a PR or a copyedit (if you get a good wondering copyeditor) will be required, but I don't think a massive company of dropping jargon and adding explanations should take place. Second, much of its length is because of explaining repeating basic things. The second one can certainly be fixed by the subarticles. For example, I wouldn't want to have a Reaction with elements subsection, limiting myself to a short description of basics here; but this can be stored there with no harm (those who wanna learn more, will check and proabably be happy about it; those who don't, won't and they'll be just fine as well). All peiodic trends can be described within one discussion, what you have seems like spelling out, which does lower the barrier (not really, but there's a difference between feelings of being told the same previously unknown for you thing a few times and one time) but also makes the article much longer. I would write right under the subheader:

This is an overview discussion; for a more detailed discussion, see Periodic trends and alkali metals

(Or whatever the title would be. Maybe it could be a part of a larger subarticle.)

The same should work for Extensions. This would be even better, as you would be improving a real article (ununennium) and not a sub one.

Re history, I still extremely advice doing it in chronological order (first they had the salt, then the revealing the fundamental difference of sodium and potassium salts in 1702, then petalite, isolation of Na and K, etc. The origin of the term "alkali metal" should also fix perfectly into the chronology). See also Greenwood on alkali metals. Why are you against this again?

Never got around to it, maybe? Was planning to do it your way in my next grand edit frenzy on it. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I see. Sorry if I seemed too aggressive.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
On extensions, the content on 165 is slightly problematic, as there isn't a 165 article (nor should there be one just yet IMHO), but it doesn't fit in the 119 article as well as it does here...would not want to put in period articles as the predictions are mostly group similarity, not so much period. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, as a random comment: Ammonium is expected to behave as a metal (NH+4 ions in a sea of electrons) at very high pressures, such as inside the ice giants Uranus and Neptune.[109][110] -- I thought the same is true even for helium, what's so surprising. Also, you don't mention you need some H2 for this to work.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you don't need Jupiter/Saturn-core kind of pressure and temperature, you just need Uranus/Neptune-core kind of pressure and temperature, which is kinda impressively low! Double sharp (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To do

  • First I had better finish writing the history section. It's not really my best point but will try to keep it AIAP (As Interesting As Possible).
  • All around the same time: PR3 (FAC goal), implementing final smaller points from PR1 and PR2, cleaning up last few sections (currently for some reason the beginning of the article is a whole lot better than the end)
  • collect FA star
  • ?
  • profit
  • work on halogen
  • actually help StringTheory11 at some point

Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

History section has been written, based on chalcogen's. Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Main thing to note is low IP and large atomic radius being the chief reason for the group's characteristics. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention lithium perchlorate. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Mention KNaCs alloy (eutectic mixture, K 57.5%, Na 28%, Cs 14.5%, m.p. 195 K). Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Explain why K is less dense than Na! Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus quick comments

A few topics that should be added:

coordination numbers and where ionic radius ratio prediction works/fails
Doing some quick researching first to present this into an easily understandable way (I want the entrance barrier to be as low as possible, hence the large periodic trends section that mostly covers your first-year chemistry material.) Double sharp (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
solvation in aqueous solution
 Done Double sharp (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
electrode potentials and relation to reactivity
The way I want to incorporate this will require an expansion of the table and a restructuring of the initial sections of the article (there have been several in the past), so I don't think it can be done immediately; probably soon, though (expect it during this or the next week). Double sharp (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Added text on electrode potentials. Double sharp (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
alkalides are formed from ammonia solution , inverse hydride contains complexed Na and complexed H+
Second point noted. First will be worked on. Double sharp (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ps forgot fast ion conductors, solidi electrolytes, all relevant to lithium. Lithium best known these days in Li ion batteries
Yes, agreed; am currently still unsatisfied with the handling of the applications in the article, especially Li. Ullmann, here I come... Double sharp (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I'll do some reading and then add them. Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A quick look at aqueous- An article by Persson, "Hydrated metal ions in aqueous solution: How regular are their structures?" in Pure and Applied Chemistry, 82,10, 2010, doi 10.1351/PAC-CON-09-10-22 is probably the most up to date summary of aqueous ion coordination. The article was available complete as a pdf but with a quick look I coudn't find it. Persson notes that in aqueous solution coordination spheres of the larger alkali metals are greater than 6. Worth a read it contradicts a lot of older texts in some areas.Axiosaurus (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This paper? I'll give it a read. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep thats it! Axiosaurus (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Another dive in! Overall the article has still some way to go- too much history more chemistry please! Anyway, the statement that thallium salts closely resemble alkali metal salts (reference to Crookes work to back this up seems a bit odd it is so old, surely a more rcent reference is available) is a bit of a stretch - yes "ionic radius" is similar. KCl (NaCl structure) CsCl (eight coordinate Cs) TlCl has the CsCl structure not the KCl structure which converts to TlI structure at low temps, TlCl is also quite insoluble in water. TlI has an unusual structure somtimes ascribed to the inert pair on Tl+. In aqueous solution the lone pair on Tl+ appears to be sterochemically active. Again stoichiometry is more the similarity rather than the chemistry. Another old (ish) reference is for metallic ammonium in gas planets, a speculation from the 70's, are there more recent papers? Axiosaurus (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Written more about Tl. Oddly, I have not found more recent papers about metallic ammonium... Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Alkali metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

More comments - overall looks OK

Chemical Perhaps the chemical section could include a mention of alkali metals losing electrons to acceptor species and forming "ions" as a way of bringing together the reactions with groups 13-17 elements - note that all of the familiar high school ions can be considered to be classic Zintl ions. For example S22- is isoelectronic with Cl2 and shares the same structure, Cl- is monoatomic like Ar etc etc. Generally boron forms boron rich borides feature deltahedral boron structures but but under high pressuere for Li-B system the bonding changes from Wades rules to Zintl. This is covered in a recent 2012 Hoffman paper- 10.1021/ja308492g) avalable in full here. Its a mix of experiment and theory, unfortunately it is too recent to have arrived in text books.
The intercalation examples- may want to quote the known M@C60 an endohedral fullerene. Interstingly housecroft quotes a different set of colours - copper KC8 and blue KC60, other folk agree with the article - I don't know why there is a discrepancy.
Na3As - there is some difference of opinion in the text books - Greenwood is a little vague (surprisingly) and I found his description of Na3As with a LaF3 structure (tysonite) sounding different from Holleman and Wiberg which quotes an anti-ReO3 structure, whch has a 2- 6 coordination. I think it can be left- other sources are much closer to NNG on this. The Encylopedia of Inorganic chemistry 1994 describes the "alkali metal arsenides, M3 As as having "conductivity typical of that of either metals or semiconductors" (article Ralph Zingaro, Arsenic:Inorganic chemistry") The mostly ionic description that is common in text books I find annoying - ionic and a semiconductor /metallic do not sit well together. The alkali metal pnictides , Na3Bi is described as metallic in the Kenneth Whitmire :Inorganic chemistry article Bismuth:Inorganic Chemistry. R.Bruce King Antimony:Inorganic chemistry (encyclo) describes the antimonides as having "metallic" properties. He also describes metallic MSb with spirals of Sb atoms. (a Zintl ion in the classic sense but thisn't said.)
Chalcogenides- Polytellurides are a rich area. The structures are complicated by the weak interactions between Tex2- ions which can lead to sheet structures, this is covered only by some reviews e.g. Patschke and Kanatzidis doi:10.1039/b201162j. I am surprised by the paucity of hard info in texts and papers on polonium. The absence of polypolonides may be more about an absence of evidence I suspect, rather than evidence of absence.
Missing is reaction of alkali metals with group 13 forming so-called "intermetallics" Again the prinicple of alkali metal being an electron donor pushing electrons onto an acceptor, may give classic Zintl (as per zintl-Klemm)examples NaTl structure is essentially a stuffed tetrahedral lattice, size matters so larger alkali metals favour clusters. Note the bonding is sort of ionic/metallic as some of these phases are (semi)conducting.
Group 13: http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~aherman2/Andreas_Hermann,_Edinburgh/Research_files/JAmChemSoc_134_18606_2012.pdf Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Axiosaurus (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

the reaction of alkali metal dissolving in ammonia appears slightly misleading - I think the dissolution gives the solvated Na+ and e-, a further reaction forms the amide and H2 gas. The only demo I have seen was at low temp. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alkali 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Round 3

OK we can do this thing. And hopefully break a record for how long you can work on an article desperate for FA (wow, has it been over four years?). Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: we have a ref problem. Much of the 2012-and-beyond work is solid in terms of referencing but not the earliest 2011 scaffolding, which often cites refs of dubious reliability (I was new to this)... Double sharp (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In my 2011 naïvety I had the idea to rewrite every group article similarly. In retrospect, I should have been deterred by the mass of Greenwood and Earnshaw. OTOH, if I'd been scared by it then, not even this article would have come out all right, so that's OK then!

I do not think I shall bother with the transition metal groups, as this is where horizontal trends also become important. But if nothing else, I hope to at least do the other six main groups that are not up to snuff. I'd follow Greenwood and Earnshaw's organisation (so yes, I'd mercilessly split chalcogen apart to focus on S, Se, Te, and Po, accentuate the differences of S from the other three, and just cursorily mention that O is so different that it's sometimes not even considered a chalcogen):

  • Hydrogen
  • The alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr)
  • The alkaline earth metals (Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra)
  • Boron
  • The other icosagens (Al, Ga, In, Tl)
  • Carbon
  • Silicon
  • The other crystallogens (Ge, Sn, Pb)
  • Nitrogen
  • Phosphorus
  • The other pnictogens (As, Sb, Bi)
  • Oxygen
  • Sulfur
  • The other chalcogens (Se, Te, Po)
  • The halogens (F, Cl, Br, I, At) – and At will be well separated from the rest
  • The noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn)
  • Group 3 and the lanthanides (Sc, Y, La–Lu, Ac)
  • The actinides (Th–Lr)
  • Group 4 (Ti, Zr, Hf)
  • Group 5 (V, Nb, Ta)
  • Group 6 (Cr, Mo, W)
  • Group 7 (Mn, Tc, Re)
  • Group 8 (Fe, Ru, Os)
  • Group 9 (Co, Rh, Ir)
  • Group 10 (Ni, Pd, Pt)
  • Group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au)
  • Group 12 (Zn, Cd, Hg)
  • The transactinides (Rf–118 [Og])

I would probably stop at the halogens (since the noble gases have already got a well-written article, and the transition-metal groups are not so important – they're not viewed enough that I feel like we are doing a disservice to our readers every day we do nothing, like I do especially with the halogens.) In fact, I might go in the order: alkali metals, halogens, alkaline earth metals, chalcogens, pnictogens, group 14, group 13. Double sharp (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. R. Bruce King follows this interesting order among the main groups (ignoring 12 and 3, which he puts at the end): 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 13, 2, 1. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Caesium is more reactive than francium

It is so heartening to see that our continued reiteration of this fact is finally having an impact on all the enthusiastic first-year chemistry students who like it when things blow up spectacularly. (Isn't it a good thing for them? It means that the biggest possible alkali metal bang is actually watchable!) Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

185K, wow. What a journey it has been since 2011. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

storage and disposal

You can quite safely store Li, Na, and K under mineral oil. (Although in the case of K you really should leave the lid on, because otherwise oxygen can dissolve in the oil and react to form KO2, whose explosive tendencies would give a rude awakening.) Rb and Cs have to be stored under Ar gas. You can dispose of small pieces (<2 g) of the alkali metals by neutralising them with isopropanol. Lithium (<1 g) can simply be reacted with water. (Although, why would you want to dispose of Rb and Cs? They're quite expensive, so if you have more than you need, you may as well have some safe fun with them.) Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alkali 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nebidium

from the book of popular science, 1930: "the metals sodium, potassium, lithium, caesium, and nebidium take the group name alkali..."


This nebidium is rubidium? Anyone know more about this?Silenceisgod (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it must be rubidium. Probably a typo, or (depending on where you're reading it) an OCR error. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alkali 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alkali 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the others

As regarding the renaming of titles from singular to plural, I have so far been basing my discussion on Alkali metal where this discussion takes place. I am not convinced that the same arguments apply to all listed titles. As noted, I am considering the difference between a generic name and a group name, where the former describes one generic element (haha) of the group. The listed articles vary, and also within the articles, on discussing individual members of the group, versus the group as a whole. Note, for example, that the rare earth elements are not all that rare, but concentrated ores are fairly rare, and even more, the ores tend to be mixtures of the elements in the group. Their industrial uses, on the other hand, are mostly distinct. I find the argument for Precious metals much more obvious than for Alkali metals, though the former wasn't even on the list until I recently added it. Gah4 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Main point of the proposal is that these names are a class (e.g., Class (set theory)), I understand you describe here as "a generic name" (not a wrong description IMO). A class then but definitely not a "group description". A group description is based on the actual list of members, while a class name is a class definition by itself (members must qualify to join the class: the 'classification' process). In the Move discussion, I already replied to you (re: a group list usually and naturally has "The" prefixed: The Florida Keys. Pls try to see the list-into-name process I try to illustrate). The proposal is strongly to consider these as a class.
If you think some names in the list are not correct in there, you can easily make that note in the discussion to exclude them.
Re Rare-earth elements: they are in here because they were in the same periodic table legend, historically. Still they qualify for this name change IMO: a class by origin and main usage. (Here too I deny your list-naming argument). BTW, given its history it is not about the decriptive thing "rare", by now it is a name, very common in chemistry.
Re Precious metals: I'm not sure simply adding this is the right procedure (change the discussion topic halfway? Not mentioning this change?). Arguing, I might oppose to this one because I'm not sure it's a class (more like another list name). -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if adding is wrong, or if I did it wrong. I found Precious metals following links though some of the other articles. (And I did mention it in the edit summary, but some might miss that.) It isn't that I think that some don't belong (even though this section name sounds that way) but that some are different enough for the reasoning to be different. The articles use a mix of class, list, and group, and maybe more, in the descriptions. If an article is half list and half class, how do you name it? In most cases, but maybe not all, there are separate articles for each member. Also, readers come to an article like this for a variety of reasons, some more class like, and some more list like. For example, the rare earths are more commonly considered as a group than the alkali metals. For one, they come up in political discussions related to sources, and the sources tend to come together, but also the individual names are less well known. But in chemistry, one most often needs specific elements. Rare earth magnet is commonly used when one means samarium-cobalt, maybe because it is easier for the general public to remember. Sorry for the rambling, but the point is that we should, at least partly, consider the listed articles separately. I realized that I was making arguments based only on alkali metal. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem, it's not that "wrong"; I hope I explained it nice & acceptable. (I want to be careful too in this). Will reply later more (tomorrow). -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, also, I didn't mean to make a distinction based on counting singular/plural, but based on usage of class vs. generic name, in the different ways the name is used in the article. There is, for example, the list-like table Properties of alkali metals. Gah4 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No rush, I will be interested to see what you say. By the way, I got here from actinide, and the question of which elements are, and are not, actinides. That is much less obvious than for alkali metals. (But note the interest in adding ammonia to the list.) Gah4 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the issues you describe are really part of this proposal. Some articles are more easily to allow a change than others listed. Exactly this is my main thrust (as intended): let us consider these sets a class, not a list. And also: only those who are predominantly defined and used as a class (therefor Metal/s is not in the list). To make this stronger, I based the list on the metallicity categories only (we use in the poeriodic table). It is only an enwiki consequence that we should use plural names (although I see that I started from the plural end in the proposal...). Anyway, even when approached as a list in places (as you point out), both gramatically and per class concept this is not fatal. No problem in listing the members (like properties of alkali metals). All links and sentences and lists and tables can be checked to conform this. Also individual materials like r.e.magnets: nothing will be broken. I expect little changes required, except that the explicit singlular opening sentences can be changed to get rid of awkward "A rare earth metal is .." (no need to enforce singular under a singular article title).
If you make your point re rare earths in the discussion, that surely could lead to its removal (no change). However, I will check your argumentation against the "is it a class, predominantly?" check.
Including ammonia: Yes! That is the strength of a class definition: it does not include/exclude members a priori! (As opposed to: an exhoustive list definition). As said, in reading the differences will be small and subtle, but IMO it is good to have a single concept at its base (i.e., it is a class). -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter that the applicable elements aren't well defined? It seems that metaloid is one of the less well defined of those listed. There is also question for lanthanide and actinide, though not as much. Gah4 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
What makes the most difference to me in distinguishing things like alkali metals and actinides from dogs is that the latter is a limitless group whose members are clearly not individually notable, whereas the former are defined classes whose members are all individually notable. Even nonmetals - whose membership is quite fuzzy at the boundaries - still satisfies this. These articles are about the class and the commonalities that characterize the individually notable members of the class. Dog, by contrast, is merely about the characteristics of the species and certainly does not deal with specific individuals. Also, it is instructive to compare president of the United States. This article - titled in the singular - deals only tangentially with the individually notable members of the collection, but about the office itself, and the properties thereof that exist irrespective of the individuals who have filled the office. It is clear to me that the all of the articles listed for change are conceptually different than either the case of "dog" or "president of the United States", and so I see no problem with naming these "classes-of-elements" articles in a different manner. Of course, there are other classes of elements that this also applies to, but that is a separate issue to be taken up (or not) separately.
As to "metal", that article is not primarily about a class of chemical elements, but about a much broader subject. "Metal" refers not just to a class of elements, but also to alloys and any number of other things, so that it is much more akin to "dog" than "alkali metal". If the English language used different words for the general concept of metal from the specific class of elements, then I would say that the former article title should be in the singular and the latter in the plural. Or if the two subjects were sufficiently separable that we could have two different articles, I would recommend that they be named something like "metal (material substance)" and "metals (chemical elements)" YBG (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Some will claim that elements are unlimited, unless you have a minimum half life specified. With mixed breed dogs, similar to alloys, there are practically infinite possibilities. Pure-breed dogs would be less open ended. (I don't know much about dog breeding, so won't take this too far.) Since I didn't know, I went to look. It seems that there is purebred dog redirect from purebred dogs. It seems that sometimes you want a generic member, such as alkali metal hydroxides make good drain openers. (No-one will use cesium hydroxide unless they are desperate, though.) Also, there are some alkali metal alloys. (but not alkali metals alloys) (Very low melting point, if you happen to need that.)
But anyway, what I hoped to discuss here was differences between the pages listed for change. If it isn't all or nothing, then discussion could go here. It seems to me that for the listed pages, that there are valid arguments both ways. That for some pages, the result might tip one way, and for others, it might tip the other way. It occurs to me that group already has a meaning in chemistry of elements, and some of these satisfy that, and some don't. Specifically, we have the group I elements described by this page, but, for example, metalloids are not a group in that sense. Gah4 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Certainly the elements that are known or that may be reasonably expected to be discovered in the next decade or two is quite limited. As to dogs or purebred dogs, my point is not related to the number of breeds, but the number of individuals, e.g., Fido and Fluffy and the like. To me, I would expect a different content for an article on "dog breed" (more like the "president of the United States") than I would for an article titled "dog breeds". But like all analogies, it breaks down.
As to alkali metal alloys (i.e, alloys consisting of two or more alkali metals) I don't think they would be called "alkali metals" but alloys iron and other metals are often called "metals". This gets close to the reason why "metals" is not included in this proposal.
YBG (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that there are some cases where a generic element is close enough. I doubt anyone goes to a jeweler and asks for a precious metal ring, but for a specific metal. In a case where the specific group (chemistry sense) member isn't important, one might. Much semiconductor work is done on III-V compounds, such as gallium arsenide, including alloy compounds, such as gallium arsenide phosphide. There are even four element compound semiconductors, such as indium gallium arsenide phosphide, where (gallium+indium) = (arsenide+phosphide), but the actual values can vary. It seems that group V is the pnictides. What semiconductor physics calls group III, seems to be here called a group 13 element or boron group element. In any case, there are times when one wants to generically specify an element, or more than one element, of a group. Gah4 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Gah4 "What makes the most difference to me in distinguishing things like alkali metals and actinides from dogs is ...". Another analogy gone wrong. The simple reply is: if you think "dog/s" is an applicable argument here, one can equally claim that "dog/s" should be renamed — in an other discussion. The second reply is: "predominantly defined and used", as the periodic table (-legend) and the Red Book show. They were invented as class names. The fact the "class" can be a difficult to grasp concept does not change this. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Another question would be: how do you use these categories in RL? A class with class properties, or a coincidental list like in German grammar? -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. As I was about to write, there are two questions one might ask to lead to these pages. What is a noble gas? or What are the noble gases?. (Because that is the one I was most recently reading.) In CS terms, these are called bottom up, or top down. Describe the properties of the members, and then show what they have in common, or vice versa. It seems, though, that mostly the article don't do strictly one or the other. Even more, and the reason for this section, different amounts of each for the mentioned articles. One possibility (not likely) would be to rewrite each in one of the two ways. But, being wikipedia, it is a collection of thoughts from many editors, so we shouldn't be surprised that it isn't one or the other. As I mentioned, one does not normally go into a store and ask for a precious metal ring, but often enough one asks for a member of one of these groups. Group III (or 13) and group V elements are commonly used for silicon doping. There are reasons for choosing which, and one might go to the appropriate article to learn about the group members, but less the group itself. Gah4 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
re "what is a noble gas, what are the noble gases?": the right questions. Can you answer it without using the (class) definition of the class noble gases? Answer: No.
To be complete, this question too: "Is this element X a noble gas?" Can you answer without class definition? Answer: No.
Even when writing "lithium is an alkali metal", singular alkali metal is used as a class name. Grammar won't solve this, don't be distracted. Don't be mislead by the plural/singular counting in the articles. Grammar gives us this: when defined as a class, both singular and plural can be used correctly. No all-plural article text is required.
re top-down/bottom-up I don't think historical or directional development is decisive in this, but supportive it is. The names (category names) only survived for being useful in the periodic table legend c.a. "Rare earth metals" and "actinides/actinoids" we defined as a class long before their memberlist was known. And that memberlist was not accidental.
re "precious metal [ring]": not part of the proposal for a reason: it does not follow from the classification (categorisation) used in the periodic table. Precious metal, like coinage metals, is more of a listing ('are used as', being a different route). -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but I have not at all though about singular/plural within the article. I have thought about which parts describe one element, and which describe properties of all elements in the group. Sodium hydroxide is used as a drain cleaner. vs. Alkali metals have a lone outer shell electron. There is a general problem in that some elements are different enough from the rest. Lithium, because of its size, isn't quite like the others, and most elements in the Li row are pretty different than the element below them. It was Actinides where I found out about this, and didn't realize before that it was only recently that they were given their own grouping. Even with the rare earths there as a guide, they were for a long time expected not to be their own group. That is, not being f electron metals. I suspect that for every element in the periodic table, there is some property that it has unusually different from the rest in the group. Gah4 (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
reply 1/2. Faitr enough, I'll read this once more with different glasses then.
First of all: it is very confusing reading 'group' and 'f-electron metals'. In this context, group (periodic table) and block (periodic table) are already defined elsewhere, and are not the topic here. (There may be an overlap in situations, still that does not help to clarify). This proposal uses "class" and "classification" for the 10 articles=names listed (alkali metal/s–nonmetal/s). No more, no less. This enwiki also uses the word "category" for these classes, as used in the periodic table. Which is not confusing even in in context. So we are only talking about the categories, as shown in the legend of the periodic table:
From now I will, either gently or roughly, ignore trespassing of this topic outline. (Getting tired of having to explain the topic in *every* post, tbh). -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
reply 2/2. There is no "generic element" for a class, the class itself is defined. That's the whole point. From there, the class does not bother which elements are a member (formally: 'member' = 'an instance of that class'). And as the current legend situation is, that's fine. Sure some classes are not defined unambiguously. Metalloid, as you already wrote, is notorious for being defined variously across sources (see this list); and so are its neighbouring classes. However, this still does not change the fact that "metalloids" is a class. All 192(!) sources in that list define and use the class "metalloids". Maybe even you can find a new, sourced definition (wow) for say actinides. You're welcome to defend it (see also current WT:ELEMENTS about this). End of the day: even when the class definition changes, it is still a class :-)
Maybe lithium, from your example, is not an alkali metal. Does not matter here, does not change the class "alkali metals" exists, usefully even. (If you want to have that lithium exception in an article, start a separate talk thread & adding sources. Also, write a paper to convince the scientific RL world). -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The ways in which Li are different are already covered in the article; see Alkali metal#Lithium. Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion in this section was meant to be whether all mentioned articles are the same in regard to the reasons for changing the name. But then again, one requirement of a class is that it be well defined. If there are questions about an element's membership in the class, then it isn't so well defined. For the lanthinides and actinides, filling up f subshells, some want to count 0 to 13, others 1 to 14, or even 0 to 14.

(I suspect C programmers are in one of those groups, and Fortran programmers in another.) But also, the number of f electrons doesn't affect the chemical and physical properties all that much, compared to other groups. Some groupings are more related to chemical properties, and others for the convenience of generating periodic tables. Gah4 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"class be well defined": the classes are well defined enough to be handled by logic & science. "well defined" does not strictly require fix borders always. Also, if it is unclear whether, for example, lithium is a member, that's an issue for lithium not for the class. -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


– I propose to rename these names into their plural (and so move the article: the plural form has content, the singular one is a redirect). These are class names, and WP:PLURAL, about article titles, says:

"In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles; (...) Exceptions exist for two general types of articles.  • Articles on groups or classes of specific things."

The class names listed are predominantly used as class name, and so as plural. DePiep (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Backgrounds: The periodic table can be devided by metalicity into three top classes: metals–metalloids–nonmetals. At this enwiki, these classes are subdivided in nine subclasses (informally called "categories"). The subclasses have their own background color. As the legend illustrates, they are:

The IUPAC Red Book (2005) recommandations approves the plural forms. It mentions some of them, always in plural:

"The following collective names for like elements are IUPAC-approved: alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, noble gases, lanthanoids, rare earth metals, actinoids." (Red Book).

Listed here are categories that are predominantly used as class in the periodic table. For this reason "Rare earth metal" is included (historically used as a class name), and metal is not (is often used in singular). Both pages Reactive nonmetal, Reactive nonmetals are redirects, so a change is not relevant. DePiep (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I struck Precious metal/s from this list (was added by GF). It was not part of my original proposal, and by intention. Topic is the metallicity classification. This one does not follow that, and invites distraction. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTEs

  • Oppose. Reword the lede to "The alkali metal is a ..." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    Joe, what kind of "the alkali metal" do you mean? There are multiple alkali metals (namely, lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, and francium).--R8R (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    "An alkali metal is a ...”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    Gramatically, both singular and plural can be used correctly. And in context one can write "lithium is an alkali metal". However, the point is that these set names are defined as classes. This definition originates in the periodic table descriptions and similar classifications (similar behaviour sets). This should be tipping the scales into: class so plural per MOS, as proposed. Even lithium example I just mentioned formally says: "lithium is a member of the alkali metals class", and this: "an alkali metal is a substance that belongs to the alkali metals class". Whichever way written, it always refers to the class definition not a singular object definition. So counting usage by singular/plural is not essential. (also re Gah4) -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Neutral changed to Oppose, see posts below re Dirac66. Gah4 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the name could either be a group name or generic name, depending on the context. It looks to me that the article works both ways. There are phrases like alkali metal halide, where any one, but not more than one, alkali metal and one halide combine. So, alkali metal (singular) is used to generically specify one of the group members. It seems to me that the singular and plural names are about equally used. As long as there is a redirect, I don't see much reason for one over the other. Gah4 (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a clear application of WP:PLURAL. Whether the singular or plural form is more commonly used is IMHO irrelevant; what matters here is a clear application of a clear WP naming convention. Although only four of the articles use the plural form in the lede sentence:
    1. The alkali metals are a group (column) in the periodic table consisting of ...
    2. The alkaline earth metals are six chemical elements in group 2 of the periodic table.
    3. Post-transition metals are a set of metallic elements in the periodic table ...
    4. The noble gases (...) make up a group of chemical elements with similar properties ...
    It seems to me that the lede sentences of the others would be simplified by using the plural
    • (now) A metalloid is a type of chemical element which has properties in between, or that are a mixture of, those of metals and nonmetals.
    • (better) Metalloids are chemical elements with properties between (or a mixture of) metals and nonmetals.
    YBG (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I can see how this could go both ways, but I think the plural is used a more often when referring to the group as a whole. Maybe if the singular is kept, it could be "an alkali metal is an element that satisfies these properties, and the elements that do so are..." ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 08:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the point has already been well made. This would be in perfect conformity with WP:PLURAL.--R8R (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems to me these terms are used both in the singular (to talk about one metal) and the plural (to talk about common features of a group). Since the singular of each term is used and has a clear meaning, I think it should be considered as the primitive word and used for the article title. And why stop with these terms? If we pluralize these article titles, the same argument could be applied to much of chemistry and physics: halogen → halogens, carboxylic acid → carboxylic acids, quark → quarks, etc. etc. Dirac66 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with you that by the same reasoning, we should change "halogen" to "halogens", but I disagree with carboxylic acid. To me the key difference is that the set of halogens is a finite limited class with specific members. I suspect that the class of carboxylic acids does not have any limit, so, its title should be singular. As to quarks, I don't know enough physics, but if it is a limited set like the halogens, then, yes, it is a definite class and so by WP:PLURAL the article title should be plural, not singular. YBG (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    Reading WP:PLURAL again, I find: groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together (preceded almost invariably by the word "the"). Following that, if changed to plural it should have the in front: The alkali metals. Without the the, I tend toward singular, as above, describing the generic group members, and not the group as a whole. Following the sports analogy, I do still find it funny when members of a team are given singular names: A Seahawk did xxx, though I don't know that I have seen the singular for Redsox. Without the, I change to oppose. Gah4 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    What you quote is about a list of entities, not a class. A list is defined by its members (as the examples illustrate), a class is defined by itself (and its members confirm to that definition). This porposal is about the class definition, not the list. "Alkali metals" does not urgently require "the" preceding. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    I do find it funny that you define the class before the class members. It doesn't seem to me that any of these were done that way. People found that some elements were similar in some way, and named them after that similarity, not the other way around. In the case of (the mentioned) dogs, there are genetic reasons for defining membership. Until DNA sequencing, sometimes there was uncertainty in biological classification. As I noted elsewhere, there is still uncertainty regarding metalloids and some others. Gah4 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Gah4: The quotation you cite groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together (preceded almost invariably by the word "the") describes the 2nd set of examples, 2nd in a list of 8 which begins Some examples. What about the seven other bulleted sets of examples? Consider States of Austria (from the 1st bullet), Maxwells equations (from the 3rd), Romance languages (4th), polar coordinates (5th), Zeno's paradoxes (6th), Canadians (7th), and Lists of books (8th). None of these are preceded almost invariably by the word "the". All that means is that these articles don't belong in the 2nd bullet. But they all satisfy the general WP:PLURAL criterion and so have a plural title. The articles here proposed to be moved also appear frequently without "the" - but still satisfy the general criteria WP:PLURAL and so should have a plural article title. YBG (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Gah4: "funny"??? re "you [DePiep] define the class before the class members. It doesn't seem to me that any of these were done that way". I did not define any of those, what makes you think so? I understand "before" means on the historical timeline, then how or what? Whichever order, for example the "Noble gases class" was defined after discovery of some members, then when defined more members (Rn) did qualify. Strong support for the "class" definition then.
    And this note. You keep mentioning an other bullet from WP:PLURAL, the one about "The Florida Keys". But this not the bullet invoked for this move, so it appears futile. To be clear: the bullet list is an "or" list. The relevant bullet is the one with "class name". -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Oppose on everything, with the exception of Weak support for actinides and lanthanides. (This is like the table naming dilemma all over again.) The question to ask here is, what is the primary topic of the article? Is the article talking about the elements as a group, or is it talking about a generic entity from within that group of elements? The distinction is fuzzy, but I think the situation here is somewhat analogous to the naming convention for animals. We have articles like dog, cat, beetle, spider, rhinovirus, etc., all in the singular form, even though each can be considered a class name that encompasses many subspecies, and even though some of these articles do refer to the group in the plural form in the lead, e.g. Beetles are a group of insects that form the order Coleoptera. An earlier discussion suggests that people are more likely to search the singular form than the plural form, so singular should be preferred. For a lot of the proposed renames, the article titles sound a lot more natural in the singular form, especially noble gas, metalloid, and precious metal. Though we also have articles like bacteria, per the clause with irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, we prefer the common and unastonishing title from WP:PLURAL.
Compare also Solar System, Asteroids, and Comets. Articles for SSSB subtypes tend to be either singular (e.g. Jupiter trojan), or a list (e.g. List of periodic comets). So I think it'd be more elegant to stick to the singular form, per WP:CONSISTENCY with lots of other articles on this site.
If the legend is using the name as a class and not a generic element, then just use the plural redirect in the template; for example, similar to how Template:Orders of Insects does it. But if it's of any relevance, in cartographic uses at least, convention is to use singular nouns in legend item labels. Ahiijny (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Changed !vote slightly. tl;dr I'm not convinced on the predominance of class usage of the others, but actinides and lanthanides seem more reasonable. Ahiijny (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Core of the proposal is: treat these names each as being a class, as they are defined as a class and are predominantly used as a class. It is about the concept first, not practical usage. Moving to plural is just a consequence. However, accepting the "is a class" allows to use language consistent, including plural titles while being able to write sentences in singular. (The examples you mention all touch the issue, but are not decisive in their class concept IMO. For example, "dog" is not predominantly a class while still can be used as a class. SQL table names are from a different origin about records being plural, but never about being a class; the heavenly bodies you mention: not predominantly a class). I can repeat their origin: being based in classification, eg, by periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: I disagree. For the heavenly bodies, I can say that Jupiter trojans, at least, are predominantly thought of as a class. The article starts: The Jupiter trojans, commonly called Trojan asteroids or simply Trojans, are a large group of asteroids that share the planet Jupiter's orbit around the Sun.. In the diagram on the article, you can see that all the Jupiter trojans are localized into two clusters on either side of Jupiter; analogous to how element categories are localized into certain clusters on the periodic table. But the title of Jupiter trojan is singular. Note that even if the title is singular, it's perfectly fine to use the plural form in the lead! We don't need to change the article title to do this. The element categories can be used as either an entity or a class, But if either singular or plural could work, I'd prefer the singular as a title, because it's simpler and more elegant that way. Ahiijny (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ahiijny: I'm sorry, you started out with some four example cases, now only the Trojans are left then? The proposal is not about Trojans, and I cannot judge whether this example is analogue enough to prove that the listed categories should not be treated as a class (this is the point here. Equally correct one can say about analogues & OTHERSTUFF: then change that Jupiter trojan into plural!, in a different discussion). I repeat from the nomination: predominantly used [and defined] as a class, as the periodic table and the Red Book say. Then you continue to deny the WP:PLURAL line: when a class, plural is OK. This is a MOS, so invoking it is all right — one cannot selectively forget such an explicit line by personal preference (and doesn't your suggestion apply to all classes, which would make the MOS rule moot?) -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
DePiep: I tried to focus on one analogy, to avoid a wall of text. But lots of other SSSBs and fauna species could have also been compared here. Yes, analogies aren't perfect, but I just wanted to bring a different perspective into this. WP:PLURAL does say that plurals are okay for classes, but that doesn't mean it's required. In the end, it's just a judgment call on what sounds the best. The Messier objects are another example of a group of specific things, but the title is singular, because we usually talk about specific Messier objects. With the chemical groups above, you argue that class usage is far more common than generic entity usage, so plural makes more sense. I disagree that plural usage necessarily far outstrips singular usage (especially for common ones like noble gas), but for some of these, either singular or plural could work, so I hope we're not bikeshedding too much here. I'd just prefer singular if possible, because English complicates things. Ahiijny (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Declaring these articles being predominantly a class is not a detail: it-is-the-proposal. (To which you said, above: I disagree, apparently based on analogues and personal preference only).
Even when an article writes "lithium is an alkali metal", singular 'alkali metal' is used as a class (in other words: the grammar route does not solve this MOS rule). The 'predominantly' follows from their history i.c.w. the periodic table no less. The periodic table legend is shown in the nomination for this reason. (This too is where your analogues fail IMO: they cannot claim predominance for their class concept this strongly. I refuse to be sidetracked by another wording variant like 'clustering'). Using plural or singular is just a consequence, and both are possible as we all noted—that is the detail we should skip. IOW, from your plural/singular reasoning I have found no inherent objection. As far as you seem to ack 'class' somehow a bit, I claim the MOS for the plural title, overruling personal preferences. -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I disagreed that they are all predominantly used as a class. In my experience at least, words like noble gas and halogen are used fairly often in the generic entity sense. But even for ones that are predominantly used as a class (if any, these would probably be the actinides and lanthanides), I disagree that moving to plural is just a consequence. Earlier I was trying to argue with examples that it is not unreasonable to have a predominantly-used-as-a-class and defined-as-a-class article that still has a singular title. My tl;dr interpretation of WP:PLURAL is "prefer singular, unless plural makes more sense" because singular is nicer. I think that unlike the other examples in WP:PLURAL, singular still works here, so that's why I would not support such renames. Ahiijny (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How is "generic entity" not a "class"? Anyway, these names all are born from the periodic table chemistry c.a., hence the "predominance" as a class (and I added: "defined" as one). Even your own example of 'noble gas' and 'halogen' (not proposed btw) point to singular use of the class concept. To clarify: "moving to plural is just a consequence per MOS". IMO That can only be nullified by positively proving that they are *not* defined as a class, which I still have not met. -DePiep (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Consider from Class (set theory): can be unambiguously defined by a property that all its members share, but many of the groupings (maybe a better term than class) are not unambiguous. Note that the vertical columns are named as groups, not classes. As for generic entity, that comes from emphasizing the differences vs. the sameness. Note silver halide photography not silver halides photography, but even so, silver fluoride doesn't work. The generic part comes from one out of the group. (Though mixed halides are used in photography, too.) Gah4 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I note, for neutral completeness, that Gah4 also started a separate thread #One of these things is not like the others below, which might be helpful to clarify their view. (I do not agree btw). -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Gah4 added Precious metal/s to the list late, I added a formal note in top. I don't know if this is correct procedure (change list halfway? Can I stroke/remove it legally? It does not follow my proposal!). Anyway, my argument is: no, this one should not be changed through this Move. Precious metals are definitely not part of the classification by metallicity legend. As Gah4 themselves clarified, this is a name-by-list ("The Florida Keys" example), and not a class. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the articles are more list-like than others. Some are defined by their electron subshells, other by (less well defined) physical properties. The metalloids might be the least well defined of the ones listed. The alkali metals by their lone s electron, except not usually including hydrogen. (Might be a metal under high pressure, though.) If we say group instead of class, does that change things? Gah4 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I struck this GF addition, does not fit the proposal reasoning. -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral Initially I did not like this at all, but there is quite a bit a precedent around. I myself have made generic class articles with the "s" on the end. This is especially needed if the singular is on another topic to the class. But in this case the singular and plural will mean almost the same thing. and would never have different articles. A way to make a decision would be to see what is more commonly used in reliable writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Whichever one it ends up, there will be a redirect from the other, as there is now. The reliable writings (or writing?) would have to be closely related usage, such as other encyclopedias. Gah4 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The wikipedia plural rules state in the first sentence: "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles".--Stone (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    I believe that everyone in this discussion understands that this is what it says at WP:PLURAL - and if they are not, they should read that page in its entirety. The question is whether this particular case is a good application of WP:PLURAL § Exceptions - specifically, the first list of exceptions Articles on groups or classes of specific things which gives eight different examples of this exception. I would further claim that these sets of elements are obviously examples of groups or classes of specific things. What I don't understand for sure is (a) whether the exception requires us to use the plural or if it is merely optional and (b) if it is optional, then whether the exception should be applied in this case or not. In applying this exception, I note that (1) alkali metals (and the like) are all clearly classes and (2) they are classes of specific items; in fact, specific individually notable items. YBG (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I hope everyone read WP:PLURAL. It seems to me, as I discuss more in the next section, that the articles are a combination of different things, some of which apply to the plural case, some to the singular case, and different for different articles mentioned. If the articles were simpler, then the discussion would be simple, but they aren't, and it isn't. Thanks all for your contributions to the discussion. Gah4 (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    Which articles listed here do not qualify to be a class name? -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, use singular 2601:541:4500:1760:4C0C:6A13:1716:ADD6 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think we should say " The alkali family" or "upper or lower part of the alkali family". That way it's kinda plural but it not singular Porygon-Z 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
  • Support: This is a natural and obvious exception to WP:SINGULAR. The current title wrongly implies that "alkali metal" is a single thing, like pot metal or mu-metal, or a vague concept, like precious metal. Rather, it's a finite group of very specific things, generally treated in the plural.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The only reason chemistry have alkali metals, halogens, ..., is that there is more than one, its a group of things. The lead of the article is in plural - try to rewrite it if you think it should be singular. Christian75 (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no reason why this should be an exception as it is very often talked of in the singular. For example from Lithium: "It is a soft, silvery-white alkali metal". See also this ngram [3] which puts the two singular and plural neck-and-neck in terms of usage in books, making the premise in the nomination that they are "predominantly used as class name" untrue.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There are even forms like alkali metal chlorides are ... which discusses members of the group, but not the group itself. The other way around, it would be written chlorides of alkali metals are .... Gah4 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
re Amakuru. The exception is, as is stated in the proposal and which is explicitly acceptable per WP:PLURAL: because it is defined as and predominantly used as a class name. That it can be used correctly in singular does not change that. I note that of al editors here that I know from relevant WP:ELEMENTS and WP:CHEMISTRY projects, most if not all !voted in support. That is: people who actually work with the topic. -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the predominantly is the question. It is used both ways, and not predominantly one or the other. What fraction does it need to be to be predominantly used that way? If it only often used one way, is that enough? Gah4 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I already answered to this in my post "Gramatically ...", in top of this sub section, six weeks ago. Quite completely, I may say 17:12, 28 Feb. I even pinged you, Gah4. If something is unclear, please ask for clarification. If you want to restart all over pls don't. -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I see why it being a "class" makes this special, given that countless other entities which are classes of other entities are also singular, e.g. mammal, member of parliament, Munro, U.S. state etc. As long as it makes sense to talk about a singular item, then this is not a valid exception for WP:PLURAL. As for the "experts" from the chemistry project, I hardly think this is a debate which requires specialist knowledge to resolve so I'd like to think that my input, as someone experienced with article titles, is as valid as theirs. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read the proposal. It is very specific about this. Also, your considerations have been addressed extensively in multiple sub-discussions in this section. As for the ""Experts"" (I did not use that word): was a reply to your "it is very often talked of in the singular" remark. Methinks people who actually work in the topic field (as editor, RL, or both) can add more weighty to experience than just a remark on incidental usage (quantified or not). As for the "mammal etc".: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
One man's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another man's WP:CONSISTENCY. You can argue any point of view from opposite angles. The fact is though, and my examples attest to this, we don't pluralise things that are commonly talked about in the singular, member of a "class" or otherwise. That's always been our convention on Wikipedia, and I don't see any reason to change it just because you think a handful of concepts are special. Oh, and I've just checked the ngram and it shows a dead heat between singular and plural in common usage. Have added that detail to my !vote above. So definitely no reason to move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says: your argument is idle because the exact opposite is true also (read this again). Like, if you argue "but, per same logic, write mammalS", one can say (and I do): then change mammal into mammalS. IOW, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS evens your argument out. Clear? If you now keep claiming consistency, go to WT:MOS to win your argument. (Actually, I think you are floating around with arguments, so I might not respond to one more sidetrack already discussed. Aren't you abusing other editor's patience?). -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support These articles are all refering to a GROUP of the periodic table. Referring to the group itself in singular would be very strange. The fact that you can refer to them as individuaal items should not change this. I also which to add that regardless of outcome of this move Commons:Periodic table of elements should be updated to reflect the convention we settle on. Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've read the entire discussion. I was almost persuaded by SMcCandlish, but Amakuru counters effectively. Yes, these are classes, but then Dog is a class of Animal (which is itself a class), and Chair is a class of furniture. There are individual examples of each. Same with Alkali metal. As Amakuru pointed out, we do use these terms in singular form regularly despite them being classes/group. "Look at the vein in that granite! It's an alkali metal". In the end, it's fine and has been stable the way it is, there is no good reason to change, and so we shouldn't, per WP:TITLECHANGES, if nothing else. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, those are not finite, pre-defined classes that we almost always speak of in the plural when addressing them as the subject; they are basically in the "vague concept" class, like "tree", "plot device", "nation state", etc. I.e., you didn't entire follow my argument, and no, Amakuru did not "effectively counter" it but simply straw manned it. PS: we treat finite classes in the singular referentially, toward a singular object (e.g. in "this is an alkali metal"); that's a special case and is unlike consideration of the alkali metals as the actual topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional rationales (not another !vote): I didn't think to mention it at the time, but an obvious kind of comparable case is Felidae and all similar articles. These are plurals, and we generally use them that way when the Felidae (or felids, anglicized) are the actual subject (I mean "we" = English speakers, not just "we" = Wikipedians). We only use a singular construction (felid, etc.), referentially: "'Cat poop coffee' is actually produced not by a felid but by a viverid, the Asian palm civet." Like the alkali metals, the felids (or whatever) are a prescribed, closed class (which expands or contracts only by due scientific, peer-reviewed process), not an open category like "dogs". New dog breeds are under development all over the world all the time, and even what dog means varies by context (e.g. may be taken to include wild species, and even all canines, depending on what the speaker means). A scientific classification like Canidae, and alkali metal has a circumscribed definition (temporary scientific disputes aside) and is innately a plural except when used in a grammatical constructions that requires a singular in English (like "x is a y"). Forcing any of these things singular when it is not referential but is the subject makes us wander into WP:NOTDICT territory for no reason: "An alkali metal is ..." is term-definitional phrasing, when what we should be writing is "The alkali metals are ..." encyclopedic-description material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing section

Ammonium ion has to be mentioned. It resembles the heavier alkali metals well and is considered a close relative of the alkali metals. The Hollemann Wiberg book mentiones it in the same section and most wet analytical chemistry books do the same. --Stone (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe mention thallium then? It was commonly considered an alkali metal before Mendeleev's table.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
1869 Mendeleev's and 1864 Meyer's...are they enough? Note that there also was an opposite view: this source says Tl was commonly an alkali metal in Europe, but not in Britain.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't find Meyer's 1864 table, but I've put Mendeleev's 1869 table into the article for Tl. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've also cited Crookes' paper. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Where was Meyer's 1864 table published? Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Did ammonium get appropriately mentioned? Many ammonium compounds are very similar to alkali metal compounds. How about Phosphonium? Gah4 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Triple issue

By now, we have a triple issue re the first sentence:

  1. write singular or plural (alkali metal/s)
  2. write by listing elements or group behaviour
  3. note hydrogen exception

That's all ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alkali_metal/Archive_1&oldid=1218219764"