Talk:Group (periodic table)

A Group NN element is the series...

A large number of the individual group articles start with the phrase "A Group N element is the series..." This sounds ungrammatical to me -- is this some unusual usage I'm not familiar with? I only ask (instead of correcting it) because it's been like this for over a year and no one has corrected them... --Steve Pucci | talk 03:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed them to read "A Group N element is one in the series...". Those lead sentences still seem awkward, but I'm not sure how to fix it. "Group N elements are the series..." seems equally awkward. --Steve Pucci | talk 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

in the elements they always have 15 letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.87.66.12 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pucci, it still is awkward. Sadly. -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Date of new IUPAC system?

It would be of interest to add the date of the "new" IUPAC recommendation, if someone knows it. Dirac66 16:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Itub (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

F-block

Our standard periodic table contains the f-block, and has four blocks on the periodic table. So we should number the groups in the f-block from 3-16 and following d-block and then into p-block. It will then has 32 group on the periodic table. Then groups number to 18 through just s-block, d-block, and p-block would become the old style just like using Roman numeral through only s-block and p-block. I think that it will happen in the future for IUPAC to number the groups in the f-block. Cosmium 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ... IUPAC. Based on the Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought principal, and the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball principal, that nomenclature would not be appropriate for the article. We don't create the nomenclature used in the periodic table, we just report what the leading scientific bodies use, which right now is the periodic table published by IUPAC on June 22, 2007, which uses groups 1-18 for most of the elements, and has the actinoids and lanthanoids off in their own, ungrouped, area. Gentgeen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realized I answered a question that's a year old. d'oh! Gentgeen (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding first section

Ok, I give up: what is a "conch" configuration?

... elements in a group have similar (conch) configurations ...

--Wnross7 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The word has no relevance to this subject so I have just deleted it. I checked the article history and someone added it in January 2006 with no explanation. Thanks for pointing this out. Dirac66 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The word "conch" may have been an attempt at "shell" by someone more familiar with another language, since in English a conch is a mollusk with spiral shells, and in French a "couche électronique" is an "electron shell". However the sentence reads better as it now is with "conch" just deleted, and "electron shells" a few words later. Dirac66 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Navel-gazing

Today a very original periodic table was added to the article by Badgettrg. While I have seen many different periodic tables while teaching chemistry, I certainly have never seen one color-coded to show the quality of the Wikipedia article for each element.

Sorry, but this seems to be a clear example of navel-gazing, defined as being directed towards self-absorbed pursuits. It suggests that the properties of Wikipedia are more important for readers than the properties of the chemical elements.

I agree that a periodic table of some kind would help the article. Could we not for example use the one in the Periodic table article, which actually shows the chemical groups of the periodic table? Dirac66 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That table is used by the Elements WikiProject to keep track of article quality. While it is useful for the project's purposes, it is certainly not meant to be used in articles! --Itub (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now replaced it by the one from Chemical Element, which has a more conventional color coding. Dirac66 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

VIIIA as old numbering for noble gases

The noble gases are currently marked Group 18 (Group 0), suggesting that everyone called them Group 0 prior to the 1985-90 IUPAC reform. Certainly many authors used Group 0, but I have also found VIIIA in two leading 1980s inorganic textbooks: Cotton and Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (5th edn 1988, page facing inside back cover) and Huheey, Inorganic Chemistry (3d edn 1983, inside front cover). Therefore I am adding VIIIA as an another old number for this group.

I am not however adding VIIIB for this group as I have no evidence that anyone actually used it. If someone does find a book which uses VIIIB for the noble gases, I would encourage them to add it after VIIIA, after first indicating the source on this talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a primary proof of use, but [1] does say that the noble gases were in group VIIIB in the "European system". --Itub (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Group 3 element

Doesn't this also have the name rare earth metals? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The rare earths originally were the lanthanides (Z = 57-71), to which Sc and Y have been added by IUPAC, I think in the 1990s. The actinides are still excluded, so now Group 3 = rare earths + actinides. I'll add that description to the table. Dirac66 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Roman numerals

The article correctly states that IUPAC groupings use Arabic numerals, but falsely asserts without a reference that the non-IUPAC conventions use only Roman numerals. A quick google search on "noble gases 8a" shows nearly the same number of hits as "noble gases VIIIA", and "halogens 7A" is about as widely used as "halogens VIIA". This counter-factual assertion needs to be dropped. Rwflammang (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should distinguish the past and the present. I think that both older conventions originally used Roman numerals, but it is true that some more recent authors place the A and B after Arabic numerals. Dirac66 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is generally true that Roman numerals are being used less and less in all applications, but unless we can find a reference to changing conventions in group nomenclature, I think that the best course of action here is to drop all mention of Roman numerals. Rwflammang (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That would introduce european style "group 8" for groups 8, 9, 10. Such usage should not go without a disconfusing note. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Old IUPAC (European) numbering for groups 8, 9, 10

Currently, for old IUPAC (aka European) numbering, we use for groups 8-9-10: VIII (Roman 8). In the source: E. Fluck. "new notations in the periodic table" (PDF)., Flick is describing the old confusion. e.g. (bolds added):

• "Fig. 1. Periodic table according to H.G. Deming": VIII for all three columns. {{{1}}}
• "In Europe the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals are usually designated as IA and IIA, respectively; the elements scandium [group 3] to nickel [group 10] as IIIA to VIIIA".

What to conclude? -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deming's textbook was published in New York and is described as appearing in the USA and setting the precedent for Sargent-Welch's USA periodic tables. So I conclude that the USA notation differed from the European, from about the 1920s to the 1980s according to this source. Dirac66 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

18 or 32?

If there are 32 columns , then why is there 18 groups? Are the lanthanides and actinides ALL in group 3?? 108.66.232.241 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring the above question which was deleted by the previous edit with the edit summary "remove troll question alr[eady] answered in article." In general Wikipedia policy for talk pages is to leave others' comments alone unless they are completely irrelevant to the article subject, which is clearly not the case here. See WP:TPO.

Also my opinion is that the question is only partly answered in the article. The article does explain that yes, all the lanthanides and actinides are in group 3 so there are only 18 groups and not 32. But it does not explain WHY this is the case which is a valid question, especially since a 32-column periodic table based on full electron configuration (including f-shells) has been proposed occasionally although we do not see it very often. When my students ask this question, I tell them that (1) the properties of all the lanthanides and actinides are so similar that one group is felt to be sufficient, and (2) a 32-column Janet-type table would not fit too well on book pages and classroom wall charts. However those answers are rather incomplete and unsourced; the Wikipedia article might be more useful if it included a brief history (with sources) of the evolution from 8 to 18 groups (now in Periodic table but not in this article) and also the decision to stop at 18 groups and not 32. I think the question of 108.66.232.241 is useful in pointing out that the information in this article is incomplete on this subject. Dirac66 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what it might look like...

  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13  14  15  16
 La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho  Er  Tm  Yb

Above comment by 108.66.233.108 (13 November 2016)

Yes. And the best-known complete 32-column table is the left-step periodic table below as proposed by Charles Janet, with Groups 1 and 2 on the right. Not sure if this should be in the article.

Left-step periodic table (by Charles Janet)

f1

f2

f3

f4

f5

f6

f7

f8

f9

f10

f11

f12

f13

f14

d1

d2

d3

d4

d5

d6

d7

d8

d9

d10

p1

p2

p3

p4

p5

p6

s1

s2

1s

H

He

2s

Li

Be

2p 3s

B

C

N

O

F

Ne

Na

Mg

3p 4s

Al

Si

P

S

Cl

Ar

K

Ca

3d 4p 5s

Sc

Ti

V

Cr

Mn

Fe

Co

Ni

Cu

Zn

Ga

Ge

As

Se

Br

Kr

Rb

Sr

4d 5p 6s

Y

Zr

Nb

Mo

Tc

Ru

Rh

Pd

Ag

Cd

In

Sn

Sb

Te

I

Xe

Cs

Ba

4f 5d 6p 7s

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

Pm

Sm

Eu

Gd

Tb

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Hf

Ta

W

Re

Os

Ir

Pt

Au

Hg

Tl

Pb

Bi

Po

At

Rn

Fr

Ra

5f 6d 7p 8s

Ac

Th

Pa

U

Np

Pu

Am

Cm

Bk

Cf

Es

Fm

Md

No

Lr

Rf

Db

Sg

Bh

Hs

Mt

Ds

Rg

Cn

Nh

Fl

Mc

Lv

Ts

Og

Uue

Ubn

f-block

d-block

p-block

s-block

This form of periodic table is congruent with the order in which electron shells are ideally filled according to the Madelung rule, as shown in the accompanying sequence in the left margin (read from top to bottom, left to right). The experimentally determined ground-state electron configurations of the elements differ from the configurations predicted by the Madelung rule in twenty instances, but the Madelung-predicted configurations are always at least close to the ground state. The last two elements shown, elements 119 and 120, have not yet been synthesized.

Dirac66 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Dirac66 you mean "yes" for the proposed numbering by IP? No it is (when group numbers are added to Janet's table, they'd start from the d¹-column rightwards, on the sequence 3–18, 1, 2, and maybe a He note).

Group numbering is not an administrative action (as column numbering is), it is a properties-based scientific statement. Elements in one group have corresponding properties (eg valence).

re The article does explain that yes, all the lanthanides and actinides are in group 3: The article, and both graphs, states that 14 + 14 lanthanides and actinides have no group number. (Though indeed group 3 article mentiuos this, among other descriptions).

It is true that lots of periodic tables show group 3 containing 32 elements (Sc, Y and all lanthanides, actinides). This started in ~1940 when Seaborg 'discovered' the actinides and placed them in the PT in the "group 3" column(s) (usually in a footnote-style rectangle below & asterisks for placeholders, which is equivalent). However, nowadays scientific ideas are that group 3 only has four elements, and the other 14 + 14 lanthanides + actinides have no group number. (WP talk here) In 2015, IUPAC initiated a project to determine the exact composition of group 3: The constitution of group 3 of the periodic table:

"This project will deliver a recommendation in favor of the composition of group 3 of the periodic table as consisting either of the elements Sc, Y, Lu and Lr, or the elements Sc, Y, La and Ac."

Note that the 32-elements option is not even a possible outcome. So the Janet and rgular PT have 14 columns without group number. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I learned many years ago that all the lanthanides and actinides are in group 3, but I accept now that this view is obsolete. I will expand the note about group 3 to make this point and also mention the IUPAC project. Dirac66 (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. However my edit appears not in this article, but in Template:Periodic table (group names) which is copied as a whole into this article. Dirac66 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dirac66: yes, good edit. This "drop the Sc/Y/*/** group 3" is a very recent development (few years?), and is slow to be accepted. My main explanation is that everybody has learned that original setup (wallcharts, books), and older scholars are hard to convince or take interest (or are not working with group 3). Few sources actually state & prove that those 32 elements have group 3 properties. OTOH, the discussion between Sc, Y, Lu and Lr or Sc, Y, La and Ac is as lively as you can get. I'm anxious to learn what the Scerri team comes up with. This will be defining (a change in) the PT structure, and so will is huge in PT history. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what it should look like:

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
1 H                                                                                            He 1
2 Li Be                                                                          B  C  N  O  F Ne 2
3 Na Mg                                                                         Al Si  P  S Cl Ar 3
4 K  Ca                                           Sc Ti  V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr 4
5 Rb Sr                                            Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te  I Xe 5
6 Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta  W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn 6
7 Fr Ra Ac Th Pa  U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og 7
  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

108.65.81.94 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

But this format would suggest to the uninitiated that there are 32 groups, with carbon in group 28 etc. etc. I think it would be less confusing to use the actual group numbers plus blank spaces:

  1  2                                            3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 
1 H                                                                                            He 1
2 Li Be                                                                          B  C  N  O  F Ne 2
3 Na Mg                                                                         Al Si  P  S Cl Ar 3
4 K  Ca                                           Sc Ti  V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr 4
5 Rb Sr                                            Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te  I Xe 5
6 Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta  W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn 6
7 Fr Ra Ac Th Pa  U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og 7
  1  2                                            3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Dirac66 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We won't go numbering 32. Dirac66, maybe this was just a try by the IP. Not to waste time on. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That blank spaced one would be confusing. I recommend the top one, as it suggests the number of columns. 108.65.81.94 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Less confusing was actually a poor choice of words on my part. The real point is that Wikipedia policy is to conform to the accepted presentation in the scientific literature and not make original changes. In this case IUPAC is in the process of deciding between two 18-group tables with different versions of Group 3, so can present both of those for now. However the scientific community does seem to agree not to use 32 group numbers, so it is not up to Wikipedia to introduce 32 new groups. It is acceptable in the scientific literature to show 32 columns provided that 14 of them are not labelled as groups, so we can present that option as well. Dirac66 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what it would look like:

  1  2                                             3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
                                                                                               s2
                                                                                               He
  s1 s2 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10f11f12f13f14d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6
1 H                                                                                            
2 Li Be                                                                          B  C  N  O  F Ne
3 Na Mg                                                                         Al Si  P  S Cl Ar
4 K  Ca                                           Sc Ti  V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
5 Rb Sr                                            Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te  I Xe
6 Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta  W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
7 Fr Ra Ac Th Pa  U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og

108.66.235.190 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this version might be useful, provided that it is explained that it is the top row which has the accepted conventional group numbers, and that the second row is added to show the relationship of group numbers to (ideal) electron configurations. Dirac66 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New table?

I suggest that we place the electron configurations below the group numbers (and isolate helium with s2 instad of p6) and place an asterisk on the square for the displaced elements (such as gadolinium). That way, we will know what the ideal electron configurations are. This is what it should look like.

  1  2                                             3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
                                                                                               s2
                                                                                               He
  s1 s2 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10f11f12f13f14d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6
1 H                                                                                            
2 Li Be                                                                          B  C  N  O  F Ne
3 Na Mg                                                                         Al Si  P  S Cl Ar
4 K  Ca                                           Sc Ti  V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
5 Rb Sr                                            Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te  I Xe
6 Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta  W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
7 Fr Ra Ac Th Pa  U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og

108.65.81.161 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Group 1

YBG may effect a preference for the bloated transcluded table over placing description in the article proper. But YBG may not disrupt behaviour of the Group 1 element link and half-dozen similar redirects. For the record, I vehemently oppose redirecting these things to alkali metal – it would defeat the IUPAC’s idea that every element (at least for elements in s-, p-, and d-blocks) is assigned to one of eighteen groups. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify. Which edit or proposal by YBG are you referring to? And, why would this be more appropriate, while all other pages in "group x element" are, or end up in, a straight group page? -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The last (presently) edit in the article – it stripped my redirects of their landing target. My solution has shortcomings, but IMHO it is a kind of compromise: it dissuades users from ideas that “group 1” and “alkali metals” are synonymous (although a controversy over inclusion of hydrogen exists). Simultaneously it avoids creation of a separate article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The relevant edits that I have made are:

• this edit to {{Periodic table (group names)}}
• this edit to Group (periodic table)

I did this to place all group-specific footnotes in the template itself rather than having some inside the template and some outside the template. In doing so, I did not notice that I was removing the {{anchor|Group 1}}. For this unintended consequence, I sincerely apologize. If there is a need to have such an anchor in Group (periodic table), I think that a better solution would be to add a new section == Irregular group composition == or something similar, with subsections ===Group 1=== and ===Group 3=== with expanded versions of the footnotes in the template. These subsections would provide an appropriate anchor target. YBG (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Just to note: the precarious situation of the Group 3 is not equivalent to the case of “hydrogen and…”. There is a controversy which namely (and how many) elements to include to “the scandium group” in periods having a f-block. Contrary, definition of the IUPAC Group 1 is hopefully non-controversial: an element having, in neutral form, n − 1 full electron shells and exactly one ns electron. It covers everything from hydrogen to ununennium with exactly one element per period. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That's why I did not suggest "Controversial group composition"; the adjective "irregular" seems IMHO to be descriptive of the situation in both group 1 and group 3. YBG (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Again… while there is a controversy over the Group 3, it perfectly can be explained in the dedicated article. We have another kind of trouble for the Group 1: the dedicated article bluntly doesn’t exist. Why to lump both cases together? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not terribly uncommon for H to be excluded from group 1 in spite of IUPAC. Greenwood and Earnshaw even show the periodic table with a floating H as well as a floating He: they explain the first on p. 43 by saying that H is different enough from both group 1 and group 17 to justify keeping it out of both, although of course its electron configuration is similar to that of both groups. FWIW I support group 1 redirecting to the anchor here so that readers get an explanation about the hydrogen issue, as well as a statement that the exact placement of H is not always agreed on. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is already a collection of opinions in period 1 element #Position of period 1 elements in the periodic table and yet another one may be placed to hydrogen proper. As for this article proper, it shouldn’t exclusively stick to the IUPAC dogma, but follow Wikipedia’s structure and customs in presenting pluralism. “The IUPAC’s definition = {hydrogen} ∪ alkali metals” should be stated first and foremost. Most of the remaining stuff and controversy should be conveyed with internal links to detailed articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Glitch

@Double sharp: if to add a parenthetical, then add both (). Don’t add the right while deleting the left. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC) @Incnis Mrsi: Both () are present in both revisions you linked, so I don't understand what you mean. Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Oops, misread the diff for some unclear reason. Sorry. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I object to using terms "controversy" and "IUPAC definition of group 1". First of all, it is not a controversy as in 'opposing opinions' or 'heated discussions': it is a difference by scientific arguments. This is purely rational, and adding dramatic effects does not help explaining the situation. Further, a "IUPAC definition" (source?) does not exist. Maybe you refer to "collective names for like elements are IUPAC-approved: : alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr), ...". That's as strong as it gets. When there are scientific arguments to change a set, IUP{AC does not forbid such a report. (For example: this). -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The IUPAC definition of groups is at https://iupac.org/what-we-do/periodic-table-of-elements/#a6 (the image is on the same page above) – groups are stated to be columns, whose membership is pretty explicit. Classification of elements is not the same deal as establishing facts. There is no factual basis under statement “helium belongs to group 18”. We could classify elements strictly by shape of orbitals which are occupied, which certainly would made beryllium a homologue of helium and IMHO such system perfectly can be useful in description of some physical processes. But for chemistry it’s often more important to know which nearby orbitals are unoccupied (as it mostly determines electronegativity), and the common wisdom “helium belongs to group 18” reflects understanding that a closed valence shell—for chemistry—is the most important classifying property which overrides differences between exact composition of the shells. One can call it a “difference by scientific arguments”, but atomic physicist’s and chemist’s arguments may contradict for many cases. IUPAC ruled the cases of H and He in opposite directions applying some chemical commons sense. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't need or use a IUPAC definition of groups. No such definition exists. IUPAC only recommends. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

“ Since 1988, IUPAC recommended that the groups (i.e. columns) be simply numbered from 1 to 18. ” — IUPAC, /what-we-do/periodic-table-of-elements/#a6

The table on the same page—to which the citation unambiguously refer—is titled “IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements”. IUPAC defines “groups [as] columns” (although “only recommends” to use numbers for them) and places hydrogen in the same column as lithium. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's sdtill recommending then, while you also confuse the issue by introducing the column & group getting: not needed, not helpful, not clarifying. Listen. IUPAC themselves have stated that their current "Group 3" recommandation (or definition if you like) is not correct. IUPAC asked Scerri et al to improve the group 3 statements while explicitly excluding their (IUPAC's) previous group 3 set. This is how IUPAC states things (not "defines" things): go for the scinetific base, not by an ukaze. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, the anchor is again suspended in limbo. Perhaps it would be easier to make an article then? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The anchor should work now. Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Suboptimal, but tolerable. If noone broke redirects again, I’d make no further lawyering here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

… and again

[2] the same story yet another time. A redirect from a general topic to a partial topic may benefit some readers, but strategically it brings confusion. A separate article on the group 1, perhaps? I am tired of this endless argument. Pinging Christian75. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say a redirect to a footnote makes a lot of confusion. Therefore, I reverted your edit. Your edit didn't have an edit summary. Christian75 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The redirect to a footnote alerts a reader about irregularity. The alkali redirect is corrosive to mind – a superficial reader can think that the terms are synonymous or—at very least—the alkali metals topic subsumes everything related to the group. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) re I.M.: Rereading this thread, and half a dozen of earlier discussions about the topic of group 1 being presented as H + alkali metals with detailed notes in applicable places, I conclude that consensus is to not honour your proposal (to create separate articles "Group 1" and "Alkali metals". As has been explained by me and eloquently by YBG and Double sharp and Christian75: the situation can very well be clarified with a non-split article using footnotes, body texts, and what we can use. Remember, even if we would split articles the same issue is present: explain the difference between the two (group 1 and alkalis), but in both articles. -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The same situation in North Asia vs Siberia. Or Universal Character Set vs Unicode. Or disc galaxy vs spiral galaxy. So let all such pairs to be lumped together? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask & argue on their talkpages. It's called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Saved as draft:Group 1 element. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The above-referenced diff (special:diff/914594651/914283193) by Christian75 is merely reverting the bold edit (special:diff/810792861/910330257 made by Incnis Mrsi. The previous redirect had been present for nearly two decades, and so while bold editing is to be encouraged, when reverted discussion and consensus are strongly encouraged. So I suggest that the pre-existing redirect should remain until a consensus to change it has been achieved.

A redirect to a footnote seems to be unusual. Does anyone know of any policy about such things? Does anyone know of any other examples of such redirects? YBG (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no known solution seems to satisfy everybody. I am against the alkali redirect. Christian75 is against redirecting to a footnote. YBG doesn’t like a dedicated section in this article. DePiep is—or certainly was—against a separate article. IMHO the time to submit an RfC. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not categorically opposed to a separate article nor a redirect to a section; a redirect to a footnote does seem to be very unusual, though I wouldn't reject it out of hand particularly if redirect-to-footnote is something used elsewhere in WP. I am not convinced that there is a need to change it from the status quo, but I don't reject change out-of-hand. It might be helpful to catalog a list of all the different possibilities (and there are more than those I have just listed) and then discus the pros and cons of each one. In such a discussion, it would probably be helpful if all participants made a point of mentioning the shortcomings of their preferred solution and the advantages of the other solutions. In this way we avoid sounding like it "my way or the highway" and we maximize the possibility of finding consensus.

The WP:ELEM project has had a history of long and vociferous discussions that finally result in a consensus. I'm quite confident we can do it again, even if it takes us 12-18 months and hundreds of KB. In the past, we have conducted such discussions on our main WT:ELEM page. YBG (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"n/a" group header usage (MOS)

About stabilising the "n/a" group header (for f-block columns), see the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § "n/a"-groups specifier. DePiep (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)