This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
in the elements they always have 15 letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.87.66.12 ( talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Doesn't this also have the name rare earth metals? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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):
What to conclude? - DePiep ( talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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 |
Dirac66 ( talk) 01:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The relevant edits that I have made are:
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)
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)
|
“ | 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 |
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)
[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)
Saved as draft:Group 1 element. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
names of different group/families in pt. 112.209.177.232 ( talk) 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
in the elements they always have 15 letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.87.66.12 ( talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Doesn't this also have the name rare earth metals? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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):
What to conclude? - DePiep ( talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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 |
Dirac66 ( talk) 01:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The relevant edits that I have made are:
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)
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)
|
“ | 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 |
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)
[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)
Saved as draft:Group 1 element. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
names of different group/families in pt. 112.209.177.232 ( talk) 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)