# Talk:Alkali metal

Any chemists wanna include something about water and alkali metals? I know that it's a common demo in high school classes to put sodium in water and watch it blow. I just don't remember the specifics. Surely someone knows them. --User:comrade009
What does 'excepting' mean in this article?  It is not the proper word.
Main Entry: 1ex·cept 
Pronunciation: ik-'sept
Variant(s): also ex·cept·ing  /-'sep-ti[ng]/
Function: preposition

with the exclusion or exception of <daily except Sundays>
From www.m-w.com
I think it should be 'including' and I will change it as such.
User:ShaunMacPherson

I think that Alkali should be redirected to this page. Any objections?
I'd actually say "alkali" should be redirected to base (chemistry), as alkali more correctly and commonly refers to that.  Alkali metals are just metals that form alkalis. --ES2 20:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

does any1 know why alkali metals & halogens are really active? NO

Less that three years ago, there was much discussion on renaming this article.  The discussion is still here in the talk page. Yet someone now does the rename with no more discussion, and (I presume) not reading the discussion?  Gah4 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I invited the mover to visit here and also left a note for User:Ileresolu who had made the move-request. The same issue also applies to the recent Alkaline earth metal->Alkaline earth metals. DMacks (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that the move was the result of a technical request at WP:RM/TR by User:Ileresolu. It should have gone to requested moves, since there was past debate about the best page name (see WP:RM#CM), clearly not a technical request. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I put the appropriate templates in WP:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves. It also says not to discuss it here, but we are not actually doing much discussing, only saying that it wasn't (and still isn't) recently discussed. Gah4 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

hi, sorry I was not aware of all these discussions, my apologies because apparently I did not post my request on the right Wikipedia page. I am just confused because some pages such a Refractory metals, Heavy metals, or Minor metals are in pluraly form and this page is in singular form, yet throughout the page the plural form is used consistently. I don't know to which extent the discussion should be re-opened so as to try to have a global consistent policy for the articles about groups of metals (more generally of chemical elements), or just revert this change, I leave it to more experienced Wikipedians.Ileresolu (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the above moves, as they clearly do need an RM before going through. I suggest they remain as they are, since I don't think they satisfy the criteria for overriding MOS:SINGULAR. Regarding Refractory metals and Minor metals, I suggest we should move those to the singular too, there doen'st seem a good reason to keep them plural. Heavy metals is a bit different, since the base page Heavy metal is a disambiguation page between this and the music genre. For that single case, the plural is probably best as a WP:NATURALDIS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You can read all the discussion from three years ago. The problem is that it is both a group (plural) and generic (singular) term. In chemistry you might say something like: Alkali metal hydroxides make good drain cleaners in the generic sense. I am less convinced for the cases of Refractory metals and Minor metals, as those aren't so used in the chemistry sense. (And I presume the articles are also less in the chemistry sense.)  In any case, they were singular for at least three years since the previous (and still above) discussion. Gah4 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
And as for article text, it seems that Planet has the word planets 301 times. In the group sense, it would be The alkali metals, but nobody wants that.  Gah4 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The article states, "Today the largest producers of caesium, for example the Tanco Mine in Manitoba, Canada, produce rubidium as by-product from pollucite. " The source is listed as a report from 2003. 
I believe this is wrong. 
This report from Jan 2022 states, " Production in Namibia ceased in the early 2000s, followed by the Tanco Mine in Canada shutting down and later being sold after a mine collapse in 2015"
I would remove the reference to the largest producer (as it is not the Tanco Mine) until someone comes up with a better referecne as to who actually produces the most Rubidium. 110.136.219.34 (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that it is at over 15,000 words, significantly longer than the under 4,000 words it was when it passed GAN. I think there are some  sections that could be summarised more effectively or have excess detail removed, while other sections could be spun out into their own articles. Some of these sections include "Properties", "Compounds", "Representative reactions of alkali metals" (maybe removed as too much detail), "Extensions", "Pseudo-alkali metals", "Production and isolation", and "Ions". Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)