Talk:Group (periodic table)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Steve Pucci, it still is awkward. Sadly. -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Group NN element is the series... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Itub (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of new IUPAC system? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I just realized I answered a question that's a year old. d'oh! Gentgeen (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[F-block]] 

message: Ok, I give up: what is a "conch" configuration?
... elements in a group have similar (conch) configurations ...
--Wnross7 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding first section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Navel-gazing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not a primary proof of use, but  does say that the noble gases were in group VIIIB in the "European system". --Itub (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  VIIIA as old numbering for noble gases 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Roman numerals 

message: Currently, for old IUPAC (aka European) numbering, we use for groups 8-9-10: VIII (Roman 8). In the source: , Flick is describing the old confusion. e.g. (bolds added):
* "Fig. 1. Periodic table according to H.G. Deming": VIII for all three columns. 
* "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old IUPAC (European) numbering for groups 8, 9, 10 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New table? 

message: About stabilising the "n/a" group header (for f-block columns), see the new discussion at . DePiep (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "n/a" group header usage (MOS) 

message: names of different group/families in pt. 112.209.177.232 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  science