Talk:Main-group element

Correction: Hydrogen and Zinc are not main group elements, according to my text.

Also, this page could include some of the attributes of main group elements, including trends in atomic size (bigger as you go down the group, smaller as you go across the period).

Column numbering of the periodic table[edit]

The modern periodic table use column numbers 1-18. The old nomenclature (N-A and N-B) is misleading because the different conventions. JF Gal gal@unice.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.59.7.72 (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a main group element?[edit]

What is a main group element? Does anyone know? I don't, even after reading this article and trying a few google searches...

Will someone with a little chem knowledge add some love? and a clear sentence or seven.... Czeese (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: anything in group 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18, except hydrogen. Some will also include group 12; some will not. (A very few will also include group 11, though that practice seems to be dying out now.) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why is this a useful catagory? Is there some set of qualities they all share? And why exclude Hydrogen?--Klausok (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the main group elements use only their valence s- and p-orbitals for chemical bonding. (Hydrogen, I imagine, gets excluded because its chemistry is really sui generis.) There are borderline cases: relativistic effects blur the divide between groups 11 and 12 in periods 6 and 7, and the heavy group 2 elements Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra can use their inner d-orbitals when bonding. Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most abundant[edit]

In other articles (e.g. Abundance of the chemical elements) hydrogen is called the most abundant element. --Klausok (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name improvements[edit]

I don't know if the move today from main group element to main-group element is an improvement. The Red Book (pdf) p63/377 spells "main group element" "The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements."

We must take in view that IUPAC does not reflect the actual professional usage (common name), and meaningful nameFor example, the quote shows that the "d-block elements" is more commonly referred to as "d-block" (note, this is also a change from bunch into a single noun; the difference between "the FC Barcelona players" and "the FC Barcelona team"). The same for groups: "group 1 elements" are quoted here as "group 1". It is for this that we can deviate from the literal spelling of IUPAC.

But I don't think we should divert to the hyphenated (adjective) form of "main-group elements". I think the class noun shold be "main group", possibly wiki-disambiguation by "main group (periodic table)". -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same name, just with different punctuation. Because these are elements from the "main group" (not group elements that are main), the prepended phrase is properly hyphenated in English (which is often inconsistenly followed, but that's no reason to follow suit). If "element" is removed from the title, it is properly not hyphenated. (And "main group" redirects here, and I can't find any need for disambiguation, so I don't mind a move to "main group".) --JorisvS (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tehy are not the same, or else you could not & would not have moved the page. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same name, just a different punctuation. This does mean that there is a difference characterwise, and so that this page can be moved between them. --JorisvS (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Main group" raises the question: group of what? It is very likely that several other fields have something called a or the main group. "Main group element", with or without hyphen, shows what the article is about.Klausok (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title does not describe what it is, it is the thing itself. What you are looking for should be in the first sentences. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - people who work with chemistry call these elements main group elements. No hyphen. We work with transition metal elements too. Titles of chemistry articles probably shouldnt be set by nonchemists because of their perceived rules. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specialists often omit such hyphens that are technically required by good English. Because they are very familiar with the topic, the hyphen does not add anything meaningful for them. WP:COMMONNAME refers to the name, but with or without the hyphen is the same name, only different punctuation. Therefore, that part of the policy is silent here. --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Hyphens are not used to satisfy some abstract notion of "good English", but to disambiguate. Here there is no risk of confusion – there is no such thing as a "group element". Thus there is no ambiguity. Thus the hyphen is superfluous. The spelling of element classes without a hyphen is not only standard in specialist works but also general reference works like Britannica (boron group element or carbon group element) or Merriam-Webster (rare earth element – no such thing as an "earth element" either). I request that we move the title back to the orthography used by these sources, IUPAC, and academic journals such as this or this. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Smokefoot (edit conflict): a bad guideline that is. Chemists gave us the article title "group 1 element", while the root, used name, and common name is "group 1" (just read its first sentence, what a knot it is). Same for "period 1 element" instead of the root, used, and common name "period 1". Chemists use but don't grasp the difference between class and class members. I expect proposal move "periodic table" to "periodic table elements". And CF Barcelona into "CF Barcelona players". -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Cobblet: the two external links prove my point and show that any "... element" title is wrong: your links have titles "Main Group Chemistry" and "Main Group Metal Chemistry". (not: "Main Group Element(s) Chemistry"). -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't responding to you, but to the original issue of whether there should be a hyphen or not. You are correct in the sense that if we name other articles boron group and carbon group, we should do the same here. Klausok's point shouldn't be dismissed out of hand (Urbandictionary has a very different definition of main group) but it does appear that the phrase is primarily used in chemistry and is not standard anywhere else. Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specialists understand that there is no such thing as a "group element", but the general reader may well not and look at it with a moment of unnecessary confusion, wondering whether these are maybe the main ones from the group elements. Wikipedia is written as much for the general public as for specialists, and therefore should include such hyphens that indicate the proper relation between words. --JorisvS (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have pointed out that the lack of hyphenation is standard even in non-specialist sources. It is standard because there is no sensible alternative interpretation. If you're so concerned about eliminating such "uncertainty" for the general public, I'd like to see you take your crusade on to the page they're most likely to read: the Main Page. Several compound noun phrases are not currently hyphenated there, and therefore it is possible that a "non-specialist reader" could look at "passenger car design" or "self-supporting steel structure" or "World War II" and wonder whether the blueprints for a car are being ridden or whether "self-supporting steel" is a new type of alloy or where the local version of War II might have come from. Cobblet (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Passenger car design" is indeed properly hyphenated, and although I'd still prefer to see it so, it is less easily argued because it is a compound composed of common terms and so any non-specialist will still be able to quickly parse it properly, without a moment of confusion. "Self-supporting steel structure" is naively parsed as a steel structure that is self-supporting, which is its meaning and therefore it is correctly hyphenated. "World War II" has a different structure altogether: it is not a noun preceded by a compound modifier, nor a compound simple noun preceded by a simple modifier. --JorisvS (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you only worry about the momentary confusion caused by standard orthography (not likely, since it's standard, after all) and not about the distracting nature of nonstandard orthography? If your intention is truly to make Wikipedia more accessible to a general audience by putting hyphens everywhere you see fit (never mind how Wikipedia doesn't even stick to one variety of English, surely a much greater source of confusion and distraction than unhyphenated compounds; and yet our poor readers survive), at least focus your efforts on pages a general audience is most likely to read. If on the other hand, your goal is to alienate Wikipedia's specialist contributors by forcing nonstandard orthography down their throats on a page defining a technical term, all in the name of "good" (as opposed to standard) English, proceed as you currently are. Cobblet (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When responses include the terms "properly", "required", and accusations toward "specialists", it is time to duck for cover. Good luck with this debate. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... shouldnt be set by nonchemists because of their perceived rules". - duh. People whose argument is authority for being a member of a professional group should not bother to feel accused in the first place. Interestingly, again this contains the core mistake: members of a group is not the same as a group. In other words: speak for yourself. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking for myself, not sure how I could do otherwise. "duh" probably is not the appropriate term to refer to a colleague. But no hard feelings, best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot:, please tell: in publications, do you use "group 3 element" always and never "group 3"? -DePiep (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that applies to article names has precedence over style guides. So the title of this article should be folowing the name commonly used by reliable sources. From evidence given above, this does not include a hyphen or dash. So the move should be reversed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Main group?[edit]

I think User:DePiep is right that the best place for this article is main group. By analogy, we talk about group 13 and 14 elements at boron group and carbon group. Unless there is clear evidence that the phrase "main group" is frequently used to denote some other specific concept in a different context as User:Klausok alleges may be the case, I will move the article. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would surely support that, obvious it is to me. However, some time ago I met rejections in these:

All "period n element" → "period n" (see Talk:Period_1_element#Requested move)
All "group n element" → "group n" (see Talk:Group_3_element#Requested_move).

So my experiences are negative, both from the linguists' and from the scientists' input then (plus that second one being closed by the nastiest admin I ever met). Is why I won't write that RM myself. But please go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dogmatist and I can see why there would be more legitimate sources of confusion in those cases. Disambiguation pages actually exist for things like Group 5 or Fourth period. But Local Group has not required any sort of disambiguation and I believe main group (see how it's not a disambiguation page) is sufficiently well-established in chemistry and sufficiently rare elsewhere that it is also not ambiguous in any meaningful sense. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation has nothing to do with this. Step are: 1. Establish the correct name (common, scientific, &tc.). 2. If that name is also used by another topic (eg in hockey), then add a disambiguation term (like " (periodic table)"). 3. Never reject a name because some other field uses that same name. Never. -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add: a disambiguation page is not an issue at all (that can be decided upon outside of this). The point is: what is the right scientific title for this topic. (All disambiguation talk is a distraction. Don't fall for that). -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably have a better chance of moving all the "Group n element" pages to "Group n (chemistry)", if you think that's an improvement. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Read my first reply here. (Again: that disambiguation term is not relevant and it is not about "chance"). I understand you are not going to propose this move? -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not, no. If I understand what you're suggesting correctly, we'd end up with Group 1 (chemistry) (because Group One and Group 1 (racing) exist) but Group 10 because nothing else is called that. I don't like that idea. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like? -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lack of consistency is a pain for both contributors (who will forget which wikilink to use) and readers (who will be taken to the disambiguation page as a result of our forgetfulness). As far as I know it is standard practice to disambiguate all the members of a series of articles the same way even if not all of them need it: for example, even though I'm pretty sure no significant Symphony No. 104 by any other composer exists, we still use Symphony No. 104 (Haydn). Inconsistent functionality makes Wikipedia look bad and uniformly disambiguating the whole series is a small price to pay, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data from the specialist's world[edit]

Here is a listing of book titles cited in "Chemistry of the Elements," which many specialists would probably consider sort of the "bible" of main group chemistry:

Akiba's monograph "Organo Main Group Chemistry",
Driess et al.'s monograph "Molecular Clusters of the Main Group Elements,"
Henderson's text "Main Group Chemistry"
Massey's text "Main Group Chemistry".
Waddington's and Guttmann’s edited "Main Group Elements: Group VII and Noble Gases"
Coates' and Green's "Organometallic Compounds, Vol. 1, The Main Group Elements”. Roesky’s monograph “Rings, Clusters and Polymers of Main Group and Transition Elements”
E. Wiberg and R. Amberger “Hydrides of the Elements of Main Groups I-IV"
A. H. Cowley’s monograph "Rings, Clusters and Polymers of the Main Group Elements" (ACS Symposium Series)
B. J. Aylett's "Organometallic Compounds, 4th edn., Vol. 1, The Main Group Elements"
Taylor, M, et al.'s "Metal-Metal Bonded States in Main Group Elements"
A thematic issue of Chemical Reviews (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr1001657), widely cited journal, is dedicated to the topic Main Group Chemistry.
The journal in this area (not very impactful) is "Main Group Chemistry" (http://www.iospress.nl/journal/main-group-chemistry/). Curiously “Chemistry of the Elements” itself, the one I refer to as sort of a bible, uses both "main group element/atom/trend/donor atom" and "main-group element/etc" throughout the text. So there are some data. Good luck with your deliberations - I wont intrude any more. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smokefoot, just to clarify (since this has nothing to do with the hyphenation issue): are you OK with a move to main group, by analogy with boron group and carbon group? Cobblet (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. So when we name it main group, no harm is done and all specialists can work ahead happily. But when we name it main group element, half of the sources must be rewritten to say: "Main Group Elements Chemistry" (not deadly, albeit possibly dead wrong), and "Hydrides of the Elements of Main Groups I-IV elements" and on and on. Will you go out and convince Massey to tell them they said it wrong all their life? I repeat my question: in the lab and in the publications, Smokefoot, do you not use the concept & words "main group", and only use "main group element(s)"? The group 3 element definition shows it all: "Group 3 is a group of elements in the periodic table". (sure one should write?: Group 3 elements are elements that are group 3 elements). -DePiep (talk)

DePiep, relax – maybe you guys have some sort of history, but on this page I don't think Smokefoot has ever implied anything contrary to what you're saying. Like myself, I think he was trying to address the hyphenation issue, not the main group/main group element issue. But I'll let him speak for himself. Cobblet (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Smokefoot is making that point? I read from their actual edit that, again, Smokefoot is invoking "specialists" as an argument. But you could be right. "Could be", because Smokefoot does not say which point they are adstruing. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2014[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus over whether the proposed title is sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Number 5 7 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main-group element → Main group – By analogy with carbon group and boron group, other groups of elements with descriptive names. Google search results for "main group" primarily contain references to the chemistry concept, but not always in the context of the phrase "main group element": "main group chemistry" and "main group compounds" are also typical uses of the phrase. Thus the more concise title is preferable. Also satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – this is the most common use of the phrase, and I cannot find any other uses with potential long-term significance. Cobblet (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Rename, as nominator Cobblet (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom (the proposed name is common name in the domain). I add: we should use the class name that is 'main group', not the description-by-its-members ('main group elements'), which is incorrect. The class itself has a definition. In short, "Football team A" is not the same as "Members of football team A", it is even wrong. Also, this is very elaborate descriptive, the lede ends up like: "group X elements are element in group X" (another example that one is missing the class name). I know a lot of those in the field (chemists) do not differentiate, but that does not take away the notion. --DePiep (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not chemistry encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia. "main group" is used to describe many things in the world at large, and even on wikipedia. [1] ; I find zero uses in Google News first page for the chemistry concept [2] ; So while "main group" figures prominently for Chemistry, I don't think it is WP:RECOGNIZABLE to a general audience. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names being ambiguous is not an argument.

For these situations (when there is another page possibly named "main group"), this wiki has the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline and nothing else. When disabiguation is needed, we do not change the name 'main group', but we add a disambiguation term, bracketed. Could be: "main group (chemistry)". Under no circumstance do we change a good name this into a lesser name for this. (Example: we have Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet), but we did not change the name into "Mercury element" or so). Look at it this way: we can choose the best name possible within chemistry.

That said, I do not see any disambiguation issue with page Main group or Main group (disambiguation). So no disambiguation needed even. --DePiep (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though do note that there are other ways to disambiguate. Within the linguistics and peoples articles this is normally done by appending an unbracketed "language", "languages", "people", or "peoples", which creates a naturally disambiguated title without the need for brackets. But no disambiguation is needed here anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (In case this spins out: "Navajo people" and "Navajo language" use the same eh root word, but when "main group" would be used in say a sports tournament, such a 'natural dab' is less likely to be appropriate). -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. "Main group" is more like "Mercury" than "Navajo" in that respect. --JorisvS (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRECISION and CONCISION are different criteria from RECOGNIZABILITY. Your point on disambiguation only address PRECISION and CONCISION. Main group of elements would be an alternative to main-group element -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too much at once. 1. You agree that disambiguation refutes/solves your first sentence (say, 'has more meanings in the non-chemical world')? 2. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, that is: when we can choose between two titles meaning the same, we better pick the recognisable one. It does not imply that we should try explain the topic in the title, or choose a less correct but somehow more commonly worded title. Even worse, how does a "main group element" clarify or make recognisable what that 'main group' is? (Wave–particle duality is not recognisable for most readers, but we do not need to change it into "Wave–particle duality showing properties"). Also, I already noted that class and class-member are not the same, so for recognisability choiche they are not interchangeable. 3. I do not understand what you try to say with the extra article name. None of these two is proposed here. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't agree that it meets PRECISION, but your rebuttal to my original opinion only addresses PRECISION and CONCISION. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, as such the title should be recognizable to a general audience that may be familiar with chemistry. It isn't a chemistry encyclopedia, so the requested title lacks recognizability (and precision) in the general context, since article titles have no context (unless they carry parenthetical or comma disambiguation) "wave-particle duality" does clarify it, since it is about the duality between waves and particles. "Main group" offers no such clarity. main group of elements addresses your concern about membership versus class -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that a title should be clarifying in itself even to non-chemists I do not recognise. It is not in the MOSs like WP:TITLE. As with the wave-particle example: you are not there to explain it to the reader, nor is that required. About main group of elements: totally inadequate. Again trying to squeeze a description into the existinmg accurate, to the point, common, correct name of the class. If a reader ends at page "main group" but does not know the what it means, they either can start reading it because this is an encyclopedia, or they can click elsewhere. Putting the lede as title and the words "main group" in as lede, is what you suggest. That is not how this site works. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I'm a chem instructor, and I don't see any benefit to this move. And I think it's better under WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURALDIS with the current name. --IJBall (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my reply above, disambiguation is no reason to use or discard a certain name. Instead, we are invited and free to choose the best name possible (any disambiguation is solved after that). About the precise argument you mention, I repeat that the "class name" is not the same as the "list of members of that class". I'm sure that when explaining this topic in your profession, you actually do use the term "main group" distinct from "main group element(s)". (See the first sentence of Group 3 element). -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I find DePiep's argument rather convincing and it's not like there is another article that is or could be called "main group", which means that no dabbing is required. Moreover, it avoids the entire discussion above about using a hyphen. --JorisvS (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Chemistry is a minor specialist field and "main group" in Google Books can refer to umpteen things. The interests of the general reader should take precedence of specialist meanings and the present title is better fit already for WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I replied to IP:65.94.40.137. Ambiguity does not force us to pick a bad title, but is handled in an other way. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least move it back to Main group - I have never seen it spelled with a hyphen Christian75 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This requested move is about moving it there, but not back, because it didn't come from there. The hyphen in "main-group element" (but not "main group" without "element") is necessary for proper English punctuation. For example that do use it: [3] and [4] ([5]). --JorisvS (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A hyphen discussion has no place in this move proposal, full stop. Christian75's comment is a support for this move proposal, but for the wrong reason. -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been discussed in other thread at this talk page... Christian75 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought you had seen that. Must have sounded a bit rude then. Glad you took another minute for this. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per -DePiep - Christian75 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu oculi. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment ibid. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

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.