Alkali metal has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Alkali metal is the main article in the Alkali metals series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 3, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed March 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed December 3, 2011 Good article nominee Listed February 13, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 18, 2014 Peer review Reviewed December 21, 2016 Good topic candidate Promoted Current status: Good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

The lead sentence currently:

• The alkali metals are a group (column) in the periodic table consisting of the chemical elements lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and francium (Fr).

What about changing it to reflect the singular form of the title, as follows?

• An alkali metal is any one of the six chemical elements in the group (column) in the periodic table consisting of lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and francium (Fr).

Any objections?

--В²C ☎ 21:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Much better than pluralizing the title as previously suggested. Dirac66 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That contradicts "All of the discovered alkali metals occur in nature as their compounds", i.e. there could be more alkali metals then the six mentioned. Christian75 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opposite. It is a class, so plural is native. A class name can be use singular, true. The point is: article title being singular does not prove or require singular must be used always & everywhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, first it says (if changed) "An alkali metal is any one of the six chemical elements in the group " i.e. there is six and only six alkali elements, then it says there could be more "All of the discovered alkali metals ...". Christian75 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alkali metals are *not* defined by the member list. It is defined by common (chemical) behaviour. (one does not write "FC Barcelona is these players: ..."). -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about how its defined. I'm talking about what the article says. I guess most readers would assume (including myself) that when it says "An alkali metal is any one of the six [...]" that would be the definition. IMHO the first mention of "alkali metal" should define it - plural or not. Christian75 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree. As you say: "the first mention of "alkali metal" should define it", that says keeping "The alkali metals are a group ..." (not a list). -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, I agree with DePiep on this. The subject is, correctly, used both as a group and its members, and also members of the group. (I might have written this a few times by now.) No need to change the text after the rename discussion closed. Not that there should be no reason to change the text, but just not that reason. Gah4 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to worry about there being more than six alkali metals, then the undiscovered 119 is not the only problem. We also have to mention that hydrogen is excluded even though it is in the first column. However both hydrogen and element 119 are discussed further down in the intro, so we just have to word the opening sentence correctly without giving all the explanation which is further down.

How about: An alkali metal is a chemical element in Group 1 of the periodic table, except for hydrogen which has different chemical properties. To date six alkali metals are known: lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and francium (Fr). Dirac66 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Christian75 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now made the change. Dirac66 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this version. Agree with the above consensus that is sums up the situation well. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: please stop reverting this. Your proposal to make this article use the plural did not succeed, and the lede should reflect the title of the article. There is agreement in this section on the a new form of wording and edit warring against that consensus it not a good look. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not just change the H issue, you also changed the singular/plural thing. As I noted below, three issue are in play by now. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been singular, and the opening sentence plural, for many years. Just because we now have no consensus for a change, doesn't mean we should change it. In fact, no consensus means no change! (Unless there is an MOS that requires the change.) I don't have any suggestion about what to say about hydrogen, someone else can figure that out. Gah4 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers, please, look at talk:Group_(periodic_table) #Group_1. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]