Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Talk from "Ungrouped elements" article
Just because IUPAC does not definitively place these elements in group 3, that does not mean that they should be classified as "ungrouped." The lack of definitive opinion about a grouping is not a definitive opinion about a lack of grouping. Hopefully, a good version of Group 3 elements should resolve this issue by making the reality of the ambiguity more clear. In a week or so, I will nominate this "ungrouped elements" article for deletion unless there really are peer reviewed articles out there that call the lanthanoids and actinoids "ungrouped elements" and these articles are cited by an editor. Flying Jazz 02:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I created this article about 1.5 years ago, in response to the "Group (*nothing*) elements" link in articles such as Uranium etc. The "groupless" nature of those elements mentioned in this article is quite interesting and therefore this article should remain a separate one, maybe with a change in title. According to IUPAC, they aren't group 3 elements, so I think we can put a paragraph or so in the group 3 article, which links here. Deryck C. 03:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not 100% sure but I don't think IUPAC takes a stand either way about whether they are group 3 elements. In general, IUPAC allows for a lot of ambiguity on things like this that are kind of arbitrary. See http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/RB-prs310804/Chap3-3.04.pdf where nothing is explicitly mentioned about it and inferences may be made in either direction. I see what you mean though about it being a bad thing to have a "Group (*nothing*)" in element articles. I think keeping this article with a change in title would be good. Maybe something like an article called Lanthanide/actinide group number Flying Jazz 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- In that case I suggest this article to be kept, retitled and changes nature from the definition and list of these groupless orphans to a history about this problem of orphanage. The original redirects (from articles like Uranium) are to be kept. Deryck C. 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- My idea of a new title: Group number of lanthanoids and actinoids, or even more "naughty", Groupless nature of lanthanoids and actinoids.
-
-
- Oh dear lord! So it was you behind this all along, Deryck! That explains a lot! LOL --feline1 10:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Does that? The major concern is, this article was started 1.5 years ago, when the "correct style of writing" on wikipedia wasn't well formulated yet. Deryck C. 10:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Orpahans really do have biological parents, you know...except for a cloned orphan...who would have only one. I'm renaming this "Group number of lanthanides and actinides" and redirecting for now. All of Wikipedia should switch over to "-oid"...but I think that should take place all at once and can wait for another day. Maybe a year. The internet is too small. I keep seeing the same people over and over again. Flying Jazz 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Plutonium
The graphic shows plutonium as a primordial element, but its longest lived isotope has a half-life of only 8×107 years. Its should really be in the same class as neptunium and americium. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- See the discussion about this here: Talk:Periodic_table/archive_2#Naturally_occuring_elements. Of course, if that is true then Neptunium also would be naturally occuring, so I'm still confused about it, but changes should be made to the entire table template before the diagrams on these little side-aricles are altered.. Flying Jazz 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'll copy this thread to Talk:Periodic table and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements to revive the discussion, which didn't seem to reach a conclusion. --Eddi (Talk) 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please coordinate with Group 3 article
Please coordinate future changes to this article with the group 3 elements article so we have a self-consistent pair of articles that don't contradict each other even though they might say similar things twice and repeat themselves. Flying Jazz 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uranium & Plutonium
From the legend, U and Pl are "primordial" instead of "naturally radioactive". I wonder why choose primordial? (both are okay in some sense, but why the former?) Deryck C. 08:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
