Do the Lanthanoid and Actinoid Families Have Specific Group Numbers?

WikiProject Elements	(Rated Redirect-course)
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate past editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. Elements Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements chemical elements articles  Redirect This redirect does not crave a rating on the quality scale.

Simply because IUPAC does not definitively place these elements in group iii, that does not mean that they should exist 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 consequence by making the reality of the ambiguity more clear. In a week or so, I will nominate this "ungrouped elements" article for deletion unless at that place really are peer reviewed manufactures out in that location that call the lanthanoids and actinoids "ungrouped elements" and these articles are cited by an editor. Flying Jazz 02:15, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I created this article most 1.5 years ago, in response to the "Group (*cipher*) 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 i, maybe with a modify in championship. According to IUPAC, they aren't group 3 elements, so I think we can put a paragraph or so in the grouping three article, which links hither. Deryck C. 03:38, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'one thousand not 100% sure but I don't think IUPAC takes a stand either fashion virtually whether they are group three elements. In full general, IUPAC allows for a lot of ambiguity on things like this that are kind of arbitrary. See http://world wide web.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/RB-prs310804/Chap3-three.04.pdf where nil is explicitly mentioned about information technology and inferences may be fabricated in either direction. I see what you hateful though about it beingness a bad affair to have a "Grouping (*cypher*)" in element articles. I think keeping this article with a change in title would be good. Maybe something like an article called Lanthanide/actinide grouping number Flight Jazz 05:xix, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case I propose this commodity to be kept, retitled and changes nature from the definition and list of these groupless orphans to a history nigh this problem of orphanage. The original redirects (from articles like Uranium) are to be kept. Deryck C. 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• My thought of a new title: Group number of lanthanoids and actinoids, or even more "naughty", Groupless nature of lanthanoids and actinoids.

Oh love lord! So it was you behind this all forth, 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 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Orpahans really do have biological parents, you know...except for a cloned orphan...who would have just 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 recall that should take place all at one time and can expect for another mean solar day. Maybe a year. The net is too pocket-size. I keep seeing the same people over and over over again. Flying Jazz xv:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The graphic shows plutonium as a primordial chemical element, but its longest lived isotope has a half-life of only 8×10⁷ years. Its should really exist in the same class equally neptunium and americium. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion near this here: Talk:Periodic_table/archive_2#Naturally_occuring_elements. Of course, if that is truthful then Neptunium as well would be naturally occuring, then I'grand however dislocated almost it, but changes should exist made to the entire table template before the diagrams on these niggling side-aricles are altered.. Flying Jazz 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll re-create 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)

Please coordinate hereafter changes to this article with the group 3 elements commodity then we have a cocky-consequent pair of articles that don't contradict each other even though they might say like things twice and repeat themselves. Flying Jazz 21:23, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)

From the legend, U and Pl are "primordial" instead of "naturally radioactive". I wonder why choose primordial? (both are okay in some sense, simply why the former?) Deryck C. 08:03, 25 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Peradventure the American naming arrangement should introduce Group C:

La: III C
Ce: Four C
Pr: V C
Nd: Half dozen C
Pm: 7 C
Sm-Er: VIII C
Tm: I C
Yb: II C
Lu: Iii B
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard222.152.24.178 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I decided to exercise this as this article duplicated exactly the same text and every bit such it should be uncontroversial. If anyone wishes to add material in the hereafter almost group iii, it would go out the 2 pages inconsistent equally it is now. The way, the truth, and the calorie-free (talk) 07:37, 25 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Here is the introduction to the group 3 article:

The Group three elements are chemical elements comprising the third vertical cavalcade of the periodic table.

IUPAC has not recommended a specific format for the periodic tabular array, and so different conventions are permitted and are frequently used for group 3. The following d-block transition metals are always considered members of grouping 3:

• scandium (Sc)
• yttrium (Y)

Here is introduction to the "Group number of lanthanides and actinides" article:

IUPAC has not recommended a specific format for the periodic table, so different conventions are permitted and are oft used for the group number of lanthanides and actinides. In that location is no pre-existing physical entity for a "group" of elements. The notion is simply a convenient classification, since some elements have similar periodicities in their properties. This allows them to be arranged in columns that too happen to correspond with electron configurations.

This is not exactly the same text. It is very different text. Much of the remaining text is the same considering the same four possibilities impact the issue of which elements are contained in which element category. For example, whether or not uranium is a group 3 element is a semantically debatable topic. Whether or not scandium is a group 3 element is non similarly debatable. Of grade, in reality, scientists don't fence these issues because they're rather silly human classifications. However, as encyclopedia-makers, we need to business ourselves with semantics and discover an NPOV method of representing the group number for these elements. Please look at the template box for the Uranium article. Under "Grouping" you lot volition notice the text "n/a" that links, as it should, to the Grouping number of lanthanides and actinides commodity considering Uranium is always characterized every bit an actinide. In contrast to this, the template box for the Scandium article correctly shows information technology equally beingness definitively in grouping 3. Any editor who changes the grouping 3 commodity does not need to edit "Group number of lanthanides and actinides" if their changes only use to Sc and Y. There would exist no inconsistency in that situation. Before calculation the redirect over again, please ask for an proficient opinion from one of the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Participants. Too, please review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/archive03#Group_3. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:48, 26 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Those are not completely different, in that they both refer to the confusing situation surrounding group iii, and the remainder of the article is indeed the same. I recollect that ane issue should be addressed in 1 commodity, non two. True, they might diverge in the hereafter, just is that a good thing? Someone reading but one of the articles (they don't fifty-fifty link to each other) would non get the whole picture.

I empathise the element infoboxes, and given the state of affairs, they're correct. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The merge seems reasonable to me. --mav (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the merge also. Equally for the "IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements", run into the 2nd page of International Union of Pure and Applied Chemical science (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. Electronic version., where the lanthanoids and actinoids are included in group 3. Physchim62 (talk) 15:forty, 26 April 2008 (UTC) See also this IUPAC page Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If IUPAC intended a consensus view of group iii, information technology would not have included in IR-3.five on p 51 of International Wedlock of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Classification of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. Electronic version. "Optionally, the letters due south, p, d and f may be used to distinguish unlike blocks of elements. For instance, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements." This selection would exclude f-block elements from group 3 and go out them "ungrouped." I think the reader is best served when they click an "n/a" in an elementbox if it does not straight them to the aforementioned commodity as clicking a "3" in an elementbox. I article is about a topic that may have some uncertainty about what is included within it, and the 2d article is most the nature of that dubiousness. In my mind, these are ii very different, if related, bug. For instance, see British Isles for the topic that may have uncertainty about what is included within it and British Isles naming dispute for the nature of that uncertainty. Even though I strongly believe I'g correct nigh what best serves the reader, if the consensus is that the reader is best served past a merge, then I don't care enough the upshot (or anything else at Wikipedia for that matter) to continue an edit state of war with someone who is so adamantly opposed. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recollect we need an article about the "group number of lanthanides and actinides" because there are no references that deal with this topic explicitly (as far as I know). All I meet so far is an analysis of the layout of various periodic tables. If the group number is non well-defined, let's go out it at that instead of writing about information technology at length. If the goal is to explain to the reader why the infobox has an "north/a", I suggest calculation a curt footnote explaining why. --Itub (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Positions of Lanthanum (Actinium) and Lutetium (Lawrencium) in the Periodic Table", Periodical of Chemical Education, 1982, 59, p. 634-636 deals with the topic explicitly but not completely. It compares La and Ac in grouping 3 vs Lu and Lr based on the chemical similarity of these elements to Sc and Y. It concludes by stating that Lu and Lr are more "group-three-similar" than La and Ac and the article strongly recommends that a periodic table like [1] should be preferred over one like [2]. This article continues to be cited to criticize tables that place La and Ac in group 3. Journal of Chemical Education, 2002, 79, p. 60 states "Whether one or the other end of both fifteen-chemical element sequences should be really included remains controversial," and come across, for instance, [three]. All the same, the 1982 JCE article is an incomplete assay because it does not consider the placement of a marker for all lanthanides and actinides (similar the current Wikipedia and IUPAC tables) or the pros and cons of such a marker. For case, information technology might requite the impression that the f-cake is xv elements long instead of fourteen. The consummate issue was addressed very briefly at [4]. It was also addressed at length past me and others off Wikipedia at [5]. On Wikipedia, it has been discussed about a half-dozen times or and then, similar any topic would be where multiple opinions and versions of something be in the literature. Students and educators really are interested in why these different layouts exist, and I thought that a goal of Wikipedia was to serve them. Of grade, y'all are right that we don't *need* an commodity about the topic, but if articles were only written based on need and so none would be because we don't need Wikipedia at all. Or perhaps 1 would exist. All the articles at Wikipedia could exist merged into one large article called "stuff," and the esoteric details almost less of import stuff could all be included in footnotes. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:eighteen, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't hateful we don't demand it in the trivial sense yous mock. What I mean that I don't recollect this is a topic that one tin write an encyclopedia article about, at least according to Wikipedia's policies. The newspaper you refer to is about the more common issue of the placement of La/Lu, just information technology hardly has anything to do with the group number of the lanthanides. The other websites and forums you refer to are non reliable sources for ascertaining the notability of a topic. --Itub (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A group is a vertical column of the periodic table. The elements in question (La/Lu and Air conditioning/Lr) are lanthanides and actinides. So the consequence about the placement of La/Lu and Air conditioning/Lr is precisely the upshot of the group number of lanthanides and actinides. Anyway, that is how the issue is discussed in JCE 1982, 59, p. 634-636. The things you wrote have hardly annihilation to do with each other are actually identical to each other. Different periodic tables accept dissimilar group numbers for certain lanthanides and actinides, and there is published literature in peer-reviewed educational journals most the differences. I certainly agree that the forums at apsidium.com and webelements.com are not reliable sources. I included them in the talk page to evidence how they cite the academic literature on the subject and to demonstrate that in that location is sufficient interest in this topic so that (in my view) Wikipedia would provide a valuable service by having an encyclopedia commodity on it. I as well certainly didn't mean to mock you or your ideas. Even so, I did hateful to mock a recent trend I've noticed both here and elsewhere to merge and redirect certain Wikipedia chemical science articles. Whether or not a topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia is up to our estimation of policy in each specific instance. Rather than stating "co-ordinate to Wikiepdia'due south policies," could y'all country which policy you are referring to and how y'all are interpreting information technology here? My view is that if Wikipedia has a dissever article for every group of the periodic table, then the unique status of the lanthanides and actinides with or without La/Lu or Ac/Lr must too exist addressed. The periodic table itself is sufficiently notable, I recollect, to warrant an article explaining this exact issue. Flight Jazz (talk) 03:fifty, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

La and Lu are non identical to the lanthanides, are but a small subset of them. Those are the only lanthanides that often can be said to have a grouping number (whether the tables that put a little star under Y and then the xv lanthanides as a footnote really mean that all 15 lanthanides are in grouping three is arguable). There is also some debate near the group placement of He, simply that doesn't make it a debate well-nigh "the noble gases". Then, a more accurate title for this commodity would exist "Group number of lanthanum, lutetium, actinium, and lawrencium". Sounds too verbose? So I suggest reducing it to "Group three elements", as that'southward the simply grouping to which all the elements in question sometimes belong. Oh, look! That'due south where it was merged already! The status of the lanthanides in general tin also be mentioned in the article about lanthanides, etc. Regarding Wikipedia policies, commencement I meant the requirement for multiple independent references explicitly addressing the topic (WP:N), as so far I've just seen one (the J. Chem. Ed. commodity). 2nd, that this seems to be blowing up a minor "debate" out of proportion past giving information technology its own article rather than incorporating it where it belongs. As such, I consider information technology a blazon of content fork. Tertiary, that the way the article was written ("some tables this, some tables that") is too shut to collecting evidence and writing your own synthesis, which goes confronting WP:SYN. --Itub (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 26, Physchim62 wrote: "the lanthanoids and actinoids are included in group 3" and cited an IUPAC reference to accelerate that view, so obviously La and Lu are non "the only lanthanides that often can be said to have a grouping number." In that location are multiple options that may be supported by IUPAC nomenclature statements. I hold with yous that the significant of footnote indicators in a table is arguable. In my opinion, arguable information is interesting data, and presenting arguable content in an NPOV way is a good thing. I besides agree with you lot that some tables place He in group 2. The reason why that does non warrant its own Wikipedia article, in my stance, is because the determination most where to place He is non based on chemical considerations, but on the goals and preferences of the table publisher. A tabular array that emphasizes electronic configuration over chemical similarity volition place He in group ii, so having an commodity about that would be similar to an article near whether ane publisher prefers one colour for their cover over some other. Withal, unlike the example with helium, the decision well-nigh the group number of lanthanides and actinides is based on the real earth data of chemical similarity comparisons to Sc and Y. As I discussed above, the subject area is addressed three times at Journal of Chemical Education, 1982, 59, p. 634-636, Periodical of Chemical Education, 2002, 79, p. 60, and Journal of Chemical Education, 2002, 79, p. 944. What constitutes "explicitly" addressing a topic is debatable. This isn't an area of continuing research, so the commencement JCE article is the only 1 (to the best of my knowledge) that uses chemical information to accost the issue. I disagree with y'all about WP:N but I understand your position. Whether three meets the requirement for "multiple" is debatable, particularly when only 1 of the 3 utilise data. The other two policies you cited seem to work in my favor. WP:SYN requires that the sources be put together to advance a position. The article did no such thing. WP:SYN states "Summarizing source material without irresolute its meaning is not synthesis; it is skillful editing." WP:CFORK states "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view" Many chemists forget what it can be similar for educators when they first teach bones things to students. I imagine a high school chemical science student asking their instructor, "Why does this table put some lanthanides and actinides in a dissimilar grouping than that table?" The acquittance that "some tables do this and some tables do that" together with chemistry-based explanations for the different grouping numbers assigned by dissimilar tables serves a valuable purpose. Wikipedia should help. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:27, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

This is more WP:UNDUE; this might have been discussed in J. Chem. Educ., but so have many things. Why should information technology be discussed on Wikipedia? Are chemists really confused by the current situation? Do they feel unsure as to whether dysprosium is more than like yttrium than like bromine? Do they wonder whether the phrase "groups 1–12" includes the lanthanoids and the actinoids (or however you wish to call them)? IMHO, learning chemistry involves learning the exceptions as much as learning the rules, but this "article" doesn't do anything in that direction. The very first judgement in the version promoted by Flying Jazz is demonstrably simulated: indeed, the references given in that version and on this talk page testify it to be then. The merge should stay, and this folio should be salted. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Physchim wrote: "the lanthanoids and actinoids are included in group 3." Itub wrote that La and Lu "are the only lanthanides that often can be said to have a grouping number." And so Physchim wrote "Are chemists really confused by the current state of affairs?" The reply to that question, when it comes to the physical reality of elements, is no. They are almost probable not confused. The answer to that question, when it comes to the group numbers that IUPAC has or has non assigned to lanthanoids and actinoids, seems to be aye based on yourself as an fantabulous example of a confused person (assuming you are a chemist). The statement "IUPAC has not recommended a specific format for the periodic table" is demonstrably correct. IUPAC uses a sure periodic table, merely usage is far different from recommendation. We know this must be correct because the Redbook states: "Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish dissimilar blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements." This option would result in a different periodic table than the one IUPAC uses. Withal, this selection however would issue in an IUPAC-recommended table. I am unfamiliar with the phrase "this page should be salted," but I empathise it can be frustrating to have your confusion pointed out to y'all. If y'all are confused then how many less knowledgeable people are too? Wikipedia exists to help them larn most the situation and to endeavor to explicate that different options in something equally fundamental as the periodic table may exist. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that nosotros should stick with IUPAC here. I hate to be a pest, but tin can someone provide me with a ref stating where IUPAC stands on this issue? Thanks, Antelan ^talk 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The only relevant IUPAC reference is discussed above. International Spousal relationship of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Classification of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-eight. Electronic version.. See the unnumbered second folio where the IUPAC table is given and see IR-iii.5 page 51, first paragraph where the issue of groups is addressed. That reference will show you lot the result we are discussing, but it volition not determine for us whether the event claim treatment in its own article. That is the arguable indicate for editors here to decide. Flight Jazz (talk) sixteen:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply and the certificate. From reading, it seems that in that location are only two species that are always Grouping 3, while the rest of the lanthanides and actinides are debated. Is this correct? (And from the document I realize now that I should be proverb "lanthanoids and actinoids".) Antelan ^talk 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly correct. Only Sc and Y are ever in grouping iii. They are not lanthanoids nor actinoids. Too...chemists unremarkably have better things to fence. The issue that has been debated in the chemical education literature is a subset of the entire issue: whether Lu and Lr are better to locate in grouping three than La and Ac. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay... - I wish to add together a few comments as the original creator of the Ungrouped Elements commodity. First of all, IUPAC is not God. The whole bespeak of the beingness of the article is that many people consider the f-blocks as group-numberless whereas others consider them every bit grouping 3 (or something else). The electric current land, with the whole lanthanide affair merged into the group 3 article, suggests a presumptive not-NPOV: Wikipedia endorses the notion that lanthanides and actinides vest to group iii, which is something we should deliberately avoid.

Every bit for the lengthy litigation higher up, I wish to excuse myself from the main discussion. I'm too fed upwardly with the way people dispute over things on Wikipedia. However, I'd suggest that we rewrite the carve up commodity with new sourcing to support both views and put the article back in place. The lack of sourcing in the lanthanide and actinide commodity arose because the article was written very early on in Wikipedia'southward history, when rigorous sourcing policies have not yet been implemented. --Deryck C. 10:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh, not this onetime chestnut once again! :) I find myself in virtually 100% agreement with Flying Jazz, who has provided a splendid set of references to the original literature, and examined the bug at some length. Farther points that I would add together:

• the view has been expressed higher up equally to what "chemists" think. This is all very well, merely we should not forget that wikipedia is a *pop* and *tertiary* source with a *pedagogic function*, useful for *students* and *the general public*. I certainly feel the Grouping number of lanthanides and actinides article served a useful purpose in clarifying things for the non-specialist reader - and indeed, its very existence came nigh because of confusion on the part of the students who were writing wikipedia articles in about 2003 :) To put it another fashion: I seem to be getting a whiff of the notion that "if people understood chemical science properly, they'd encounter this article was a bit pointless" - that is tautological and dizzy, if you think nigh it: people who demand to look things up in encyclopaedias, past definition, do non understand things properly and require clarification.
• The Grouping number of lanthanides and actinides commodity had been stable for a good couple of years and was arrived at through care consideration and WP:CONSENSUS between editors. Information technology should not exist done away with because some new broom blundered in and thought everything should be done differently.

Then, I vote strongly in favour of retaining Group number of lanthanides and actinides as a dissever article. A word of the group number of the actinides for case, does non vest in an commodity entitled Grouping iii elements any more than information technology belongs in Group 6 elements--feline1 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The lanthanides and actinides, if y'all don't consider them in Group 3, are at least related. The data, by the mode, was already all in the group 3 element article. At that place doesn't seem to exist whatever adept way to separate the article - we can't talk about where the lanthanides belong without talking about what Group 3 is, and nosotros tin't discuss Group three completely without mentioning the lanthanides and actinides. All the sources that have been cited actually don't change this. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:21, five May 2008 (UTC)

At that place doesn't seem to be any skillful way to separate the article *to you* - the prior editorial consensus, which you have ignored, was that the article divide was good.--feline1 (talk) 09:37, half dozen May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat my arguments, but just summarize a conclusion that I didn't write explicitly before. I remember this is a smashing topic--for an essay or a J. Chem. Ed. article. But not for an encyclopedia article. It is just also narrow and non established enough. I have zilch else to add except that consensus tin change, and that many early on "consensuses" were crap, dating from the fourth dimension where Wikipedia was even more cluttered than information technology is now! --Itub (talk) x:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Or "consensus" may change because someone makes a conclusion when unaware of previous consensus, and and then, humans being what they are, is stubborn and doesn't want to have their mind inverse ;)--feline1 (talk) xiv:15, vi May 2008 (UTC)

Of form consensuses alter over time, but not when more half of the commenting editors argue against changing information technology. --Deryck C. ten:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More than than half? I may be missing someone, but then far I see 4 in favor of merging and three against. --Itub (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but as you're doubtless aware, consensus on wikipedia is not measured by voting, every bit some people's opinions carry more weight than others (non to the lowest degree considering they are right) :) --feline1 (talk) xi:xx, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might aid if we get some history hither.

• John Newlands'south periodic tabular array (1864) was the first widely publicized table that had many elements in today's lanthanides and actinides. In his tabular array, La, Ce and U aligned with Boron; Di (Pr and Nd were thought to exist 1 element) aligned with Nitrogen; Ru aligned with Oxygen. The lanthanides and actinides plant at the time were therefore scattered beyond groups three, 5 and 6.
• Mendeleev's original periodic tabular array (1869) put Di (Pr and Nd, see above) in Three, Ce and La in IV and U and Vi. Once again, they're scattered.
• Most mod periodic tables put Sc, Y, La and Ac in the aforementioned column for grouping 3; Ce to Lu, and Th to Lr practise non have group numbers. This version is adopted by nigh countries' university entrance examinations. (eg. SAT, GCE) On the other hand, Webelements put Lu and Lr onto the cavalcade with Sc and Y, instead of La and Ac. It would exist tempting to conclude that since La, Lu, Ac and Lr all somehow appeared in group 3, nosotros should put the entire lanthanide and actinide series into group 3. Yet, no 1 has actually put any of the elements Ce to Yb and Th to No into whatsoever numbered grouping explicitly. It'south therefore a heavy disruption of NPOV if we simply presume they vest to grouping 3 and merge the 2 manufactures together. --Deryck C. fourteen:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What would people recollect of a !vote? Antelan ^talk 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't call back a vote will help, since the people who accept commented are so evenly split. In answer to Deryck Chan'south statement that "a heavy disruption of NPOV if we but presume they belong to grouping 3 and merge the two manufactures together", I think there's a misunderstanding. What I'grand saying is that they don't consistently vest to whatsoever grouping, merely we don't demand an commodity specifically to say that. We don't need an article to say that the lanthanides don't vest to any political party either. ;-) --Itub (talk) 09:xiii, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever encountered a chemistry student who wondered which group the Lanthanides were in and wanted to look it upwards in an encyclopedia? Yes. Have yous ever encountered a chemistry student who wondered what political political party the Lanthanides were in and wanted to look it upwards in an encylopedia? No. QED, an article on it would be useful. If anything, I would propose merging the commodity into existence a section of Group (periodic tabular array). How about that as a compromise? I think the discussion would be more useful and readily found in that location than putting information technology in Group three element (although the latter commodity should accept a link to it).--feline1 (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that could piece of work. Have a section on Group (periodic table) about the lanthanides and actinides, describing their unclear situation, and also accept a section on Group 3 element mentioning that tables often have La and Ac in that column, sometimes Lu and Lr, and sometimes none of the above. --Itub (talk) 09:47, viii May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I had a await at Group (periodic table) and didn't like it - what's with all the "titanium family", "manganese family unit" stuff?! (in that location are a few IUPAC canonical trivial names, merely all this family business is daft) - could do with some tidying up! So, I say, let's exercise that, and put the lanthanide/actinide blurb in in that location besides.--feline1 (talk) 09:53, viii May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)"Titanium family" has been used in some books (come across [6], although in that location are some false positives) so at least it'due south not made up. That said, I wouldn't cry if we deleted those families from the listing. At least the links should be removed because they are confusing--for example, titanium family link only redirects to Grouping 4 element, and having it linked on the same line as the link that says "Group iv" could suggest that the two links go to different places. --Itub (talk) 11:05, eight May 2008 (UTC)

I concord almost putting the information in Group (periodic table). Adept idea, feline. As for the other business organization, IUPAC sayeth, "If appropriate for a particular purpose, the diverse groups may exist named from the first element in each, for example elements of the boron group (B, Al, Ga, In, Tl), elements of the titanium group (Ti, Zr, Hf, Rf), etc." Calling them a family instead of a group is fairly mutual, I recall, although I don't like it. Flight Jazz (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds similar a good idea to make information technology a subsection of Group (periodic tabular array). (a fleck offtopic) reply to Itub: information technology *is* a disruption of NPOV because the proper noun of the article says "Group 3". No political political party is mentioned in the commodity name or content, so in that location'south no political political party NPOV trouble. --Deryck C. 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

pattisondouncestably.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGroup_number_of_lanthanides_and_actinides

Share this post