Talk:Group 3 element

Group 3 element 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.

Group 3 element is the main article in the Group 3 elements 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
July 4, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 25, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

IUPAC committee decides that the organization of the periodic table isn't their business

After some idle googling, I came across the IUPAC's Division VIII (Chemical Nomenclature and Structure Representation) minutes from their August 2013 committee meeting in Istanbul. This is copied from page 11, section 15.3.2 at https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Division-VIII-Meeting-Minutes-Istanbul-August-2013pdf.pdf :

15.3.2. Discussion about Group 3 in the Periodic Table

This item arose from the ‘Up for Discussion’ article by Eric Scerri entitled ‘Mendeleev’s Periodic Table is finally completed and what to do about Group 3?’ in Chem. Int. 34(4), 28–31 (2012) (see http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2012/3404/ud.html). In his article Scerri presents an argument that he believes renders the newly proposed grouping of Sc, Y, Lu and Lr rather compelling, suggesting that any reluctance to accept this grouping as opposed to the more frequently seen grouping of Sc, Y, La and Ac for the Group 3 elements stems entirely from a reluctance to display the periodic table in a 32-column format. He furthermore proposes that IUPAC should take a stance on the membership of particular groups even if this has not been the practice up to this point. After some discussion it was clear that the committee was of the opinion that organization of the Periodic Table was not the business of the Division nor, indeed, of IUPAC.

This was the right no-decision for them to make in my view. The previous section of their minutes: 15.3.1. Possible actions regarding Wikipedia is also an amusing read concluding in another spot-on no-decision. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: About four months later, in late December 2015, IUPAC set up a project to make a recommendation on the composition of group 3. Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~The link Flying Jazz gave no longer works. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Link updated. Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in January 2021 a provisional report appeared from that IUPAC project, supporting Sc/Y/Lu/Lr. Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1937 determination of Yb's electron configuration

Link. Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]