Talk:Terbium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing two sentences from section 1.1 Physical Characteristics

I am removing the last two sentences of the second paragraph of section 1.1, Physical Characteristics, for the following reasons:

1. redundant information already provided by third sentence of the article: "Terbium is never found in nature as a free element...", and again in section 3, "Occurrence."
2. saying terbium "easily oxidizes" conflicts with the tone of previous paragraph, which describes the element as "reasonably stable in air"

--lizardo_tx (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edit, but

• You better post that first, wait for reply and only then consider removing.
• You removed sourced information on isolation of Tb in fullerenes.
• "Terbium is never found in nature as a free element" and terbium "easily oxidizes" are very different things - oxides are not the only possible compounds.
• The mentioned conflict is on both sides: the quoted test that Tb is stable is yes/no test, i.e. very crude visual observation of bulk oxidation without any attempt to analyze the oxide. It is not a scientific experiment. On the other hand, "easily oxidizes" is also relative. This is not a conflict, but simply a sloppy use of words "easily" and "relatively stable", which had to be addressed. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should also have pointed out this is not an actual sentence: "Terbium easily oxidizes and therefore used as element only for research purpose." You reintroduced this error when you reverted my good faith edit, so unfortunately there's still sloppy word usage to address. --lizardo_tx (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk

Where is it found - where is it mined? What are the biggest mines, which nations dominate in Terbium supply? How much is mined each year and what's it worth, where is it traded and who are the main suppliers / buyers??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.59.110 (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I'd like to see that too. Also, how long until the current sources run out? That's what I actually came to the article to find out. --Tfkw (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

---

distinguish

I keep seeing these distiguish templates appearing on rare earth articles, I'm not really sure anyone would be daft enough to confuse Terbium with Erbium. Ok so the only difference is one letter but you are not going to get the element symbols Tb and Er mixed up and is this really necessary? I shouldn't have thought so. Just like I don't think anyone would confuse Gallium and Gadolinium. So does anyone think these tags necessary? Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now it is reverted because: unnecessary. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yellow?

I always thought that the phosphors were green, not lemon yellow, and indeed the terbium sulfate looks green to my eye. Is it really lemon yellow, or did someone prank the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.211.171 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have some terbium sulfate at my desk and a UV lamp. It's fluorescing green, but only in the shortwave. It also contradicts the image of fluorescing terbium sulfate in the article itself. 75.80.123.188 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)