Talk:Group 4 element

group 4 elements

Why do some elements in group 4 lose electrons to form compounds and some gain 4? How is that determined and is it consistent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.13.150.16 (talk • contribs) .

You must be talking about the carbon group. The "Group 4" this article talks about has only metals, which never gain electrons in stable compounds. —Keenan Pepper 04:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The group 4 elements are the second element in the 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 element transition metal elements, and are accordingly even numbered elements. They have respectively, 22Ti (5), 40Zr (5), and 72Hf (6) stable elements. The longest halflife element of 104Rf is noted to be EO104Rf265 which would have 194 deuterons plus 57 extra neutrons and a stability value formula of A = 3Z - 47.WFPM (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC) The other 3 group 4 elements have a greater range of EE isotope stability than for EO isotope stability. You might accordingly expect that that the element 104Rf would have a five element group of measurably unstable isotopes with the central EE isotope being the most stable of the group.WFPM (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Since the creation process for these heavy nuclides involves the creation of a nuclide with a targeted Z number of accumulated deuterons plus an excess number of extra neutrons followed by the "relaxation" emission of a variable number of the excess neutrons, it might be expected that the residual nuclide would be that having the best dynamically balanced structure.WFPM (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

²⁶⁴Rf isn't known, but ²⁶³Rf has a half-life of 15 minutes. ²⁶⁵Rf has 2.5 min, ²⁶⁶Rf may have 10 h, ²⁶⁷Rf has 1.3 h and ²⁶⁸Rf may have between 1 and 6 h. (The half-lives for ²⁶⁶Rf and ²⁶⁸Rf are uncertain.) Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then we have the isotope EE104Rf266 as the longest halflife isotope with 104 deuterons + 58 extra neutrons and a stability trend number of a = 3Z - 46. And the logsecond halflife value of 10 hours (36000 seconds) is 4.56. This is not inconsistent with the extension of the A = 3Z- an even number stability trend lines into this A>100 element territory. And the theoretical maximum number of extra neutrons capable of being accumulated on the structure is 64. But 16 of the locations are at a corner and potentially unstable. So it's doubtful that many more than 58 extra neutrons will be accumulated in relatively stable even Even Z number isotopes. And the odd Z isotopes usually have a lower maximum stability number characteristic than the even Z isotopes.WFPM (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group 3 element which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Group 4 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080602014423/http://periodic.lanl.gov:80/elements/72.html to http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/72.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Group 4 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217080513/http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/science_techno/table_content/sub_3/images/pdfs/016.pdf to http://www.cbmm.com.br/portug/sources/techlib/science_techno/table_content/sub_3/images/pdfs/016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Group 4 element

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist - Not enough discussion to get a solid conclusion here, but it's been open for 6 months. Quantity of media is not a GA criterion, and people disagree about whether the biological occurances section expansion is necessary to keep GA status. Femke (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that this article meets the criteria as there is not a lot of media, and precautions and biological occurences could be expanded. Bli231957 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, biocompatibility of Ti should probably be mentioned. That said, I don't think there's much of a need to duplicate everything in the articles on the individual elements: this can very well be a summary article that focuses on things common to the whole group. Double sharp (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because there is information lacking in these sections doesn’t mean that we should demote it from good article status. Instead, we should get referenced information about this from the individual elements’ articles. That way, we do not need to demote the article while putting new, properly referenced information and filling in information gaps. We can do this with other periodic table group that are Start-Class or C-Class so we can get them to B-Class and good articles as well. I agree that we do need more information on the Groups and Periods articles but that we shouldn’t put everything - just the major and important facts and knowledge that fill in the gaps. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So, what shall we conclude with? It has been 6 months since the original reassessment has been started. ¹⁴¹Pr 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would keep it as a GA-Class article, because it mostly adequately summarises the elements. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.