From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Schnee. Elementbox converted 11:35, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:23, 9 July 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Terbium. Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


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 (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)

Removing two sentences from section 1.1 Physical Characteristics[edit]

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)


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)


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 (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. (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Material Properties[edit]

There are contradicting statements in this article concerning the physical properties of Terbium. The opening paragraph claims that Terbium is "very hard" and the physical properties section describes Terbium as "soft enough to be cut with a knife." Perhaps these are differeneces between the oxide and metalic forms. This should be noted if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WebElements says it can be, but I doubt it – it makes the same claim for thulium, which is just about impossible to cut with a normal knife. Maybe it can be scratched with a knife? (Tm can.) I'll change the statement accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Terbium can be scratched with a knife, but it would take a long time to cut it with a knife. It is very resistant to being damaged. I know this falls under original research guidelines but it is quite strong, at least my piece is. (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


The summary claims the the element is 'malleable, ductile, and very hard.' The physical properties section claims that it is 'malleable, ductile, and soft enough to be scratched with a knife.' The hardness indicators (Vickers and Brinell) point to it having a hardness on par with high-grade steel. Can we get some consistency here? I'd fix it myself, but I don't have a reference book handy to double check the data. (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it's hard, but can be scratched with a knife. This is totally not a reliable source, but says that Tb is soft but resists impacts well. That could be an explanation. Annoyingly I haven't found a reliable source on this. Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)