Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Heavy metals

Former featured articleHeavy metals is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 13, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 22, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
September 6, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
October 19, 2024Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Requested move 19 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Heavy metals. It appears to me that consensus eventually did form around the later proposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal element → Heavy metal (chemistry) – This article has been moved many places over the years with various attempts at disambiguation with other topics listed at heavy metal. While the current WP:NATURAL disambiguation has merit, it is not consistent with similarly titled articles like light metal, trace metal, toxic heavy metal, transition metal, precious metal, base metal, noble metal, native metal, etc. So I think we need to bite the bullet and use parenthetical disambiguation, and the least ambiguous qualifier is simply "chemistry". Mdewman6 (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for multiple reasons:
  1. The page is in a state of flux with more work needed to remove unverified claims plus (slow) discussions to reorganize. Hence a move now would be premature.
  2. I do not agree that "chemistry" is appropriate since there are aspects of toxicology, metallurgy etc. Instead "element" is the defining distiction. (Element could be put into brackets.)
More a comment: all the others you mention except light metal are only for elements. Both light metal and metal are not just elements and also not just chemistry. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just noticed that @HertzDonuts moved the page from Heavy metal (elements) to Heavy metal element on Oct 27th without discussion. I suggest moving it back to what it was. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Mdewman6, Crouch, Swale, Preimage and HertzDonuts: it looks like there is enough concensus to support a move (in fact a revert) to Heavy metal (element). The only question remaining for me is whether we just WP:BEBOLD & change any other pages to be consistent or does that need an RfC? Ldm1954 (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least its consistent with mercury, I'm not sure about a RFC as I don't know about other pages but I think the main point of this RM is that there is consensus not to use the current natural disambiguation and that the qualifier "element" in the singular is the best choice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've been following the potentially controversial moves process, which provides a week for discussion (given sufficient participation; the proposed move's been signposted at WP:Requested moves/Current discussions and WP:WikiProject Elements#Article alerts). Provided they agree re: consensus, I expect an administrator (or other non-involved editor) to close the discussion in 1 day's time. Any resulting page move will leave a redirect from the current title Heavy metal element. So I imagine we'd only need to directly change a handful of other pages, e.g. the DAB page Heavy metal. In any case, move cleanup shouldn't require going through another comment process; we can discuss further here if needed. Preimage (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back to past moves here, it looks like the issue with Heavy metal (element) was that it made it sound like the article was about a specific element (like, mercury (element)) and we should not have the name carry that connotation. I somewhat agree there. I think Heavy metals would be acceptable per WP:PLURAL but would not be consistent with similar articles. So I think we should find the right disambiguator, either "element" or "chemistry" or something else. If there are other pages that appear to then require moving, there should be a subsequent RM to ensure consensus. I'm not sure what other pages would be affected by our choice here, though? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't support for "chemistry" I would support a move back to "(elements)". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal: including the word "chemistry" is clearer and more helpful than the other suggestions.---Ehrenkater (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One additional comment about "(chemistry)". Consider 14 carat gold. It is heavy, a metal, a chemical but not an element so it does not belong here with "(element)". Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a mixture, not a chemical substance. HertzDonuts (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is not a mixture, there is definite bonding between the Au and alloying elements. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor addition; the bonding is not just entropy of mixing or VdW. A Bader charge analysis will show minor charge transfer. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Elements have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Heavy metals. WP:DIFFPLURAL seems to solve the problem nicely. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 10:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cleaning: delete sections

To editors Johnjbarton and Smokefoot: and any others. I suggest deleting the Heavy metal element#Properties compared with light metals because:

  1. Light metals are not just the elements, so the usage here is wrong.
  2. Much of this is elsewhere in the article (better).
  3. The physical properties part is misleading as it is always alloys in use, never single elements alone.
  4. There are too many exceptions. Is Pb high melting? Is Au hard? Obviously not.

One step at a time -- Ldm1954 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this section is synthesis: does any source provide a similar comparison of these categories? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Johnjbarton and Smokefoot: and any others. I deleted this section and removed a few more unverified source statements and general fluff. Please let me know if there is more dubious material. If I don't hear anything I will remove the unverified tag and move on. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your work, my complaint about this article remains. Statements in the article can be verified in the sense that they say something about "heavy metals" but a large chunk of these cases mean "metals as toxic chemicals", the topic of Toxic heavy metal. I think the right fix is to ensure that such content is actually in the other article and remove it here. I hope to take that up some day. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not problem with that. My main focus was removing material which the sources cited did not support, and removing material which had nothing to do with the elements (e.g. all the uses of alloys). Anything that depends upon the specific metal element and/or its ion is OK, for instance Pd/Pt catalysts or ruby lasers. Beyond that was fluff IMHO. There may still be some left (I noticed that you deleted one.)
Of course you would have to double-check that the sources in Toxic heavy metal actually say what is claimed. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, checking the sources is what takes all of the time. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised

How can this featured article be demoted without even a note on the article talk page prior to the demotion? I can’t believe it. I don’t think any prior editors have received the ping. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC); 19:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The delisting was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metals&diff=prev&oldid=1252140028
But the article title was "Heavy metal (elements)" The names "Heavy metal elements" or "Heavy metal element" were involved. So my guess is that the Featured article review happened under a different title and got lost in the multiple renamings. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld, there is a note about the demotions in the milestones, and you were pinged on the review; @Johnjbarton has given a link to the discussion, or see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Heavy_metal_(elements)/archive1. I have no idea about who gets pinged on decisions. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not receive the ping.
Haven’t you noticed that *none* of the prior editors that you *pinged* have joined the featured article review discussion?
I think that’s because you did not sign your nomination.
Unbelievable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unbelievable that the {{ping}} template would silently fail! According to the Usage section of the template documentation there are numerous requirements. I added a BEWARE to the documentation of the ping template. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unbelievable that no one (except you?) read the documentation of the ping template, that people think that it’s OK to delist an FA while *none* of the prior editors has responsed, and it’s OK to initiate an FAR without any prior attempt/discussion on the article talk page to salvage it’s content. Not just unbelievable. It’s amazing :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Talk:Heavy metals/Archive 2 Ldm1954 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I’ve checked that. You wrote on that page Some of the sources used do not support the statements in the text. but it’s not clear to me what are they. Further, there’s only one other editor that has commented there except you two (who’s opposing I think).
And I’m not convinced that an FAR with all pings failed is valid. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954 made a solid and fair attempt to notify the previous editors. The detail about signing seems quite bizarre to me. I will also point out that signatures are added automatically in Talk pages under common circumstances. Personally I rarely sign anything manually.
But that is history now. If you want to retry the FAR please feel free. (Personally I believe the article cannot sustain Featured article status because the topic is too poorly defined.) Johnjbarton (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Was the topic also “that poorly defined” when it was promoted to FA? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the original FA discussions. I am only relating my experience in attempting to verify the content of the article around Oct. 2024. Verifying was very troublesome because different sources use "heavy metal" in different ways. This becomes a serious problem given the general character of the article: lists of factoids about elements. The sources verify the factoid but they don't say anything about the article topic. Since we have no agreed definition we can't verify that the content is related to the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of lede

Regarding the last phrase of the 2nd sentence of the lede:

The criteria used, and whether metalloids are included, vary depending on the author and context and has been argued should not be used.

I don't understand what "and has been argued should not be used" refers to. Grammatically, it appears to be saying that "the criteria used... it has been argued, should not be used," which doesn't quite make sense to me. @Ldm1954: when you added this phrase with this edit six months ago, what were you trying to say? Phlar (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlar: I have tried to rephrase it, using the Pourret ref to guess what I think was intended. Ldm1954, is my phrasing accurate? Double sharp (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I overwrote your version with another rephrase. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Johnjbarton added it as he felt strongly about this. It is a polite way of saying that many aspects of the concept of "heavy metals" has been argued to be nonsense, see [3]. I will leave it to John (and/or Smokefoot) as to whether they want to adjust the wording slightly for clarity. I think @Double sharp's version is a bit clearer.
N.B., they are changing it faster than I can type... Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.N.B., most of my edits were removing material which was not verified and/or removing sources which did not verify content. The article still needs extensive work, including checking all the sources as some may still be unreliable or used out of context. It is not in good shape. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's much clearer now. Thanks, everyone. Phlar (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHeavy_metals