Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Period 1 elements/archive1

Period 1 elements edit

3 articles

I am nominating this topic as it fails 1.a in the criteria. This is due to the lead topic being redirected to Period (periodic table). GamerPro64 18:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second this delisting, mainly because the earlier page (having content) was not that a GA. Its quality was discussed at WP:ELEMENTS here (search for 'period 1 element' sub-threads). The removal of content (for redirect) was generally accepted by the involved editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, though I'd personally say that there was no content there in the first place that was relevant to period 1 and not H and He. The periods are not chemically similar and, I would argue, are not too suited to FTs – the groups would make great FTs (e.g. the FT Noble gas). The only places where horizontal similarities really become more important than vertical similarities are in the lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to oppose delisting, because there is no longer a consensus to merge the period articles. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, if there was the same about of energy put into improving articles from such states instead of debating what is worth an article and/or topic or not, then such articles/topics could easily exist. Good luck with this attrition attitude within WP:ELEM. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you cut out all the sections in those articles about the elements instead of the periods, you'll be left with very little that can very easily be merged into period (periodic table). This would include only the first three short sections and lede of your period 1 old revision. And I have been working on alkali metal and neptunium, among other things, both of which began in bad states. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, at this rate ([1] vs [2]) you will finish all the element articles in several lifetimes! And you won't even need any help from fellow contributors (unlike [3] vs [4]). Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it's a slow pace. So why not help by working on articles that can be improved? If you want more GTs/FTs, sodium beckons, as do some transition metal groups. My own current goal is to simply have period 7 all green and blue by next year, as I'm not overly motivated by GT/FT as much as important articles like thorium, but you can work in any way that motivates you! But I don't see how you can write about periods. If you think you can, why not post a section outline somewhere, or some links to references? That would convince me. Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, Nergaal, you propose to first skip the fact that there is nothing to say about a topic, and then improve that nothingness into an FA. You not only propose that, you also give an in-text demonstration of what you that means. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I concur. Let us bring the individual period articles back, shall we? Certainly if there are serious and lengthy academic treatises about group 10 elements, there certainly are references for period 1 elements. Do you have any sources for the latter? Parcly Taxel 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. There aren't, and I suspect that's for the same reason I said earlier: the groups are far more homologous than the periods. Most texts I looked at subdivide the elements into chapters by groups and not periods, except for the lanthanides, actinides, and transactinides. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, and the other ones (mostly popular books) went element by element in alphabetical or atomic-number order. Double sharp (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me add this. "period 1 element" does not even suggest there is a period! It should have been named "List of period 1 elements", of course, to make clear that the Nergaal's want to describe individual elements, not their periodic relationship. Strange though that Nergaal never ever thought of this. Now if one ever wants to write an article about period 1, that would be a truly interesting new page (and an new page name). -DePiep (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do that. Parcly Taxel 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so much energy spent on personal attacks and destroying whatever work has been done before. It's almost like I missed this constructive attitude when I bothered with the project. Nergaal (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this constructive attitude - indeed: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know how to read? Or that is too much for you? Nergaal (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, you show a lot of chutspa (which not only means 'bravoure' but also 'lack of reason to do so'). You yourself did not contribute to the link you gave. Also that link left wproject Elements with contradicting and problematic outcome, as I predicted there in the process. But alas, we worked on it -- the better base being the earlier, then open talk section #Options of course. And let me point to this significant aspect. The page Other metal was proposed, prepared & made high grade by fellow ELEM editor Sandbh. After (1) preparing a publishable page themselves, (2) initiating and concluding a search for consensus, and then (3) implementing it. That's how wp works. (btw, click that link and see who contributed - and what. Hint: look for a nonpinged editor). Then months later (about June 1st) you come in creating havoc for days without articulating your point. And keep listening: today that same editor is working to get the article better & renamed (but not into 'poor'), a change against their own proposed and well concluded consensus. That's what I call loyalty to the wiki project, and to its discussion process. (Of course this issue I would not have raised, had you not these days shown that you still have this attitude. A bad day can happen, even 7 in a row doesn't beat my PB/PW. But ten weeks now?). To me, it also raises questions that you rely on & communicate with other editors off-page to state. All in all, I still don't get why you didn't/don't just go to a talkpage. Really, what is happening?, I ask. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you used a 1/2 kb prose to justify your own pow. You still choose to fill books of texts on talkpages instead of accepting clear cases of consensus that are 100% agains your own pow. Take your tag-team and continue jerking off together on other talkpages you choose so and stop bothering proving that your own view is opposite to mine. Nergaal (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other metal was just moved to Post-transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I said, Double sharp. Another triumph of wiki talkpage talk & consensus. And no Nergaal talk involved (btw, do you know what a 'pow' is? I even seem to own one). -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that this nomination has only lead to bickering and not actually trying to keep this topic afloat. I'm questioning whether or not to just close it instead of waiting for the 10 day period to end. GamerPro64 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much. has only lead to bickering is not that correct, imo the two !votes were substantial for starters. If one skips reading the (perceived) bickering posts, there still is a substantial reasoning wrt your OP and the content removal. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were not even ignoring it. We were just waiting for Sandbh to get his replacement article in his sandbox ready – last I checked, his section for At was missing some references. Then we will move it. Surely you understand that it takes a lot of time to update every single PT on WP at once – I daresay I've had to do that several times before. And I would rather have a reasonably good article shell there. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: stop for a moment. What exactly do you want? I will be supporting you all the way through this, but I want your reasons for keeping the period articles. Parcly Taxel 06:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this consensus completely being ignored by people who just know they are right in doing attrition wars. Nergaal (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut: just start by improving Period_(periodic_table)#Period_1, sources and electron filling and periodicity, and all that's relevant. When substantiated (not just listing), it could fly out and make a stand-alone article. This times seven. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so much electron filling (that's more for electron configuration), but on periodicity I agree. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest undoing period 1 element (and other element articles) blanking and after that, keeping the topic. In fact, I'm not doing that only because the original editor who did that is here.

Again, that article (even it) had its potential. For other periods, it is obvious. For this one, we can talk why only two elements (discuss the Aufbau principle). It even was a GA (so there were some people investing time in building the article, someone else recognized it being eligible for displaying a plus), it was not worthless, and suddenly was blanked. I don't think that was a right move.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and understand. Am wondering whether this would work better as sections in the main period article or as standalone articles. Could I have a day or two to think about it?

(I would have sent the article as it stood to GAR anyway, but maybe it is possible to GA this properly. I'll have to think a little more.) Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to re-GA it (I am not sure about GARing it in first place: what criterion does it fail? Even if there is a criterion it fails, why not try to make it a proper GA instead of delisting and losing a FT other people invested time in? You as a WP:ELEM member should also be interested in having an element FT (and even more FTs)). It's possible to even FA it, again, there's no criterion this article couldn't pass.

Have a day or two if you must, but please no longer.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored the articles on periods 1–7. Haven't done so for 8–10 because how you partition those depends on source (Fricke, Pyykkö).

Did you want the elements past E120 too? Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely different topic. Those are presumed elements, while the periods actually exist. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

need to go, can you do 5 to 7? Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Again Nergaal can disrupt the process? R8R, what do you mean by "Again"? (And understand that the 120+ elements are not discussed on this page). -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: After all this talk you are still missing my point. Can you imagine how the P1 element article would have looked now if all the energy spent on this page was put into the article itself? Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know E121 and up shouldn't be discussed here: I just wanted to know what R8R's view on them was, before opening (or not) a thread at WT:ELEM. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the article is back which makes the two votes for delisting redundant. But seeing that this conflict isn't going to end anytime soon, I may have to keep this nomination up a bit longer. Though I'm not exactly comfortable with the politics shown. GamerPro64 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither happy with the process. OTOH, this FT discussion is still valid: does the article (now wth content) have FA quality? I read both !votes saying No (and you might check your OP for this too). When things are stable, I'll have the article questioned for being FA anyway. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the main article being of FA quality or not has anything to do with the discussion at hand. To be a Featured Article, at least 50% needs to be of Featured Content. Since the two elements in this period are Featured Articles, its a Featured Topic. The main article can be a GA unless there are plans to make this a Full Featured Topic. The main reasoning for keeping this nomination up is for stability purposes since the Period 1 page just came back. One can't be too certain. Speaking of, the two people that have voted this to be delisted may need to reevaluate their votes. GamerPro64 17:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote (see above). Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp, this is nonsense. And circular. You change your vote to follow an outcome? -sure. Well, @GamerPro64:, I suggest you close this thread as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my talk page on 1 August: "It's purely procedural: I can't really vote for the topic to be delisted, since the lead article is back and its GA status has not (yet) been revoked. If and when that happens, I will vote for delisting. On that page we are voting about removing the topic's FT status, not whether the period 1 element article is worthy of its GA status." Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment - Well on one hand, there is both Opposition and Support for removing this topic's Featured status. On the other, The article is back into place. I think this may require some more consensus before we can get a verdict. GamerPro64 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(don't know what a delegate comment is). I'd say, you can close this page as undecided (null, no effect), and previous situation stays. Later on and in other pages discussion can continue. btw I thank you for you sincere contributions. -DePiep (talk)

Very well. I will close this nomination as Keep per undecided outcome. Good luck on the other discussions. GamerPro64 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]