Talk:Heavy metals

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Please check Talk:Heavy metals/Archive 2 Ldm1954 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Oh sorry I overwrote your version with another rephrase. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's much clearer now. Thanks, everyone. Phlar (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. It seems to me that the use of "Anchor" templates in conjunction with "Harvnb" templates is kludge-y, and the article would be better off if the references were converted to CS1 (or CS2) style reference templates. I could possibly do it next week. May I assume that Vancouver style would be preferred? —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer it but you will need a broad consensus to change it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That's basically why I'm posting, instead of being bold.

@AlessioPapini, Blabh, ChuppyBunny, Double sharp, Dustfreeworld, Ehrenkater, Gould363, Ldm1954, Phlar, Randomdude121, Steel1943, UnbihexiumFan, and UtherSRG:: You are being pinged because you have edited the Heavy metals article or this talk page within the last year (and that/those edit(s) has/have not been reverted). Please see above. (I'd prefer CS1, in alphabetical order by author/editor (or publisher, where no author/publication is credited).) —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not care as to which formatting is used for referencing as I believe that my edit was not major and also simply because I do not think it will affect me much either way. ChuppyBunny (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Same here. Phlar (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

for me too AlessioPapini (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As a separate but related matter, I prefer explicitly titled appendices. To me, "Notes", "References", and "Sources" are synonymous. I suggest "Explanatory notes", a new "Citations" subsection for "References", and "General and cited references", though I don't want to derail the discussion on the formatting of the individual references. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you suggest another article that matches your proposal? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@DocWatson42 I will second the request for an example page. My preferred style is the standard one for Physics & Chemistry, see Electron diffraction -- conventional ACS, APS etc format. Here

1. Each ref has a number, with page/chapters added if needed using {{Rp}}.
2. Notes using {{efn}} should only be there if something needs a clarification. I prefer it if long clarifications are in the text, although that may break the flow. (Sometimes notes seem to be WP:Coatrack)
3. I am OK with a few books or lecture notes in a Further Reading section, but again no coatrack.

I strongly dislike the format here with "Sources", both as an editor and as a reader/reviewer because I cannot quickly go to the actual source DOI/pdf for information/verification by clicking on the ref. I think it should be banned. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we are talking about somewhat different things. I was thinking of a relatively conservative approach—changing

[material to be referenced]<ref>{{Harvnb|Alves|Berutti|Sánchez|2012|p=94}}</ref>

Ahrland S., Liljenzin J. O. & Rydberg J. 1973, "Solution chemistry," in J. C. Bailar & A. F. Trotman-Dickenson (eds), Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 5, The Actinides, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

to:

[material to be referenced]<ref>{{Harvnb|Ahrland|Liljenzin|Rydberg|1973|p=?}}</ref>

[...]

• Ahrland S, Liljenzin JO, Rydberg J (1973). "Solution Chemistry". In Bailar JC, Trotman-Dickenson AF (eds.). Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry. Vol. 5: Actinides, Master Index. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 008017275X. OCLC 504315930.

It would clean up the existing references, but would not give the mouse-over information that Ldm1954 is looking for.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The mouse over information is very, very important. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I had assumed that given the lack of response in the the last two months that this proposal was dead. I'll try to find another example soon. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Let's see—these have a variety of variations on my theme, the first four in particular:

• Fist of the North Star
• Andre Norton
• Margaret Thatcher (though I try to avoid "bibliography", as it can be interpreted in different ways)
• Extraordinarii
• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
• Knot
• Ran (Urusei Yatsura)
• Angélique (novel series)
• Navy SEALs (film)
• Dragonlance
• Gil Gerard

—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I vote against the format of those. This page is Chemistry/Physics, so IMO should use a style that is standard in these fields. None of the examples you give appear to be science based, and the format is not standard for the fields. You can see doi:10.1021/acsguide.40303 for the ACS guide. The citation button in the web editor is essentially the same as this. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I was addressing Johnjbarton, who I thought was replying to my secondary proposal. See my last comment (from a minute or two ago) in reply to you for nitty-gritty, though I can try to find a better solution to your request, though that may have to wait, as I have something else coming up after the hour turns. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW, the following authors' references appear in both the references and the "Further reading" section, and should be removed from the latter:

• Koehler
• Morowitz
• Öhrström
• Pyatha

—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding "General and cited references" in Fist of the North Star: what is the purpose of this title? Are the listed entries cited in the article or not? I couldn't figure out how they are cited. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

They don't seem to be—that's why the section is titled "General and cited references", so that it can accommodate both types, without worrying about individual ones. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Or having to change section's title, if the references change. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the title should be "Further reading" and not include any cited sources. Alternatively the sources should all be cited in the predominant way used in the article. We should be clear on what sources are used. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

CS1 is the default Wikipedia style, right? That seems like a no-brainer. I am not a fan of the current format (segregating the bibliographic data into a Sources section separate from the References list). I expect a chatbot can do it. TIA for your efforts! Gould363 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation Style 1 and Wikipedia:Citation Style 2 are the two main (sets of) citation templates on Wikipedia. I prefer CS1's punctuation, among other things. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If you asked for consensus to adopt Wikipedia:Citation Style 1 in this article I guess you would get widespread agreement. Maybe start with a small bite. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2026 and 3 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leothelion21 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Leothelion21 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)