Talk:Period 1 element

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This proposal was a procedural disaster, because instead of listing a properly-formatted RM per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves, the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. The proposal was rejected on both pages, so the outcome is clear. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Period 1 element → Period 1 – See WT:ELEMENTS#Rename pages 'Period X element' into 'Period X' for central discussion. When that discussion shows consensus, a formal request will be made for the 9 pages. DePiep (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Renaming pages 'Period X element' into 'Period X' means a severe reduction in their recognizability with no apparent advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe, who read my mind, and phrased the idea more succinctly than I ever could! Xoloz (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

re both Sj and Xoloz: the scientific name is period 1. We should not change that name to make it more 'recognisable' (a nickname? a description in the title?). And the old title will redirect. Don't forget the grammar: it really is a group, (like "team"), not the single member.

And if disambiguation were needed, we should adding a parenthesized term (like in period 1 (periodic table)), but still not change he name. But no such disambiguation is needed, because in conflicting names, the periodic table meaning has priority (clearly, since already the current redirect Period 1 has that). -DePiep (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DePiep. If the scientific name is "period 1" then the scientists need a trouting. However, I don't believe you. "Period 1" is not a name but a description. But if it were a name, we need to describe it better, because recognizability is very important. The alkali metals belong to group 1. Hydrogen and Helium belong to the first period of the periodic table, "Period 1". They are Period 1 elements. If something should be changed, it is "Period 1 element" to "Period 1 elements". The Period 1 elements are Hydrogen and Helium. No, if disambiguation is needed, parenthetical disambiguation is the least preferred. Your notions of the periodic table having primacy over all qualifications of period is absurd. Period 1 is the first period, and period is a simple word that could mean many things.

If I saw "Period 1" written on a book, I would not know that it was about hydrogen and helium, even though I am well aware of the period 1 elements hydorgen and helium. Your proposal therefore fails the titling criterion of recognizability. I am confused as to why you consider it seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

re. 1. "Period 1" is not a "name" indeed, as in: do no use a capital P. But it is the noun (a composed noun, no problem). And it is a page name as in WP:COMMONNAME. Also, it is not just a 'description'. It is the noun for a thing. So it is the first proposal for the article about that thing. I do not understand why you or anyone else does not seem to understand the word "period 1", as if it does not exist. While you need to use it to describe, in circles: "period 1 elements" are elements that are ... eh in what? Like Team Bianchi is the noun.

2. Per WP:TITLE, making a title more "recognisable" is not required at all. Really, change the actual correct noun into a more descriptive one? Any explanation should be in the article itself (lede), of course. We do not have to change the name of the thing to make it self-explain, ever.

3. Why the circular moves? "period 1 element(s)" are elements that are in ... "period 1": Duh. The WP:COMMONNAME. "Hydrogen and Helium belong to the first period of the periodic table". Yes. But that "first period of the periodic table" (why evade "period 1" here?) is not defined by its members. It is defined by itself.

This about the page name = the scientific topic (period 1 of the periodic table).

4. Now about WP:DISAMBIGUATION. That is: disambiguation within Wikipedia for Wikipedia by Wikipedia. (Again: within the topic of the periodic table, worldwide, there is no confusion at all about what "period 1" is). First: when disambiguation is needed, add a bracketed term. You may not like that, but that is what we do at WP.

5. Now is a disambiguation term needed? Not for period 1. Because the periodic table "period 1" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is not my opinion, but it is a fact because pagename Period 1 already is a redirect to the content page. So there are no claims from other "period 1 (x)" pages. As simple as that.

6. Together: don't step into the trap of mixing (confusing) the title choice with disambiguation aims (I see this happened in many objections here). Disambiguation is not to be used to "explain" the page title, ever. It may be required to make a difference with similar page titles -- but not so in this case.

To sum it up, most if not all objections here do not follow the route of correct title choice, and/or do not apply disambiguation principles & guidelines correctly.

-DePiep (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to have an unusual take on noun. And so many other things you say don't seem right. And nothing you've written justifies taking a recognizable title and moving to a title unrecognisable unless already in the context of the table of elements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the word "noun" is problematic, while we are lacking a better word. "Compound noun" may even not exist, though it is conceivable if one tries. But don't let that distract you. In chemical science, period 1 is used and nothing else. The topic, the concept, the definition, and for us at WP it should be the title, page title, page name, WP:COMMONNAME, and content page. Pick what you understand easiest. Please explain why we should have a page title to be a "recognisable" one instead of the straight name of the topic?Any MOS link with that? And if you find the time, answering this could be illuminating: What is 'period 1' and why don't you want to call/name/title/mention exactly that period 1? -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• We're not in chemical science. Because recognizability is important, and because ambiguous names are to be avoided as titles if naturally avoidable, and because there is not a single "straight name of the topic". "Period 1" sounds like "The first period", which is more likely guessed to be the "first cycle" generically, "a girl's first menstruation", or "the first use of the full stop" than it is to be guessed an oblique reference to "hydrogen and helium atoms common electronic structure patterns", for a typical reader. Trust me, you are not getting close to convincing me that your proposal is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Again: you are mixing up page title with disambiguation. Interestingly, the example you invoke has solved it correctly: period (periodic table) first has the topic name right (being: "period"), and then solved the disambiguation right. (DAB is needed for period has multiple usages, has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so then was added "(periodic table)" with the brackets). The disambiguation term is not to explain the word to you, but to make the page title different from other periods topics named "period" (so with potentially the same pagename). This is the sequence, shown in your own example. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: "period" is not part of this move proposal in any way or sense. A less confusing example could be mercury and mercury (element). -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just seeing you giving very convoluted explanations, with a little part of wikilawyering, for what in the beginning and the end is a terrible proposed rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What you call wikilawyering really are links to guidelines. For an example you provided yourself. Now, at last WP:WIKILAWYERING is your first mentioning of any guideline, but clearly off-topic. If you could only provide a guideline that supports your opinion ("terrible", "recognizability", "I don't believe you"). Meanwhile you did not respond to a single guideline reasoning I mentioned. What you call lawyering might be your own perception of did not hear you. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My !vote is very consistent with the policy Wikipedia:Article titles. "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The current title does this, your suggestion does not. My !vote speaks directly to the first of the five naming criteria, the characteristics of a good wikipedia title - Recognizability. The current is well recognizable. You suggestion has severely diminished recognizable, being recognizable only to readers who are already think in the context of the periodic table. Your suggestion is severely less recognizable, and not very precise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sort of funny: the current name fails on all five. First of all the name actually used in the scientific domain is period 1 undisputed even (do your have sources saying otherwise?). Then on the Big Five of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency that name scores higher than the circumventive "(period 1 is) period 1 element(s)" -- which is even not true. As for difference with other page names, we apply 1. WP:DAB with 2. the existing fact of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (if not primary topic, DAB requires to name it "period 1 (periodic table)", so). Changing the name, into a wrong one at that, is never acceptable or asked. You are not free to choose a nicer name when the name exists. And remember: "Team A member(s)" is not the same as "Team A". -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note to the closing admin: The process was not formally correct, because the Talk was elsewhere/split and not all pages were listed in the Request list. I suggest to 'relist' them all, this time all and directly. Current talks should stay part of the thread. Do I, or do you? -DePiep (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the other pages. I suggest that this proposal is rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This note is procedural. (But let me take the bait: to me, most if not all objections are a misunderstanding of WP:TITLE and/or WP:DISAMBIGUATION). -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"There are no periodic trends"

This section/sentence is a bit wrong headed. Periodic trends are those which repeat from period to period (e.g. noble gas behavior recurring). What this really means to talk about is "horizontal trends" across the period. What the article means to say, I guess, is that horizontal trends are due to a quantum shell filling, and since 1s fills within 2 electrons, there's not much scope to look at 'trends'. It's also perhaps worth noting that when Mendelev put the "periodic" table together, he didn't know the noble gases existed, so all he had to place from what would become period 1 was hydrogen.--feline1 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)