Talk:Fiveling

Self citation disclosure
This article contains self citation by one of the original editors (Ldm1954) to the Marks decahedra. As described in the article, there were two papers in 1983 and 1984 from Ldm1954 in Journal of Crystal Growth and Philosophical Magazine where a general model for the shape of fivelings was described. Other authors confirmed the shape, and in 1991 Charles Cleveland and Uzi Landman coined the name Marks decahedron for this type of particle. The name was subsequently adopted by the community and is widely used. The original article contains 13 citations to this editors work (out of 128), and two of the current twelve figures are from the editors work. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledgements
To Johan Kjellman, Mark Mauther,   Mike Rumsey, Klaus Schäfer, Emilie Ringe, David J. Wales and Miguel José Yacamán for information and the donation of Creative Commons images. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Intractable dispute over categories
and I cannot agree on which categories to include in this article. I think Ldm1954's preferred categories are overly broad, but they think mine are overly specific, and they have repeatedly reverted me. They also want to include categories that are redundant to lower ones, particularly Category:Chemistry, without good reason. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it appears very clear that LaundryPizza03 has not read and understood the article. A broad GA article spans many areas, but he wants to just use a small set of limited categories. He refuses to explain or justify his approach on scientific or other grounds despite repeated requests, just stating that they are "too broad". This is not an appropriate approach. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem I've seen is that some of your categories are redundant to their subcategories, which almost always means that the higher category is unnecessary. In particular, almost all of the categories you've used are subcategories of Category:Chemistry, but you insist on placing this article directly in this extremely broad category. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 16:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are the defend this you need sources, not just statements. You continually remove "materials science", presumably believing that "nanoparticles" is enough. This is scientifically wrong. As an academic who has taught MSE for many years this is an expert opinion.
 * Disclinations and elasticity are classic materials science.
 * Nucleation is classic materials science.
 * Materials science is not a subdisciple of chemistry, neither is condensed-matter physics. Most R1 universities have large MSE and physics departments. (I have left physical chemistry but it's relevance is very marginal.)
 * Please do the research and check the departments/backgrounds of the key players. You will find them in chemistry, materials science and physics.
 * If you are going to convince me or anyone else you will need to defend your statements with hard sources. Please read WP:COMPETENCE again. As the aggressor the onus is on you.
 * Ldm1954 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * N.B., if you don't want to believe a grey-haired academic, look at what Wikipedia is popping up as related àt the bottom -- not just chemistry areas. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And, simpler just read the lead which is deliberately inclusive:
 * Information about them is distributed across a diverse range of scientific disciplines, mainly chemistry, materials science, mineralogy, nanomaterials and physics. Because many different names have been used, sometimes the information in the different disciplines or within any one discipline is fragmented and overlapping.
 * Your limited category approach is not supported by the science. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @LaundryPizza03, @Ldm1954: I believe this issue should be decided be WP policies for categorization, which I didn’t see any reference to when I scanned the above discussion. (If this is not accurate, please forgive me and correct ne.) Neither of your arguments is inherently wrong, the question at hand is which one confirms to WP:CAT. In particular, please consider the general rules WP:CATSPECIFIC and WP:DIFFUSE and the exceptions WP:DUPCAT. I have not looked at the categories being discussed, so I cannot say which proposal is in accord with WP policies. YBG (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @YBG & @LaundryPizza03, clearly relevant are both WP:CATDD and WP:OC The original categories that @LaundryPizza03 added were, being blunt, trivial ones.
 * Beyond that, it seems @LaundryPizza03 is following only the first of WP:CATDD, which I have pointed out multiple times is inappropriate. My argument is supported by the 2nd & 3rd guidance notes:
 * When categorizing pages:
 * DO:
 * ✅Use the most specific categories possible.
 * ✅Categorize based on defining characteristics.
 * ✅Add pages to multiple categories in overlapping trees.
 * Ldm1954 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that adding it to cat:chemistry is in keeping with either the second or third notes, given it is in one or more subcats thereof. Is the defining characteristic simply "chemistry", somehow other than nano, physical, materials, and crystallography? The third note means it goes in each of those subcats, not subcat and parent cat. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is where things are complex. For instance, it has secondary relevance in heterogeneous catalysis, which is certainly not nano as it predates it so much. I am OK with combining physical & solid-state chemistry (as it is not organic),  although some could argue for inorganic. As the lead indicates, you will find it in many areas, fivelings are not niche Ldm1954 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)