Talk:Periodic table (big)

Why do you keep removing the link to the wheel format of the periodic table without any explanation?

Becasue it is based on the pseudoscientific Reciprocal System of Theory and thus has no place on a page that deals with real science. --mav

Ahh - you don't like the pseudo-scientific view - well at least that is an explanation for your edits. However it seems to me that the wheel is an interesting alternative view of the table even if the explanation part of it is pseudo science. BLH

Interesting to look at maybe but fundamentally flawed as far as science is concerned. It has no place here next to valid scientifically-based representations of the periodic table. --mav

Is the current way of linking to it acceptable? I don't think that it is unreasonable to link to alternative views even if they aren't based on the same rigourous science. BLH

I see it's not acceptable to mav anyway.

I'm warming to the idea of a "see also" section but that implementation was sub-optimal. Perhaps we can have a section titled =="pseudoscientific"-based tables== and then explain that the following tables (we would have only one to begin with) are not accepted by the scientific community. Although I'm not really comfortable with the word "pseudoscientific"... Any other ideas? --mav

Duh. Why not ==Periodic tables not accepted by the scientific community==. But there should be no link to these crackpot tables at periodic table. --mav

I think there should be a link to them. There is always a danger in becoming too blinkered in our views of the scientific reality. As an example, I have just added a link to a Catalyst transcription on junk DNA. (Which you have nicely standised - thank you) For years scientists believed it had no purpose but now that is changing. Who knows what insight someone might have by looking at a different, even if non traditional and non accepted view of the periodic table? BLH

Who knows how many freshmen chemistry students we would flunk by giving a crackpot idea far more prominence that it deserves. Here in WikiLand we report the consensus view on subjects. That means we leave out a whole bunch of wild ideas in main articles (but they can be in their own articles since in their own smaller context they can still be written via a consensus view). In short, placing a link to the RST periodic table at periodic table would be like placing a link to the full RST article at physics. I hope you can understand how much of a grievous mistake that would be. --mav