Talk:European Chemical Society/Archives/2020

Merge from European Young Chemists' Network

This chapter doesn't seem to be notable, and a such it should be merged here or deleted. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus suggested merging this page with the page of the parent society of the EYCN, EuChemS. However, I believe that this young network can have its own page as its organization and function is independent of the EuChemS to a significant degree. Apart from additional information that has been added regarding the organization, board composition and the projects of the EYCN, more references have been cited to increase the notability of the article. Please let me know if it can be accepted in its current form as an individual article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitraP (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a merge probably is the best. It will need to be shortend though.

- European Young Chemists' Network seems to lack Wikipedia:Independent sources. Chemistry Wiews seems to be a magazine published by Chemistry Europe which is 16 European chemical societies [[1]][[2]]. Chemistry Wiews does not seem to be independent of EuCheMS or their members. Chemistry in Europe is the newsletter for EuCheMS [[3]]. The two sources not connected to themselves or EuCheMS is a news bulletin from a member of EuCheMS [[4]] and a link to another Wikipedia article.

- I have removed the list of members which stated "The EYCN represents 30 European chemical societies ". Represents seems to be a wrong choice of word. This is a list of EuCheMS members. The network does not seem to have any authority to speak on behalf of the members, i.e. represent EuCheMS members. I cannot find the network listed as representing Norsk Kjemisk Selskap on their homepage [[5]][[6]]. It seems that the connection is via EuCheMS. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the list of the EYCN represented countries is not correct, because delegates are elected from each national European chemical society to represent their young division, which is something completely different from EuChemS. A country may be included in the EuChemS list but this doesn't mean that they are interested in participating in the young division. I highlight again that this is a decision of each Chemical Society and they don't decide this together with the EuChemS. I would in any case restore this list. Please note that most of the EYCN represented countries - chemical societies have now included additional information on their website regarding their representation by EYCN, like (http://www.societechimiquedefrance.fr/L-EYCN-et-le-RJ-SCF-a-propos.html?lang=fr) (https://ssptchem.pl/eycn/). By restoring the list, only the countries with a relevant statement may be included, adding also a reference to each of them linking to this statement. EYCN is the young division of EuChemS, but its organization and actions are independent. DimitraP 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The list was removed because it said that EYCN was authorized to act on behalf of these organizations. According to Oxford English Dictionary the word represent means: "To assume or occupy the role or functions of (a person), typically in restricted, and usually formal situations; to be entitled to speak or act on behalf of (a person, group, organization, etc.); (in later use esp.) to act or serve as the spokesperson or advocate of." None of the members of EuCheMS have given away their power to represent themselves to EYCN. As of now it is quite sufficient to state that EYCN is the young division of EuCheMS. Having a list of EuCheMS members in the EYCN article is superfluous.

- Furthermore the links provided to French and Polish members of EuCheMS does not state anything else than that EYCN is the young division of EuCheMS. They do not state that EYCN in any way can act on the behalf of them, i.e. represent them.

- This list was introduced in English WP in 2013 and this mistaken understanding of the word represent has now been spread to more than 12 languages.

- This redundant list needs to be removed in all the other languages where it has been introduced. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 11:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the term of representation was incorrectly placed. However, as the EYCN delegates and the chemical societies involved in the EYCN change every 2 years, irrespectively of the EuChemS membership, I would suggest including a statement like "X delegates from X countries are currently representing their chemical societies in the EYCN: ...alphabetic list of countries...", which will accompany the map already included in the page. No additional section will be added, just this sentence in the Organization paragraph. The rest of the languages will be corrected as well. Thank you for considering my thoughts. Regards, DimitraP 07:50, 01 June 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the Norwegian member's webpage I noticed that the first time they elected someone as their representative was fairly recent (sorry I lost control of the url where I found it). Wikipedia is about all that was, i.e. history, yesterday and years ago. I have not been able to figure out how to describe this. If a list should be included it should definitely include the year the member started to elect someone. The names I do not think should be included. But basically I do not think a list is appropriate. The membership list belongs in the EuChemS article.

- Let me give you an example. w:no:Norges Hundekjørerforbund (NHF) have a yearly parliament where delgates from all the members meet, elect representatives, decide rule changes and policy. NHF is a member of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (NIF) and elect representatives to the NIF parliament. The NIF-article should include a list of the members, but sub divisions and sub committees are rearly relevant and if any are relevant they should not include a list of NIF members. A list of NIF members would also not be appropriate in the NHF article.

- I am not sure of how this exactly works with EuChemS and EYCN, but whether or not the members decided to elect a person for dealing with their EYCN affairs is probably not relevant. What is relevant is the connection between EuChemS and EYCN. Usually a committee or subdivision of an organization is included in the article about the organization itself. That said it should probably be more than one sentence as it is now. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The only reason why I insist on mentioning this, is that the delegates are elected for 2-3 years and may not be reelected. For example, Norway has currently no delegate. As things in Europe are changing, the network may have delegates from all European countries in the future or have less representatives than it does now. I would also not include the names of individual delegates, but it is a good suggestion to include the year that the first representative was elected and each chemical society became part of the network.Regards, DimitraP 09:43, 01 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what i find surprising. Given that this is the young division of EuChemS why does not all the member societies elect someone? This seems to be about the role of EYCN as the young division of EuChemS. Right now i think the best is to not write in any of the articles, but to explore this theme in a sandbox/subpage. When you are logged in you have sandbox at your disposal. You'll find a link called sandbox at the very top of the page. If you click on User:DimitraP/sandbox you'll create a page that is yours only to experiment, make drafts, make notes and mostly what you wish and need. This page is not a part of the lexicon, does not show up in searches and is a very good way to make drafts. You can have several of these. I have several [[7]]. Right now I think you need to start one and start working there. You can for instance collect the information and links that you have there. It will make it much easier to discuss how this should be handled and if there is a reason to have a list. For instance there will probably be some sort of By-laws somewhere that says something about the relationship between EYCN and EuChemS. I'll not be able to answer for about a week as i'll be otherwise engaged and probably will not have time. After that I'll see what tips I have as soon as I can. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 10:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check this option when I find the time. I will let you know. DimitraP 08:12, 06 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post}, we have now collected the necessary info we have discussed some time ago. An example of how we would like the Organization part to look like and further information about the relationship between EYCN and EuChemS are included in the following sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DimitraP/sandbox. Please let me know how we could proceed further. Regards, DimitraP 10:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, a separate article is much more readable. It's not about how close they are but what is the best service to the reader. Merging it while keeping it separated in other languages, and recreate it in some years, it's just useless complication. It really does not produce an higher quality. I hope to add more sources to the other article in few weeks.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you will find that the reason it has a separate article in other languages is because it exists on English WP. Quite a few of the other languages will probably follow suit if this is merged in English. The Norwegian one had to be cut to the bone as it was not correct, probably a machine translation and is definitely a candidate to become a redirect. The user who created the article in Norwegian is editing 24 projects [[8]]. I have not looked at all the interwikis, but the ones I have looked at is an article created by this user. I have removed the list of organizations that was claimed that they represent as it was a list of EuChemS members. Could not find that EYCN could be said to represent these organizations. Most of the EuChemS members send a representative to EYCN, but that is a different matter. This list should now be removed in some 17 languages I guess. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 07:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is created by her, but now it's there, so there is no point in merging in one andmaybe in another one, and keep it in another one, and recreate in another one again after some time. It's a waste of time in the end. In the time I could have written a reason to merge, actually half of it probably, I already found two third-party sources. It's not worth it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the first ones I have found there. I don't have a lot of time yet but all this proposal of merge looks a lot like a "whirling door" process to me. --Alexmar983 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The article has now three more sources which actually mention the organization and are independent of it. The mentions are short though. The article needs further improvement and sources. The history and relationship with EuChemS really should be expanded. I have all along wondered why some of the EuChemS members elect a representative for EYCN and some don't.

- I do not think the existence of the article in other language has any weight. It is to me obvious that the existence of an arctice in English will lead to exactly that. It will multiply. That it in this case has not multipied on its own, but is mostly one users work, means that the users on the other Wikipedias in the first place was not interested. Whether or not it should be merged on Wikipedia in English I think should be decided here regardless of what other Wikipedias do or don't.

- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus suggested this move and asked me to write here [[9]]. Which I now have done. It is not for me to decide this one and other users should voice their opinion. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I will add more source when I have time. And to me, user experience has a weight and this include cross-wiki situation. To be honest, if a user speaks many languages it's good if they create a content on different wikipedias. It will remain in most of them, so there is no practical point in merging at this level. It's just an exercise of style, but nothing more if the subject has relevance, which it actually has.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)