Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (large version)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Periodic table (large version)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please note that I am not proposing the large table to be deleted, which exists separately at Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells); I am only proposing that this article be deleted. Firstly, the content in this article apart from the table itself is very minimal and is already included at the main Periodic table article. Furthemore, "Periodic table (large version)" is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia template, not a Wikipedia article. This template is a great template, but it should not have its own dedicated article in the Wikipedia main space. It might be decided to have the template transcluded in a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't need to happen; the template would be sufficiently accessible if it was solely in the template space. We shouldn't create articles for templates solely so casual users will be likelier to stumble upon those templates. There are other similar articles that exist solely to support periodic table templates and these articles should probably be deleted as well, although I think it best for them to have separate discussions so they can be considered on a one-by-one basis. Neelix (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Query How would the current entry at Periodic_table be changed to preserve the current functionality of "For a larger version, see Periodic table (large version)"? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The link would simply be switched from Periodic table (large version) to Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells). We could also pipelink it. Neelix (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the linked page then show all the template documentation? Are there currently any other examples where users are directed to template space? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When I go to the Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells) page, I see the section heading "Template documentation", but the section is empty. I don't know if there are other articles that link to templates, but I don't see much precedent for linking to template-only articles either. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm going to !vote Keep as I do not see this proposed change as an improvement to the encyclopedia. See WP:IFITAINTBROKE, not that I think you are trying to waste anyone's time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Request procedural close see note. Few days earlier, the nom initiated a merge proposal for this page at Talk:Periodic_table . I engaged in that discussion. Then, within three days, this TfD is opened without any reference to the -still open of course- merge proposal. Now we have two discussions opened about the same page. It also shows that the nom is not clear in their actual agenda. See also WP:FORUMSHOP. Nothing of this is to suggest bad faith by anyone, but this way no good discussion thread can grow. (I assume that a procedural -speedy- closure here allows the merge thread to proceed and conclude). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Request still stands. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: OK now, struck. The concurring merge proposal now is closed as "no merge". -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Object procedural issue is resolved. for procedural reasons now, as described above (procedural close). We cannot make a fruitful discussion split over two places. It decomposes any arguing. -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the merger discussion was over; consensus seemed clearly against the merger, but deletion was proposed. I removed the merger tag from the article and started this discussion. This is not forum-shopping; it is moving the discussion to the correct forum, which is this one. Neelix (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That "impression" is not enough to start a second forum. As it is now, the process is broken. Arguments are idle. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the nominator of the merger. Surely I can withdraw my nomination. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which you did not. In your 17:16 post here, you yourself concluded that there was a consensus (against merger). Then to "withdraw" the proposal because you did not like the outcome is gaming the system. This procedural mess must be cleaned up first before sensible arguments can be made. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't withdraw because I didn't like the outcome; I withdrew because I did like the outcome. I was convinced by the objectors that a merger is not the appropriate action in this case. That is why I made this alternate proposal of deletion. Neelix (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even then, or whatever. You made it a mess. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge proposal has closed ('no merge'). This subthread is moot then. I will argue (a keep) way below. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I mildly object Keep. Changing a link from the article space to a link to the template space is clearly not okay. The article space is where people read articles; the template space is not. We would lose this table as a table for readers. The template has many non-reader-oriented uses, but only one article that uses it (and it is wanted to be deleted). No reader views anymore for this "great template" (to quote the nominator). See also Template namespace (where does it say that a template can be made to be used by readers for reading? what if I missed something?).--R8R (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (also see this template: you can find articles with less text than this one has and then either agree with this article's existence or try to delete them too (for example). Either way, it will be useful if it is correct.)
 * The Iman-Burluk River example is a very different case; that article is a stub that has the potential to grow into a full article complete with much more than simply a template. The Periodic table (large version) article, however, exists solely to support a template; it is not intended to develop into a real article. Why is linking to the template space not OK? I don't see any guidelines against it, and the "Referencing templates" section of the guideline to which you refer suggests that such linking is OK. Neelix (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The guideline does not say linking from the article space to the template space is okay. It says, "if you want to refer to a template." That doesn't mean, "if you want to show a reader something." I use the described tl template on talk pages, by which I refer to templates. You may be used to Wiki enough to easily navigate between spaces, but that is not a reason to expect the same from everyone who just came to read an article. Moreover, if you read the whole guideline, you won't find a place it refers to the article space, even among the functions of templates in the lead section. You can see template space pages have documentation, which is clearly not meant to be read by a reader -- there is no reason the template space would be used for reading.
 * Regarding the article as such, I would argue this is a FL (how could I forget, thanks, Chris), which survived an attempt of de-featuring. Besides, the list (which is a graphical list) as is right now is great and useful for readers (I liked it when I first saw it a couple of years ago). As a list, it is clearly fine to exist.--R8R (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the article should be kept because 1) the guidelines don't explicitly state that linking to templates is OK, and 2) the template is useful. I would respond to these objections by saying 1) the guidelines don't state that linking to templates is not OK, and 2) deleting the article does not delete the template. Furthermore, WP:USEFUL indicates that "It's useful" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; even though WP:USEFUL is an essay, it is correct in asserting that many useful things do not belong in the main space of Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The guidelines don't state that linking to templates is not OK, you say. Which is true, but I must also say something is explicitly said to be not OK only if (exceptions apply, but the general rule stands) if many people think it is okay, but it's not. Saying what is correct is, however, much more important, given this is a guideline. The reasons to use templates are listed; if linking from the main space was okay, it would be mentioned. I have to repeat myself, but think about documentation placed on every template page: readers are clearly not meant to read it, and it would not be placed there in first place if the template pages were for reading.
 * 2) Deleting the list doesn't delete the template. True, but you forget (again) that the template is no longer accessible for readers via means a reader should be expected to be able operate with (that is, type in the name of an article to the search box above. Not clearly browsing between spaces, which may be trivial for you and me, but not everyone, they may lack knowledge about spaces). Linking there isn't okay either (see just above). No way out for an average Joe uncommon with how Wiki works (most people come here to read, not to edit (they may know they can do it, but expect no more to make sure everyone understands you)
 * Also, I see you're going a bit formalist, but actually imagine yourself having never interacted with Wiki. What would be better for you: Getting the table, with some small introductory text, a list of references, and another add-on compact picture of the table; or a plain table with some info you should not use under a title more difficult to memorize and type?--R8R (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. There are a lot of pages that link to the template, see for yourself. This article's main purpose is to represent it to the reader (Wiki is written for them, readers) the best.


 * Comment - since no one has mentioned it: this is a Featured List. It is not an article per se, and it is not your usual list format, but is very effective for the information it presents. Chris857 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing attention to this fact, Chris. I would add that I think it very unlikely that this article would meet the featured list criteria in 2014; the last FLRC discussion for this article was in 2008 and the criteria have become significantly more stringent in recent years. I also see no way of improving this article so that it will pass a FLRC, as this article exists solely to support the template. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This list article receives nearly a quarter of a million hits a year. I don't see how its deletion (effectively a relegation to the template space) would improve our encyclopedia. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: - Please state either "Keep" or "Delete" - Simply putting "Object/Oppose" means absolutely nothing & is the quickest way for your comment to be dismissed!, Cheers..


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  04:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep per WP:IAR. A very useful page that receives thousands of page hits per month (20,373 in July 2014). In this case, deletion will not improve the encyclopedia; rather, it would diminish it. It is also classified as a featured list. NorthAmerica1000 01:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep unless we have "featured template" reviews--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I second WP:IAR call. It is an absolutely encyclopedic reference table. Think of it as the colour plates that some paper encyclopedias insert within their volumes. We should have more of these, not less. -- cyclopia speak!  13:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, about the most textbook case of WP:IAR I have ever seen. This is clearly incredibly useful to readers, and deleting it would harm the encyclopedia by removing useful information. Northamerica1000 sums it up quite well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, the nom proposes to delete the article, and to keep the template. This is a non-realistic outcome, because an unused content template is not part of content space. It can not be reached by a reader! (And a sidenote: one cannot print/export/pdf a template from template space). Second, once the template is orphaned, it is up for deletion (as an 'unused template').
 * Then, the page has an encyclopedic reason. This presentation of the periodic table is most common (having extra information per element cell). It is a pity we cannot show it in one screenwidth usually. But it is the form used in many science classrooms, as a wallpaper. Improvements are possible & welcome, but are not part of this AfD, and are not a pre-requisition to keep. (Note: I've worked extensively on this table last few years). -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are lots of fine rules at Wikipedia, but IAR says that when a page is obviously useful, it is useful and should be kept (and notability is clearly not a problem). The periodic table is a gigantic topic in science and many readers like to study the detail on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.