Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Periodic table (detailed cells)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:19:22 26 May 2019 (UTC).

Periodic table (detailed cells)
This was nominated for removal back in 2008 and I don't believe it meets today's FLC expectations, if it even did then. The lead is fairly short with little background about the table, just pointing out some features of the table and the difference in the two layouts, both of which are just transcluded templates. But more importantly, this fails 3c, since it simply duplicates the table already at the FA Periodic table. The only difference is that this supposedly "detailed" version gives the atomic mass twice, in rounded and non-rounded formats. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Half of the citations are broken, too. The short citations with the anchor "IUPAC 2016" don't point to any long citation with the same. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (I am a member of WP:ELEMENTS). I can understand removal. Maybe in origin there was a confusion: by science, the periodic table Cscr-featured.png is a perfect list. But that does not imply that a reproduction on enwiki makes it an FA list. We'll work hard to keep article periodic table FA. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist simply because periodic table is already featured and is excellent. This one is redundant and probably shouldn't even be a page. Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added the two templates on this page to periodic table as collapsed tables, so this can just be redirected with no loss at all once the star is removed. Reywas92Talk 23:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist (and although outside the scope of FLRC, redirect, but even that's probably unlikely, who's going to type in "Periodic table (detailed cells)"? Just fix any links...).  BUT, only if all information contained in this list is repeated in the main Periodic table article.  But in any case, I don't think we can claim this as being amongst our finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.