Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (wide)

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (wide)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a wrapper for a single periodic table (PT). The layout of that PT is an intermediate between the wide and large one: {{Periodic table (large version)}} and the smaller ones: {{compact}}/{{standard}}. Inbetween there it does not add information, it just has a bit of both sides. It does not add any scientific information that is not in the other ones. Given that there are dozens of PT forms already, most for genuine science or layout reasons, this one only adds one without a new reason. I can note that it is too wide for regular screens and almost all incoming links are from the PT navigation box (footer). After deletion, the template likely might go too. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator: [1], project WP:ELEMENTS [2]. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scientifically speaking this is just the same sort of table as the compact one and the one you see in the element infoboxes. IMHO we already have way too many periodic table variant templates. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This layout is extremely useful for understanding the relation of the lanthanides and actinides to the other Group 6 and 7 elements, and more precisely why they are cut out of standard form of the table. Yes, this table too wide to display without scrolling, but that's kind of the point—it illustrates the motivation for the layout of the compact table. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I had clicked on the wrong link. Comment withdrawn. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, the compact table has the same layout as this AfD'ed table. What does that illustrate?

BTW I understand you mean to say "period 6 and 7 elements" (this is what I meant with the disturbing vertical layout ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it should probably be moved to subpage or template space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In article (main) space there are no subpages. For template space: it is already there: the template. Please explain what you propose. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/move I think this page was created well before templates became a norm. I suggest moving this into tempalte space, and putting it in Alternative periodic tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify: keep what, move what-to-what? Of course I want to delete template. And you really do not want to use "before" in wikitime as an argument, do you? This AfD article page is just an excuse for a bad template (in itself deletable). -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Periodic table (wide), just like Periodic table (standard). A discussion about the template can be taken up at TfD. The same should be done for all standalone periodic table pages still existing in mainspace. Ansh6 6 6 04:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. The redirect in Periodic table (standard) was from article space to template space. This cross namespace redirect had no good reason, so I changed it to be within article space.

2. At least the standard PT has a reason for being (it is still in articles). This (wide) variant in itself adds nothing, whether as template or as article. IOW, if its article is not needed, the template may go as well. -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Needs to be included, but not in its own article. Star6763 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this intermediate sized one needed, between the others mentioned in the OP? -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is redundant. Technical 13 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Template There is no reason not to have multiple forms available--but of course it shouldn't be by itself in article space 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It already exists as a template: see Template:Periodic table (wide). Ansh6 6 6 19:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.　Kiruning (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.