Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotope lists (2nd nomination)

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 all. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope lists

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

This nomination also includes

These are nothing but effectively unmaintained duplications of each element's individual lists of isotopes. E.g.

and so on. I acknowledged that ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs) has recently taken an interest in them, and did quite a bit of work in templatifying them, presumably to facilitate maintenance, but this information is simply best presented on a per-element basis. The fact that they've been pretty much untouched since their creation is 2006 is a testament to that. And our readers seem to agree.

Isotope lists should redirect to List of nuclides (just as List of isotopes does), and the rest deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no way in which these are useful or why they would be read. We have Template:Isotope index to direct readers to relevant articles. @Headbomb: Template:Isotope lists index seems to be a less useful version of Template:Isotope index, you might want to nominate it for deletion. Also, what is the point of this and the 40 of these? Laurdecl ^talk 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on nominating the templates as well, but I want to see how this nomination goes first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to list the "isotope by element articles", but not duplicate the tables. Perhaps Isotope lists could become a super list of those articles. Or would a better title be Lists of isotopes by element? There is a category of the same name, but it would be better suited as an article. Laurdecl ^talk 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the worse it gets. For example, compare Isotope_lists,_73-96#Thallium and Isotopes of thallium. The former is unformatted, doesn't even superscript numbers, and is missing half of the fields! Laurdecl ^talk 11:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was working on that. it was terrible. so I was synchronizing them. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
  _{Contributions} 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and not that useful. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am here. okay, so, basicly you guys are suggesting a deletion of that articles. I acknowledge it. but as for me, I felt it was a bit hard to see all 118 elements. when I was working on Table of nuclides (complete), I was needed to open 119 individual pages. so I decided to make that page relevant. well, ~~about the deletion. well, for me, I can't completely maintaining WP:NPOV since I was putting so much effort on that. I'd say Weak keep so my POV can be minimalized.~~ Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, you were working on it (having to open 119 pages). But that's ediiting, and would make those pages a maintenance support thing. Still, there is no reasonable angle on how the Reader is helped with these articles. I do not see how a Reader would want to arrive at these pages. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About List of nuclides, am I missing something here? There isn't actually a list; the article says "this is a list", etc. and gives an introduction. The same with Table of nuclides. @ProDuct0339: You appear to have moved the actual content into other articles (such as List of nuclides (complete)), but is this a good idea? Confused readers – like myself – will just stare at the article and think "well, where is the list?" Laurdecl ^talk 12:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just following the former article's form: Table of nuclides and it's sub-tables. and as Table of nuclides did, I left a links for every one of them with decent description. ask User:Bryan Derksen for that, since he was the one who did it first. _{even though I don't know him.} Product0339^{Talk • Project}
  _{Contributions} 12:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry. I think I'll transclude the "complete" version onto the main list article, it's what readers are looking for. Laurdecl ^talk 12:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you can see my progresses in My Project page, only the 0-24 and 25-48 are finished yet. the others are in progress. you can judge the finished ones, though. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, guys, I have an idea. I dunno its good or not. but I'm throwing it in. how about Merge those lists in one or two(individual and one-list) articles? not 5. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what Isotope lists, all is? The question is: why? It will create a huge amount of work for you and it's not very useful; readers who are looking for isotopes of an element will go to that element's page. Laurdecl ^talk 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should list the "isotope by element" articles somewhere, but we shouldn't duplicate the tables. Category:Lists of isotopes by element is an example. I will think about creating Lists of isotopes by element. Laurdecl ^talk 13:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Headbomb: Since you started this AfD; do you think creating a list of these articles, but without duplicating the tables, is a good idea? Would it be better at Isotope lists or Lists of isotopes by element. Laurdecl ^talk 13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and I moved those Lists of isotopes by element to Isotope lists. currently only 0-48 are done... but I can do it in a week. since I was working on it. no problem. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
      _{Contributions} 13:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - But why? This leaves us with a long list of duplicate tables that are unmaintained... Laurdecl ^talk 13:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, as you mentioned above, we need some sort of "isotope by element" articles somewhere. and since I template those tables, we can turn the individual isotope article's table into a template, therefore completing the maintaining process. also, Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) is a duplication, too. but it is kept due to the appearance. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
        _{Contributions} 14:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see the point of a master list / a list with all 3000 nuclides or whatever on it. Per-element lists are fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ProDuct0339 we need some sort of "isotope by element" articles somewhere.—Why? Still waiting for a first argument to list all isotopes together. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if the reader needs multiple element's isotope lists (for compare, for making own lists, or any reason), this list will help the reader to navigate and view faster and clearer since all of them is in one article, there is no need to go through link to link, article to article. when first I template this list (well, only 40% but still.), I, too, was able to edit Template:NuclidesComplete much faster. since i didn't need to go though every single 118 articles and find List of isotopes from large amount of information. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, "to navigate and view faster and clearer" between the 3000+ isotopes: that's a very indiscriminate list, while the complete isotopes pages are just one scroll and one more click away. BTW, WP:CSC says 32K page size is an indication of a maximum size for such a list. I add that relevant comparision of isotopes is covered in the nuclides table (more complete by logic & navigation), or when mentioned as a decay product in the infoboxes.
        
        "I was able to edit much faster" — sure, but that's editing and not for our Readers. (If helpful, build the page in WP-space nort article space). -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Click in contents, and a home key is much faster than scroll and one more click, since the click in contents summary transports the reader instantly. also, there is some other lists that exceeds 32 KB. like List of Governors of Alabama(38 KB), List of Alias characters(66 KB) and List of Apple II games(53 KB). also, some readers who wants to make their own list, can see this as helpful just like I felt when I was editing pages. for normal readers, they can either choose to view individual articles to see more detailed descriptions, or this article to see more broad, all-in-one lists. sure, in all-in-one lists, there is Table of nuclides and List of nuclides, too. however, Table of nuclides doesn't show any detailed properties (approximate half-life, atomic number, number of neutrons.), It is really hard to find certain element's isotopes in List of nuclides. well, relevancy differs from readers, so I can't comment on that. I respect your reasoning, but I'd say Delete all other pages except the main one. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 14:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, also, Rename this to Lists of isotopes by element or something. (as suggested by Laurdecl), and make this page a redirect to List of nuclides. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 14:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The analogy here is that we don't have a master list of all US states governors, but rather individual lists of each states' governors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not about speed, its about not adding any extra at all for a reader. Nuclides table already has navigation & isotopes relation nicely. "readers who want to make their own list"? They can, without these pages. Sure there are other pages exceeding 32K. Maybe there are good reasons for that (as Headbomb notes), or maybe they are to go too. Is not the issue here. In short, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, we can add some general tendency of isotope's properties to that list in the beginning, and explaining the list's acronyms, add some pictures, the list is just started to reconstruct. there are many, many ways to improve this list. also, there are sure good reasons for exceeding 32 KB lists, they are good. if the list was finished, will the readers still not going to read this page? I think not. about policy, because the information is available elsewhere is not valid either. sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is invalid. but I thought it was better than nothing. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 02:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reader's need or use in sight. I don't even see how this would help maintenance (so no need to even move & keep them into WP space). BTW, there are some 3000+ isotopes (in case the should be listed...). -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm joining the discussion because of the clutter of individual isotope list templates. I'm glad to see ProDuct0339 taking an interest, but I feel pages by element make more sense; if there's a list page, it can point to the individual element pages. I agree with what Laurdecl said above. = paul2520 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (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.