Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (vertical)

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 (vertical)

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

Another layout variant of the periodic table, put in a single table page. This time it is by the transposition of the groups/periods. Though nice for vertical screen scrolling, there is no scientific reason to present the PT this way. In other words: a layout play only. It even may be harmful (for understanding the PT) to change the pattern this way. It is a mental disturbance of the regular iconic form. Once the page is gone, the template can go too. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: creator [1], project WP:ELEMENTS [2]. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems potentially useful, so I'm hesitant to delete it. Has the table been published in this orientation anywhere other than Wikipedia? If so it should definitely be kept, and references added. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just interesting: the page was created in September 2001 [3], copied from nupedia, when WP had 2800 articles from 55 users. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's been used before, it's just an easily described variant of the main periodic table and doesn't really need its own article. Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why describe when we can show? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Showing would take too much space and there really isn't any significant difference here except orientation to discuss, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move this exists from well before the template space was created. Make this page a template and put it in Alternative periodic tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, that would be the current template {{Periodic table (vertical)}} then. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely simply, perhaps. Would the closer of this discussion please deal with the WP:CWW issues in that template as part of the close?—S Marshall T/C 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative periodic tables is about PTs with a different structure (e.g., reordering of groups in Janet's, making it circular somehow, etc). But this vertical one is based on the same standard period/group structure, it is just a presentational variant. Being just that, it does not add new information or insights to the topic. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Periodic table (vertical), 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 04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Periodic table (standard) was a cross-namespace redirect (into template space) for no good reason. That is not needed, I changed it in R within mainspace.

2. This standard table is undisputed content. The vertical table content, however, is disputed here. If we heave no use in mainspace for it, the page should go. TfD even could be a speedy then. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to a new article forking off of Periodic table and Dmitri Mendeleev into something like Mendeleev's periodic table, provided enough sources can be found to make a standalone article. (side note, I'm currently wikifying the section Periodic table#Mendeleev's table, adding wikilinks.) Ansh6 6 6 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could 'keep/move/redirect'-respondants please state the encyclopedic reason this one should be present? Sure I can draw the PT on a Rubiks Cube, but would the encyclopedia need that one? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is supposed to be in template space, let's move it there and take it up at TfD. Ansh6 6 6 03:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first finish conclude about the article. Depending on the outcome, we can take a look at the template. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename to Mendeleev's vertical periodic table or merge to something. Mendeleev's first published table was vertical. Maybe there isnt a "there is no scientific reason", but there is a historic reason to do it. Christian75 (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your historical source for that? I think it's pretty clear from the image I've included here that Mendevels original is nothing like you have described. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask the same, where is you hisorical source for that? The first version was published in 1869 (not 1871) - you could search the internet for it :-), but here is one link, and the image. Christian75 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the 1869 version was vertical. But that does not convince me we should have this current (modern, completed) version available, in article or template. If we want to describe Mendeleev's historical PT, we should show that 1869 image, not a modern version. For example, famously the noble gases were not in the earliest one. Then again, there is no page that tries to do that historical description. "Usefull in the future" is not an argument to me. (oh and IRWolfie-, please check your spelling when you write "Mendevel". Sounds awkward ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 31 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) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - should be kept but not under its own article. Star6763 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into where, then? -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a notable variant so it fails standard article requirements like WP:GNG. Now if you think it is WP:USEFUL for some function (personally I don't, but whatever), then it can be userified and then moved into the appropriate namespace, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article namespace, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already in the template namespace, though. I thought the remaining issue for this discussion to decide was whether the article namespace version should be converted into a cross-namespace redirect to the template namespace version, or simply deleted. Personally I'd advocate turning it into a cross-namespace redirect because it makes the WP:CWW issues I mentioned so much less stress to resolve.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So deletion would cause serious trouble to keep its history right (because of earlier moves &tc.). For that reason I would not mind turning it into a redirect to the template, instead of full deletion. Note that that would be just a wikitechnical reason to "keep" the page, not an argument in itself. Next then, if it is not kept, I will put the template itself up for deletion (so this redirect would go too). -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's what I was saying the whole time! Ansh6 6 6 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I started this one to get a conclusion on whether it should be in main space or not. No need to shift the content discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. Why wouldn't merging the history work? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging history can be done, but it is a very very complicated process for an admin. That is what user:S Marshall points to (I call that: wikitechical). My suggestion to do that easier redirect is because: within days the template will be gone too (via my projected TfD).

What I propose for this here is: deletion. We could just do the redirect (and do not the heavy history merge -- for now). Then delete the template so all will go, including all difficult histories. I will propose TfD asap when appropriate.

Please note that I myself want this topic thing out of mainspace -- no withholdings. That is why I started this AfD. Once out of mainspace, the template can go or die silently. (I have spend enough time with our periodic tables to push this forward). -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself. This article and its template share a history because of earlier moves, forkings and edits. If this AfD conclusion is that this page is to be deleted, its history must be preserved in the template (WP:CWW). That is a tough job because there are overlaps in their histories (edits were not done simply after another).

Now when the page is deleted, I will put the template up for TfD as a logical next step. If that concludes deletion too, the template (and its history) are deleted. That would mean that the difficult history merging was done in vain. To spare that useless work, I can agree on making the article a redirect to the template for the time being (until TfD conclusion).

All this is procedural, not argumental (a redirect in itself is not an argument for keeping). As for arguments, I want to know from this AfD if we want this topic in mainspace at all. Hope I'm clearer now. -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article and Keep the useful template. Technical 13 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now please, please, tell us why. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 8 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.