Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Periodic table (standard)/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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:52, 6 August 2008 [1].

---

Periodic table (standard)

This table was never submitted for FL, but I think it does not miss anything to be rated as such. Any comments/suggestions are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This page is simply a copy of some parts of the article for periodic table. So far, does not add on nothing! Cannibaloki 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Periodic table (large version) is Featured and contains all the information that is in this one, and more. I have to ask – why is this one even needed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This one is specifically designed to fit on a screen without requiring scrolling. The large and featured version isn't - and probably breaks some rule somewhere because of that. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I'm still trying to suss out if this really is a list or not, and if it has a purpose beyond the featured large version. In the meantime...
  • "symbol and atomic number of each element" - right, talking to a non-expert audience, what's a "symbol", "atomic number" and "element"?
  • "The periodic table is now ubiquitous within the academic discipline of chemistry, providing an extremely useful framework to classify, systematize and compare all the many different forms of chemical behavior." ubiquitous? says who? "extremely useful"? according to whom?
    • According to probably just about every single introductory chemistry textbook published in the last 100 years. Statements that are such common knowledge don't need a source. Sure, we could cite any random textbook, but then the question would be, why that specific textbook? --Itub (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You really felt the need to link engineering and industry and dare to claim it has found wide application there? I work in the engineering industry and I never use it. I'd be more specific, less hand-wavy.
    • Sure, not in every industry. The film industry and hydraulic engineering probably don't use it much, but it is used more in some other industries (chemical, materials, metallurgic). I suppose it depends on the meaning of wide. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As of Jan 2008? Why not July 2008? Also anomalous since your specific reference is date July 2007.
  • Also, as this is basically an (internal) linkfarm you could add some commentary on why the periodic table is arranged as it is.
  • "This common arrangement of the periodic table separates the lanthanides and actinides from other elements. The wide periodic table incorporates the f-block. The extended periodic table adds the 8th and 9th periods, incorporating the f-block and adding the theoretical g-block." While this note may be true, it is utterly inaccessible to non-experts. Think again.
  • Is the second "table" a key? It needs explanation.
• Comments notwithstanding, I'm interested in whether the rest of the community think this is a list at all, of any use beyond the more comprehensive version and thus whether it's actually part of Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support the claim that this is a list and is a fine work but am undecided whether both should be featured. It may be helpful to look at the discussion of the first list: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Periodic table (large version) Rmhermen (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Actually, when reducing the horizontal size of the browser sufficiently on this list, it simply crops information rather than allowing a scrollbar to get the information which is worse that having to scroll. And if you could point me to the "fits in one screen" rule, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Which list? I see the standard list all on screen at once and the large one with a scrollbar. Is this a browser issue? Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • IE7. Reduce the width of the browser and eventually it just crops the right-hand side of the periodic table (which is being called a "list" for the purposes of this FLC) and does not provide a scrollbar. This is worse than the bigger periodic table page where, no matter how big or small the browser is, I can access all the information using scrollbars. And please remind me of this "fits one 'screen' rule"... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved on-and-off with developing aspects of this version of the table. Of course it's a list. It's a list whose main purpose is to be transcluded into the Periodic table article (and maybe elsewhere). Of course, it deserves consideration as a featured list on its own merits, just like the large table when it became featured in 2005. But I think the bar for a featured list should be a lot higher now than in 2005. This standard table is better than it used to be, but I agree with some of the comments above. The table should have the following changes:

1) Add a key (with the label "key") in the blank area above the p-block with callout lines to links to atomic number and chemical symbol, similar to what is done here. This will take a little work, but not too much.

2) Revert the introduction. Information about the table should be in the Periodic table article, not here. Here there should only be information about this particular table with a reference that justifies its use. I've made this reversion but left the reference in. Someone should revert the other tables too. Please spend time improving the periodic table article to make it more accessible to a general audience instead of writing these unusual little two-paragraph summaries on the tables themselves.

3) Add the label "Legend" before the "second table."

4) Change "Element categories in the periodic table" to "Background colors show element categories" to match the style of the other parts of the legend

5) Remove all the text: "This common arrangement of the periodic table separates the lanthanides and actinides from other elements. The wide periodic table incorporates the f-block. The extended periodic table adds the 8th and 9th periods, incorporating the f-block and adding the theoretical g-block." This information (or something like it) should be in the Periodic table article after the standard table is presented, but the standard table does not need to explain why it is different from the wide table.

If all those things are done, I'll support it as a featured list. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• CR 2. The Lede is just two sentences, and does not engage the reader or define the scope.
• CR 3/4. While the important stuff is wikilinked, this doesn't help anyone using a printed version or someone without pop-ups who has to navigate away from the page.
• CR 6. No need for the itallicised text under the main table
• CR 3. I still fail to see why this one is considered more useful or as useful as Periodic table (large version), which is already featured and contains more information. Sure you have to scroll sideways which is somewhat annoying, but I don't think it's even in the MOS that this is not allowed.

It just falls far short of what is expected of a FL at the moment. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.