Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of elements by symbol/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 User:Sephiroth BCR 22:23, 11 November 2008 [1].

List of elements by symbol edit

Notified: WikiProject Elements and Chemistry.

Proceedural nomination. Per this discussion, there is consensus to merge the eight different List of elements related lists into one. Nobody has ever gotten around to it, so I decided to get the ball rolling.

It's slightly better than the List of elements by name, but there is still not much of a lead, no citations and the sources are all from pre-2005. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose to removing towards merging but undecided on references part

Firstly, I am not sure if overlapping is in any ways a FL criteria (just look at the List of UEFA club competition winners that passed FLC recently).
Secondly, the approval sounded like "it is a good idea but somebody else do it"; just removing these two them will not actually make people work on a new list.
Well, the reason I nominated it is because I plan on doing it, should it be delisted. I'm hoping someone with more expertise will volunteer, but I'll do it if nobody steps forward.
I don't care about the listing/delisting procedure, but my worry is that after delisting nobody will get back and actually get the work done.
Thirdly, the poll did not receive enough feedback to actual achieve more than a general opinion - w/o offering good solutions.
Fourthly, my solution: I started working on a list that does not overlap in any ways with these two: (i) List of elements by atomic properties - which will include AMONG others the atomic weight and number; (ii) later, List of elements by physical properties - another one I plan to create that will include boiling points, melting poits, densities, and others. Neither of these will have much overlap with the "symbol" or "name" part so removing these two FL due to 'merging' does not apply.
The only possible list of elements that would overlap is the list of etymology of the names, but that will not get near FL in the foreseeable future.
The symbol page has a lot of extra-information at the bottom that cannot be be merged into other lists
Lastly, merging all the lists into one will produce a table that will be 18 columns wide → it will be humongous and won't be as useful as the periodic table one.
Well is it possible to create two lists then?
Which ones?
Well I'm no chemistry expert (so ignore me if this is a stupid idea), but could you have one table with 8-10 columns of just basic information, then another page with 8 or so of the rest or something? I dunno, just a suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I want to do (see point #4), where the two lists are phisical, respectively atomical properties - neverthelwss, neither of these overlap with symbols or names. Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you would support a merge if that was the solution? That sounds like a good idea to me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said at #4, the merge would NOT involve these 2 lists. Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn the bureaucracy that drains the energy of users from other more productive projects. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, you supported a merge in January, yet you oppose it now. What made you change your mind? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the 18-column thing Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist until such time as a proper merging can be performed (not necessarily into one list). Among the issues with this list: No accounting for accessibility (colors used without identifying symbols or text); the "Why not used" column should be text, rather than a ref; Mercury lacks a pictographic image, just has a link; the list of isotopes should probably be split out; 'other symbols' needs sourcing; 'Notes' is empty. Nergaal, don't take it personally, take it as a sign that the ideals for featured lists have improved in the last 3 years, and it needs to be brought up to those. --Golbez (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment I also don't really like that this page is comprised of 5 completely seperate lists. Would it be possible to merge some of the tables or move some (specifically the "Symbols for named isotopes" section) to a different or new page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does a FLRC get the ball rolling on a merge? I don't see any connection and therefore oppose delisting. Once the merge occurs, THEN it would be appropriate to have a procedural delisting. But not before. Get the ball rolling by doing the work of the merge on a holding page. --mav (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's appropriate to delist now, because this is definitely not FL quality. In fact, if it's merged, it should be delisted anyway, because the new list will have to then be vetted on FLC. In other words, this list is losing no matter what, and I hope whoever handles these things understands this. Can you picture FAC allowing a substandard article to remain featured just because "a merge is pending"? No, they'd delist it, because - why not? When it's merged, it will no longer exist, and thus won't be featured anyway. The star has to go. --Golbez (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you are missing the point that this list is NOT MERGEABLE!!!!!
    - I disagree, but if it's not, so what: it's not featured quality, either. It should lose the star either way. I'm sure I could give it a good go at a merge, but I would still suggest delisting it until a merge was complete and the new list could be vetted on its own merits. --Golbez (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although per nom votes are generally discouraged, I say delist per Golbez and per nom. iMatthew 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – ignoring the merge discussion, the list, as it stands, has serious issues that need to be addressed.

The lead is barebones and needs to be expanded.
Using color for the table is bad. Not only is the table unappealing, it makes it extremely difficult for a reader to discern what group the element belongs to. Create a new column that has color-coded cells to illustrate this (see the "Result" column in List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film as an example).
Repeating the key twice is unnecessary. Place it under its own section header.
The "Why not used" column on the second table should actually place a rationale rather than simply the reference.
For the third table, same thing with the "Why not used".
The Notes section is empty. I would move all the notes currently utilized in the tables here.

That's it for now. Please contact me when these issues have been addressed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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