Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu

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. Consensus is that attribution is not an issue in this case. If it turns out to be later, the pages can be undeleted where appropriate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu

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

Looks like a draft page already merged in Dictionary of chemical formulas, so superfluous The Banner _talk 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles:

To my opinion, all these articles are superfluous. The Banner _talk 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~These have to be kept,~~ not because of their encyclopaedic value but because of the terms of use: the Wikimedia Foundation promise to credit people for their contributions. There's a history under those titles. The history keeps a record of who originally wrote the content that got merged to form the Dictionary of chemical formulas. There are certain other ways to retain attribution where necessary, such as performing a complex history merge on Dictionary of chemical formulas, but keeping the history is generally the simplest. It certainly wastes the smallest amount of administrator time. What we should probably do is redirect these titles to Dictionary of chemical formulas.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We give extra tools to administrator to perform difficult tasks, so I guess a few of them have to perform the history merge (your talking about the history merge of 17 articles into article nr. 18, I am not that mean to think just one administrator will to that). But keeping all those articles just for the sake of their history, is a rather strange idea, especially with the first nominated article showing up prominently at Articles With Multiple Dablinks. At this moment at nr. 39... The Banner _talk 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, it's perfectly normal practice. We have special templates for it with many, many transclusions showing where it's been done: {{copied}}, {{copied multi}}, {{merged-from}}, {{merged-to}}. We have a special guideline: WP:CWW. See also WP:MERGETEXT. Nothing strange about it at all. It's not necessary to ask an administrator or administrators to perform a large and complex history merge here.—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is any of this content copyrightable? Isn't it just a factual listing of chemical formulas, with no creativity as to selection, arrangement, or expression in how it's written? If it's not copyrightable, then there's nothing for which a license is needed, and so attribution isn't required. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is copyrightability a precondition? Copyright is covered in the terms of use section 7a. Credit for contributions is in the terms of use section 7b and I don't see where it says the one depends on the other. I'm conscious, Postdlf, that your understanding of the legalities exceeds mine, and I'm willing to be guided in this, but I'd like to understand and I'd like to be 100% sure we weren't rewriting the terms of use in an AfD, so please expand!—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Attribution is one of the requirements of the license. A license is a grant of permission. You don't need permission to use something no one else owns. No one owns what is not copyrightable. Hence no license applies, if this is all purely uncopyrightable information. Anyone could recopy it from a reliable source without any obligation to those who copied it first. If we want to give credit for the pure labor of copying it just to be nice, that's another thing, but understanding that there's no obligation to do so we could then do it in more abbreviated form rather than maintaining all of these article histories. postdlf (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Hmm. It seems to me, from my non-legalistic reading of the terms of use, that they suggest we will give credit for non-copyrighted contributions. Mindful though I am of WP:CANVASS, would anyone object if I asked Flatscan for his view on this? I've noticed that he often has a view on licence-related matters.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no problem that you ask his opinion. Still, in my opinion the articles can be removed. I have updated my opinion in that way that there should be a a history merge first. The Banner _talk 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My lay opinion agrees with Postdlf's analysis. Factual, non-creative content is covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. Userfication or projectification is available if someone wants these pages, but creator User:Eequor has been inactive since February 2006. Please don't histmerge – it's not necessary and would create an inextricable tangle of separate pages. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) Upon reflection I'm convinced that Postdlf's view is correct and I would like to revise my !vote to delete accordingly. A history merge is not necessary.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if OK to do so, otherwise redirect to Dictionary of chemical formulas. --JaGa^talk 22:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are a repetition of Dictionary of chemical formulas and article namespace is not used for administrative functions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article namespace is often used to maintain a contribution history under a redirect. It's normal practice, documented at WP:COPYWITHIN among other places. Postdlf has persuaded me that it's not necessary in this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and they are redundant of Dictionary of chemical formulas. Dictionary of chemical formulas should be renamed List of chemical formulas. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2012 (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.