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 redirect all to Energy - there is information in these articles that could merged but AfD isn't a great forum for deciding if this is the case and what info should be merged. I hope everyone can work together in discussing this on the relevant talkpage and in performing any merges onces consensus is reached. WjBscribe 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (chemistry)[edit]

Energy (chemistry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article was created without consensus by User:Hallenrm, who made a big mess by mincing the Energy article and turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation page. As discussion at Talk:Energy and Talk:Energy/Archive 4 shows, there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry). When the Energy article was reconstructed, Energy (chemistry) was turned into a redirect towards Energy, but after further consideration I think that this is not an appropriate redirect for two reasons: 1) the Energy article has a much wider scope; 2) Energy (chemistry) is not a plausible link target or search string. Therefore we should Delete Energy (chemistry). -- Itub 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I'm also nominating:

• Energy (biology)
• Energy (cosmology)
• Energy (earth science)

These have all prod'ed, but the prod was reverted by Hallenrm with no explanation. --Itub 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This article has useful material, and it would not necessarily benefit the length of the main Energy article to reintroduce it there by merging. Hallenrm created these spinoff articles, let's give him a chance to improve them and source them appropriately before making a decision to destroy them, potentially orphaning a number of useful images. Robert K S 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, is it okay to put multiple articles under one AfD, or do they each need their own? Robert K S 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. I decided to list them together because they all came from the same messy split of the Energy article. --Itub 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen the chemistry page. There is nothing there which does not belong in electromagnetic spectrum or thermodynamics. Since we are talking about the literal (and not figurative form of) "energy", it is one and the same throughout all the physical sciences, even though some may talk of it in electron-volts and others talk about it in joules, calories, and wavenumbers. There is the added problem of WP:FORKing if we keep such separate pages. --Rifleman 82 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it can be argued that: there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry), the content of the pages are not totally useless to deserve deletion, perhaps they can be assimiliated with other articles. After all, the same content survived in the Energy article for more than six months59.180.234.124 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as the nominator may think that creating this is disruptive, deleting it is also disruptive. At least, the content needs to be merged back in to Energy or elsewhere. But the energy article is already quite long, and it may be useful to split off some sub-topics. Also with a term as generic as "energy", which is used in different context in different fields, having an article that focuses on a particular area, where terminology can be used consistently and in context, is often preferable. Sometimes a one-size-fits-all article does not fit at all. At bottom, this is a content and editing dispute, and does not belong on AfD--there are other dispute resolution methods available that should be used first. Dhaluza 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge useful contents back into Energy. This can be discussed on relevant talk pages and we don't need to negotiate content disputes through AfD. If the existence or makeup of these articles causes any user to make a particular fuss during the transition period (e.g. by reverting to a preferred version), we can take care of that separately. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "chemical energy" is simply not broad enough for a separate article. Different energy definitions for different topics. It should be in the article. Horvat Den 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After careful thought I am of the opinion that the content of these pages can be moved to articles Chemistry (as Chemical Energatics), To Physical cosmology as (Cosmic energy) and Earh science (as Earth's energy). It was perhaps my mistake to name the severed sections as Energy(Chemistry); Energy (cosmology) and Energy( Earth science), they should have been entitles as Chemical energetic, bioenergetics, cosmic energy and eart;s energy respectively, highlighting the application of the energy concept in various sciences, instead of implying that there are different concepts of energy in these sciences. I therefore would have no objection to the deletion if other community members agree. Hallenrm 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And why wouldnt a redirect do the job? John Vandenberg 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a lot of useful quantitative stuff in energy (earth sciences). What fraction of the earth's heat is from radioactive decay, and how much from contraction, and how do we know? It's basically the section from the old energy article, but there's very little of it in the present article, which is already getting too long. So an "earth sciences" section is needed in energy, with energy (earth sciences) as the main article. Don't delete this one without putting the entire content back into energy (which you probably don't want to do). Same comment for energy (cosmology), though there's not as much unique stuff there. Energy (biology) has largely been covered in the Energy article with a "main article" direct to Thermodynamics of Life, so that one can go, as long as there's no info in it which doesn't appear elsewhere. For example, what fraction of the sun's output is captured by photosynthesis? It's an interesting fact, and has to go *somewhere.* SBHarris 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all; merge and redirect as required. Deletion is not the appropriate way to conclude this. If there is concensus to restore the original structure, then that can be done in the usual manner. Deleting these articles destroys the history, which you will one day want to use to demonstrate that this approach wasnt accepted. Afd has too much work as-is to get into normal structural decisions. John Vandenberg 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The information content of these articles is not even zero, it's actually negative. This is is a clear case of a PoV fork, except that Hallenrm isn't even proposing a seperate PoV. There is absolutely no difference in the way that the term "energy" is used in any of the natural sciences. Such disambiguations should be reserved for cases such as Energy (spirituality), where the term is (obviously) used in a different manner. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal[edit]

A lot of this content has already been merged into other articles, but I still think that these are not plausible topics and articles such as Energy (chemistry) shouldn't exist (for energy itself, we have Energy, for a more general article on the role of energy in chemistry, but also including entropy, enthalpy, etc., we have Chemical thermodynamics). How about simply moving these pages into user space, where the content can be kept in case someone wants to rescue some of it for other articles? If that is acceptable to Hallenrm, then we don't need to worry about deletion anymore. --Itub 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal made by John Vandenberg is much more sensible, a redirect is more appropiate (but not a blank redirect to Energy as done earlier by physchim62Hallenrm 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "blank redirect"? --Itub 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that, please refer to my talk on the talkpage of physchim62[[1]] regarding the first page, that is Energy (chemistry), proposed to be deleted. It is indeed curious that you initiated the Afd just a day after he threatened to do so.Hallenrm 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't fathom what you mean. A page is either a redirect or it isn't. I have no concept of "blank" redirect. And if I happen to agree with Physchim62, so what? --Itub 07:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge TimVickers 03:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (chemistry) into Chemical thermodynamics

Energy (biology) into Biological thermodynamics

Energy (cosmology) into Thermodynamics of the universe

Energy (earth science) is already duplicated in Earth science - delete.

I would agree with User:TimVickers' proposal. --Rifleman 82 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good work, Rifleman 82 (or was that Tim?) on finding the appropriate main articles, above. In Energy, there's now a small section up front called "Energy in various contexts" where all this stuff goes (as small summaries), each with "main article" directs in each sumarized subsection, to the main articles named above (after which we can delete the energy(blah) stuff as noted- keeping anything we find there which isn't already in the others). We can keep this "ENERGY IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS (OR VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, which it really is) up front where it is, or else move it down to the end, where "Energy and Life" is now. Of course, Energy and Life will be subsumed into the short subsection "Biological thermodynamics," whatever we do in this move.

So, what do you think on where to put this subsection discussing energy in the various sciences? Do we have put this section on energy in the various sciences up front, before the nasty equations, or at the end, after them? The overall structure of the article needs some thinking. The purist will want all the definitions up front, but they are mathematical and off-putting. The encyclopedist might want a more extended "Energy in various contexts/sciences" up front, with the math and definitions relegated to the end, as a sort of math appendix. Or maybe some very simple math up front (no calculus), and all the thermo and EM equations pushed to the end. SBHarris 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i do not agree with TimVickers when he says that Energy (Chemistry) can be merged with chemical thermodynamics, because the article contains sections which do not belong to chemical thermodynamics viz energy levels and spectroscopic lines. Same is the case with Energy (cosmology), it deals with dark energy which is not a subject under Thermodynamics of the universe. Hallenrm 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. SBHarris 19:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectroscopy should be merged to spectroscopy or electromagnetic spectrum then. When we propose merging, it is an intelligent merge, rather than a dump. --Rifleman 82 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per that argument, each of the subsections of the present energy page should be merged with pages of that heading. Not much would be left then. Are you suggesting that no subject matter should be repeated in two different articles? Please talk sensibly202.141.141.7 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (Previous comment is from .Hallenrm, recognizable as him, both in 1) coming from Delhi University, and 2) for being insulting. SBHarris 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the use of the ((main)) template in Distillation. The point I am making is that we can empty the article, and turn it into a redirect. --Rifleman 82 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean you want to completely empty it (indeed this was not done in Distillation), or else then we'd be stuck in the situation we were before. We want to resurrect a nice overall 50 kB summary of the use of energy in the natural sciences, and indeed use the ((main)) template to keep the various sections from overgrowing the article. That's the natural Wiki way things should look. Except here, we're having to do it backwards, because when Energy got too long, instead of summarizing sections and offloading material into ((main)) articles, it instead got nearly gutted and turned into not much more than a redirect. So here we are.SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with th previous post. People like Rifleman 82 should be more careful and understand the nature of wikipedia before they key in their immature opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a personal insult to Rifleman, and he's only been here a few days! A new record, Charlie. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed fantastic --Rifleman 82, that way we can indeed reduce the volume of wikipedia! Let us start with Energy and merge its various subsections with the related Main articles.Hallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. SBHarris 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget to log in for your previous post and then posted again to agree with yourself? --Itub 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is indeed true, but I really wonder how can I prove that you are a puppet user for User:physchim62 I really suspect thatHallenrm 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get it. Now, Itub (talk · contribs) is my sockpuppet, is that what you're saying? Just as I am supposed to be the sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs)... According to you, there seem to be several other editors who are secretly plotting against you. Hallenrm (talk · contribs), please take a wikibreak before one is forced upon you. Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is true that "several other editors who are secretly plotting against me ." And I have evidence for that, just see the talk page of SBHarris [2] # Suggestions and anybody can see thatHallenrm 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was "secret," why the hell would I put it on my TALK page?? It's where it is for a number of very good reasons. One of those reasons is so that you can read it, too. SBHarris 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on merge. I don't see that there is anything actually to be merged, and Hallenrm (talk · contribs) objects that previous attempts at merging haven't retained "his" material. Make them redirects if you wish to keep the page histories, but I feel that this will only cause problems down the line. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merge. Hallenrm is welcome to add any scientific material he has written on energy to the appropriate pages identified above, so it will not be lost. For example, I really don't care if the article is called Energy (Earth science) or Earth science if it includes the same material. So long as there is a ((main)) template pointer to it as a main energy article in the appropriate subsection of that article, so people can find it, it matters not. I favor the above sub-articles because they pre-date the disasterous energy article dissection and creation of new energy(subscience) articles which were duplicative. But there need be nothing lost if any of new material written for that purpose, is added to the old subscience articles, as needed. Rather than complain about this, Hallenrm, instead, if you find material of yours you want to remain after the energy(subscience) articles are redirected and deleted, just rescue it, and put it where it should be, in the other articles which are destined to remain. If it's science-related, relevant, and adds something, none of us are likly to object. SBHarris 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Energy is an important topic and these alternative treatments of energy risk causing confusion. Any possible benefit of somehow retaining the material that User:Hallenrm has created is exceeded by the difficulties it creates for organizing our articles. Creation of subarticles (like this one) should be supported by a strong consensus of editors working in the area. My brief review of the above discussion and a look at Talk:Energy#Energy articles proposal straw poll suggests that Hallenrm's approach does not have wide support. The closing administrator should decide whether these subarticles have any important history that needs to be preserved. I looked at Energy (cosmology) and it was frankly created by a cut-and-paste so its history is probably not important. EdJohnston 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like that the admins while considering a final decision on the deletion would also look at the background of the people who supported the straw poll Talk:Energy#Energy articles proposal straw poll and the history of the events that led to the creation of these pages. Editor User:Sadi Carnot mysteriously disappeared after the proposal. Hallenrm 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to call the police to report a kidnapping? Or are you trying to suggest User:Sadi Carnot is a sockpuppet? SBHarris 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to me that Hallenrm has already pasted most or all of the content from the nominated articles into articles sucha as Chemistry, Physical cosmology, and Biological thermodynamics. --Itub 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all or Merge. One may add "energy in car mechanics", "energy in aeronautics", etc. There's energy in every field, but it's always the same basic principles, and dividing it to different articles is not a good idea. The content of the different articles belong either to Energy itself, or already appears in other articles, where it belongs. Energy (chemistry) should be merged according to TimVickers's suggestion, but the others should be deleted:

Energy (biology) - delete: already duplicated in Biological thermodynamics.

Energy (cosmology) - delete: already appears, in different forms, in Thermodynamics of the universe and Physical cosmology, except for the concept of the total energy of the universe, which is ill defined, as the article itself states.

Energy (earth science) - delete: see TimVickers's argument.

Dan Gluck 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose, but I'm not sure I like your argument. It's like saying the element iron is the same in every field, so there's no point in having a separate article on (say) iron alloys (steelmaking, etc). But the argument pro is this is a really important use of iron with a huge information base, which would totally overload the iron element page, if we left it all there. The same applies to most uses of energy in various sciences, which all are somewhat idiosyncratic and have different quantitations and effects, and about all of which we know a LOT. Not that I care what these articles are called, really-- just reminding all that there's plenty of useful and specific content to go into each of them, and still stretch length guidelines.SBHarris 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect. Redirects are cheap, and as content has been moved about, deletion of the history would violate GFDL. --SmokeyJoe 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there is an issue of copyrights violation with regards to who wrote what in Wikipedia. For a start, most people don't even use their real names. Is there another reason for you to support keeping the articles?Dan Gluck 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dan, I believe you are wrong. GFDL doesn’t discriminate between authorship of real names or pseudonyms. If content has already been merged into other articles, then GFDL requires that authorship information be preserved. So, if the article should not be kept, then it should be converted to a redirect. Content forking should always be remedied by merge and redirect.
  • Do you believe that converting to a redirect constitutes “keeping the article”?
  • As for what I think about the articles (whether to merge or not): It is an editorial decision best left to the editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 01:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Then the GFDL gets violated essentially every time someone pastes something from an article to another! I think that argument is a tempest in a teacup, although I've heard it over and over. Is there a Wikipedia page where that "policy" is discussed? --Itub 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • SomkeyJoe is correct that edit histories should be preserved to the extent possible. GFDL is not violated if text that is cut and pasted is traceable to the source by a note in the edit summary. But it is violated every time an article is deleted, when it should just have been redirected. Dhaluza 22:32, 29 June 2007 (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.