On 4/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
wrote:
And I agree with David, this really looks like
you're just searching for
any excuse you can get to get rid of that list. Copyvio and OR are
almost diametrically opposed to each other as reasons to delete
something; copyvio means it's a direct copy of something creative that
someone else came up with and OR means it's something creative that was
come up with ''de novo''. They can't both be true. Accusing this
stuff
of being both in the same message seems like you're just throwing
everything against the wall to see what sticks.
I read Guy's argument to be "if collating the information is creative,
it's original research; if it's not, it's a copyright infringement;
either way, delete".
The copyright for every legitimate nontrivial edit to Wikipedia is held
by the editor who made it, so every edit is in some sense a creative
act. OR doesn't ban any conceivable creative act or we'd be in serious
trouble. Its scope has crept larger over the years, but I still think
it's stretching it rather far out of the bounds of common sense to claim
that watching a set of shows and noting down a list of all the cars that
are covered in them is OR.
What would happen if there'd been individual articles on each episode
each with its own little list of cars, and after discussion it had been
decided to merge all of them into one big main article? We could put the
individual little lists in separate sections of the main article but not
concatenate them together in one section? That's just silly.