Talk:Moebius plane
Redirect edit
There should not be two pages concerning the same mathematical object ... alternate spellings are to be handled by redirects. This page should be changed to a redirect to Möbius plane. There are several good reasons for that choice (of which page is to be the redirect) but the main one seems to be that the current page appears to be a massive copyright violation of Hartmann's Lecture Notes (in the external link section) including the diagrams which the editor claims to be his\her own. Of course, if the editor is Hartmann the copyright violation is moot (I could be challenged on that point by someone more legally inclined than I am), but then the article is in violation of WP:OR. In either case, this article in its current form will not survive. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree regarding the rdirect but for slightly different reasons. Möbius plane is already existing for a long time and the proper approach is extend an existing article rather than creating a new one in parallel (for no good reason). Hence this should be turned into a redirect and the additional material intregrated into Möbius plane. I don't quite agree regarding the OR charge and/or the copyright violation. The lecture notes are normal lectures notes for class about known material (not notes on research project) hence there is no OR here. The drawings are fairly standard as well, hence als long as the WP editor it not a simply cut & paste job but was recreating the drawing on its own there is no copyright issue. These drawing are essentially the same like drawing for instance a triangle, a circle, tetrahedron or function in a math book, there is no copyright on such images. The same goes for reusing the content of the lectures as long as the wp editor did not literally copy all text lines, but used his one where appropriate (some standard things like a definition or math notation will have to be identical anyhow).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Another thing is that in the current state this article is full of latex/display errors and can't stay this way anyhow. Since a redirect is the most likely result of this discussion it makes little sense to fix it. So I'd suggest if there's no objection to change this into a redirect right away. and the author of this article is welcome to incorporate the additional material into Möbius plane if he's interested.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and change it to a redirect. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- JBL, if you're going to merge articles, please do it right (see Help:Merge). There is content in this article that could be transferred to Möbius plane before merging. Also, it would be better etiquette to let the creator of this article respond before merging. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and change it to a redirect. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. Another thing is that in the current state this article is full of latex/display errors and can't stay this way anyhow. Since a redirect is the most likely result of this discussion it makes little sense to fix it. So I'd suggest if there's no objection to change this into a redirect right away. and the author of this article is welcome to incorporate the additional material into Möbius plane if he's interested.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Merge - the spelling Möbius plane is favored by WP:COMMONNAME: in Google Scholar, the search "moebius plane" -mobius gets 28 hits while "mobius plane" -moebius gets 159 (the lack of umlauts in many of the links is probably due to limitations of typography). Also, we have articles on Möbius strip, Möbius transformation, Möbius inversion formula, and of course August Ferdinand Möbius. There is no good reason to buck the trend. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed edit
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ehartmann/circlegeom.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)