Talk:List of Dewey Decimal classes

Copyright issue?

Is this list a copyvio? Is this a trademark violation? Is Wikipedia at risk? See:

• Dewey Decimal Classification#Ownership
• Hotel Sued for Using Dewey Decimal System.
• How Dewey Classify OCLC's Lawsuit

Since the article includes live links, Wikipedia is actually using the Dewey as a classification system, something which the copyright owner requires websites to purchase a license for:

• May I use the DDC to organize information on my Web site?

I'm just pointing these things out because I noticed them, and I'm interested in learning what others know about this issue. The Transhumanist 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System. --Quiddity 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

From the main Dewey article's talk page:

Copyvio?

Is the list in the article (which might be better on a seperate list page) a possible violation of a database copyright (as the article itself says copyright is claimed on the system)? I think it could be fair use as it is difficult to talk about DDC in an encyclopedia without including a copy of the system. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OCLC has a PDF on its web site that gives the DDC numbers for the first 3 digits of DDC. In their contract, they say that libraries can display the first 3 digits to the public, but no more. So I think this is the allowed portion and therefore there isn't a problem. LaMona 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "OCLC has a PDF on its web site." What the URL of the PDF and of the contract? Is the OCLC the copyright owner and able to release some of all of the data under a less restrictive license?

At some point the OCLC people implemented http://dewey.info which allows for a drill-down past the first three digits and is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0. Again it's not clear if the OCLC is the copyright holder and is allowed to do this. It's still not a full public domain release meaning we can't use that data on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Contents

Since this page is linked from Portal:Contents, shouldn't we link each class to a Wikipedia category? --Nemo bis (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:Avoid self-references. Specifically, this page is an outlier for inclusion in the Portal:Contents list, and quite different from the pages like Portal:Contents/Categorical index. Hopethathelps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a list an not an outline?

To have a full list is copyvio. This article is similar to Outline of Buddhism, etc. Shii (tock) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think this list is a copyvio? If the article is a copyvio as a list, changing the name wont help. The outline project doesn't have consensus for its activities (see WP:OUTLINE), and this article was originally a list. As it was a contentious move without consensus it has been reverted while discussion takes place. Verbal chat 08:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the move from "Outline of" to "List of" - this has been called Outline of Dewey Decimal classes since last April! Moving it back so many months later without consensus is disruptive. The Transhumanist 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CDS

Does the article use the right names? The pdf link seems to say that in e.g. 654. 6 is the class #, 5 the division #, and 4 is the section #; ten classes, hundred divisions, thousand sections. Tsinfandel (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called

A discussion is underway that may affect the name of this article.

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?

The Transhumanist 04:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this outline be in Wikipedia?

Given that there is an [online version] of DDC that can be browsed, does it really make sense to have this list hard-coded in Wikipedia? Note that it is using DDC ed. 22, when DDC is now at ed. 23. I understand that work has been done to link from this list (or outline) to the Wikipedia pages, but to me that is a different function than a list of the classes. If one wants to "classify" Wikipedia it should be clear that it is a classification of Wikipedia, not a DDC outline page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMona (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the general idea is that lists like this acts partially as a navigation page, similar to lists of lists. A few of the similar pages are Library of Congress Classification, Bliss bibliographic classification, Universal Decimal Classification, etc (see Category:Classification systems and Category:Library cataloging and classification for example), plus Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus (which for-reasons-i-forget was relegated to the project-namespace). There are various pros and cons to following the [idealistic vs rigorous vs pragmatic] options available. I'm not sure what the 'best' direction to move in, is.. :/ –Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ampersands

Is there a compelling reason for the ampersands in this list not to be spelled out as per MOS:AMP? I can understand not spelling out ampersands used in trademarks (e.g. Arm & Hammer), but a list of topics is something different. If the philosophy is that the official source text uses ampersands and so that usage should be carried over to this list, I respectfully disagree--the substance isn't being changed by spelling out "and" for "&".JDL (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)