Talk:Calcium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Result: The result is do not merge Calcium (diet) to Calcium. thetree284 (talk and edits) 18:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you want to know why Calcium (diet) is being merged here, click here. thetree284 (talk and edits) 17:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article has been requested to be merged. The first edit is my move to new page, which now that some time has passed I could see that (diet) belongs in normal Calcium, and the current article (there) could move to Calcium (mineral). Sorry, that is not relevant but I was thinking that.

The contents, when they were still in Calcium, took over the page and made it too large. Since then, 10,000 more words have been added. I think the calcium article should get larger though. Thanks. {

The article that has been rqd to be merged is 28,000 characters long currently. It is too large to not be its own article (but the part on this page about it, or info written in a more brief way, could be lacking). { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 20:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but you can shorten the Calcium (diet) page then add to the Calcium page. thetree284 (talk and edits) 22:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you want to bulk the Calcium#diet section (or any other section), then do that. It should have some text there for context and more info about the topic. Articles should not be made shorter, as in things can be split into their own article (with relevant links on the main page) for a deeper wiki. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary according to here and here, so I might merge Calcium (diet) page to this page. thetree284 (talk and edits) 22:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not it being a dictionary. 28,000 characters on the page for calcium (even though calcium (diet) might do better as calcium, the current going to calciium (mineral)) might be better, its narcisistic. The calcium article should be general, and if there are enough words to put in an article, or if the article is specific enough, then it deserves its own article.

I do not think you should merge it yet. If you do then I will undo the actions. The article for calcium cannot be all about dietary calcium, it is a mineral, rock, element.

the page that is rqd to be merged is now twice the length of the original article (before exporting it to another page), the original page now being more than double its original length, double the amount the export contained (after I padded the article) ;{ Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would vote for Calcium (diet) being Calcium and this calcium going to Calcium (mineral). "You can shorten the article" is not valid. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 22:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I mean, it is "I can shorten the article" because I was suppose to shorten the page (also because "I" is a first-person subject pronoun and "you" is a second-person subject or object pronoun). thetree284 (talk and edits) 23:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, this is about merging the page. You are talking about something different, and also crazy by the way. Shortening the article does not mean (I suppose cutting out a lot of content, which is new, and recently exported), to merge with where it was exported from. No.

Because this is a discussion, I am leaving it for the night, and other editors might join in. My opinion will not change but if you want other people to give their input, so that this can be decided, open it in the relevant space on simple.wikipedia to raise it with other editors or higher-ups. If you merge or "shorten" the article (which is not even complete) without further discussion, I will revert the edits. Thanks. { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 23:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, the current Calcium page is all about the properties of that element, so you may not want to move that page to Calcium (mineral), and I am not crazy because I revert vandalism (usually). thetree284 (talk and edits) 23:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I will not move or shorten the page yet, thanks. thetree284 (talk and edits) 23:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose moving calcium (diet) to calcium. Calcium (diet) is a subtopic of the chemical element calcium; the main page should be about the more general topic. Calcium (mineral) is inaccurate for every field other than nutrition; we do not have the element oxygen at oxygen (metal) just because it is a metal in astronomy.

It is better to keep the page separate and summarise it on the main element page. See English Wikipedia's en:calcium in biology and en:calcium supplement pages. Fishsicles (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strongly against a calcium (mineral) page. Calcium is a chemical element, not a mineral. Minerals are things that are found in nature as rocks or sediment. Calcium is too reactive to be a native element mineral (it can reduce silica! Calcium hydroxide can dissolve silica!)

Calcium in the diet is the same thing as calcium the element, just a different subtopic. If a merge would make the element page have too much about dietary calcium, the answer is to expand the other parts of the element page without shortening the merged section. Fishsicles (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requesting that you take the merge req headers off the articles. 03:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC) { Catcus DeMeowwy (talk) | User_talk:Catcus DeMeowwy 03:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply