From Wikisource

Proposed deletions

Shortcut: WS:DEL WS:PD

This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Possible copyright violations. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

[edit] Nominations

Please place your request in a level 2 header at the bottom of this page.

[edit] Category:Acts of the Parliament of the Province of Canada

Category:Acts of the Parliament of the Province of Canada was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that "Orphan category has been replaced". Upon checking that this category really is redundant to another, I found that its parent category contains the following categories:

It seems that the first two of these are redundant to each other, and so are the last two. Clearly there should be two deletions here. But I take issue with the implication that the Country: Acts of Parliament form is preferable. Personally I much much prefer the Acts of Parliament of Country form. Therefore I am bringing this here as a contested speedy request. Which form should be deleted? Hesperian 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can people explain what they see as the benefits and weakenesses of the two means. Categories are not my strength. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What made the first one an easy nominee for speedy deletion is that it was both an orphan and wihtout content; it's also needlessly verbose. There is no doubt that the two should at least be merged in some way. The same goes for #3 and #4. #3 is the smaller category, but its contents seem to give more weight to regnal years than calendar years. As I've stated before in relation to the U.S. Code, this is not just a simple matter of a deletion discussion; if one or two categories happen to be wrongly deleted it's no big deal to reconstruct later. My preferred categories for these would be "Law - Canada - Acts" and "Law - Canada (Province) - Acts", though even I have reservations about the best punctuation scheme. Law may be one of the most difficult areas to categorize, and it comes as no surprise that the Library of Congress's "K" Class was the last to be organized — long after all the others had been settled. Thus, I maintain my support for serious consideration at Portal talk:Law. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd merge them all into #3. (Full disclosure, I'm Canadian, omg!) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Jung.} 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, delete 2 and 4. They look weird. Jude (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 1/2/4 → 3 as per Sherurcij. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's not appropriate since Canada and w:Province of Canada are distinct historical entities. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be worth treating this as two distinct proposals: the proposal to use a prose title rather than a colon-separated hierarchical one, which appears to have fairly strong support; and the proposal to merge Canada categories with Province of Canada categories, which, since I am inclined to agree with Eclecticology, appears to be split right down the middle. Hesperian 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I created all of these catagories, but I'm not attached to any of them. 2 and 4 were an attempt to make 1 and 3 less verbose (especially 1): #3 could be shortened to "Acts of the Canadian Parliament, but how do you shorten #2? To be honest, I prefer Eclecticology's suggestion of "Law - Canada - Acts" and "Law - Canada (Province) - Acts", though I prefer the ":" to the "-", and I don't necessarily see "Law" as being the base category. The same structure can be used for Proclamations, Orders-in-Council, etc. Not so with a prose title. Canada and the Province of Canada (and the original French colony of Canada) are distinct political entities and so should have seperate categories.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you about the ":", especially in the first occurrence in those categories. My first inclination was for an m-dash, but not having this available as a single keystroke was problematic. I experimented a little with the hyphen at Category:Law - Thailand, but soon realized how easy it is to forget the proper spacing; that would be unwelcome to newbies. Having "Law" as a base category, or deciding on any base categories requires a serious look at where the entire category structure is going. It is akin to the way we shelve books in a library in the most efficient fashion. In a library I think we would want all the law books together. The law books about one country are most useful when they are beside the law books of other countries, not when they are filed with unrelated books about the same country. I will save my general concerns for how we use the Wikisource: namespace for some other time, but we now have Wikisource:Canadian Proclamations beside Wikisource:Canadian poetry, and I don't think that that is the best way to put these things. For that matter, the term "proclamation" may not mean anything except to someone who has already visited that page. I think that category structures need to be predictable: a newcomer should be able to find his way with a minimum of effort; one familiar with the laws of one country should be able to easily find his way through the laws of another country. Categories should be expandable when that becomes necessary. If there is only a few articles in "Law:Niger" that is enough for the moment, but as the number of articles increases we should have predictable ways of expanding this. For a country like Canada, where we already have a substantial corpus, it should be quite OK for a newcomer to place an article in the branch Category:Law:Canada; someone can always move it to a smaller limb later. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary It would seem that there is a consensus for merging and coming out with two categories (Canada + Province of Category), however, there is a split on the style of categories, prose vs colon separated. REQUIREMENT to resolve style. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Thus again, it comes down to a question that is better considered somewhere other than in a deletion discussion. Categories are tools; they are not the primary contents of Wikisource. The question of whether the broad topic (such as law) or the geographical entity should be the primary categoriser is a difficult one with profound effects. Guided by standard works such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings I find that for most areas of knowledge the topic takes precedence. History and geography are the most notable exceptions. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon prose titles eliminate this issue of what is the "primary categoriser". The topic is primary in "~~Canada:Law~~Law:Canada"; the country is primary in "~~Law:Canada~~Canada:Law"; but the prose title admits no such discussion. Sure, you can still argue over whether "Law of Canada" is better than "Canadian law", but that is a discussion of grammar and style, not primacy. Hesperian 06:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you have exactly reversed which is primary; I envisioned the first mentioned to be primary. Prose titles tend to obscure rather than eliminate the issue of primacy; we can still argue that "Law of Canada" makes law primary, and that "Canadian law" puts the emphasis on Canada. A similar problem will arise when we try to distinguish between "Contract law" and "Law of contracts". In a hierarchical system we should be able to browse the category list in an orderly manner to get where we want. Thus "Law:Canada" will come before "Law:Chile" and "Law:Canada, contracts" (or "Law:Canada/contracts" or "Law:Canada:Contracts) should come between those two. A well hierarchised system will allow for further subdivision without the necessity of going back to alter higher category levels. A sort of collective wisdom has accumulated over the years in library systems; I think we should take full advantage of that. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The category system is hierarchical by its very nature. The colon convention does not impose a hierarchy; it creates a mapping between alphanumerical order and hierarchical order, so that putting things in alphanumerical order reveals the hierarchy. But the hierarchy is there regardless of whether you can see it in an alphanumerically sorted list. I put it to you that your "collective wisdom" of libraries evolved in a time before computers, when mapping the topic hierarchy onto alphanumerical order was crucial for effective indexing and access.
I really think your "we can still argue that 'Law of Canada' makes law primary" argument is invalid; of course you can argue it, but is there any truth in it? Would I be taken seriously if I walked up to a Canadian law professor and said "I've been listening to you and I can tell that you put your profession before your country because you prefer the phrase law of Canada to the phrase Canadian law"? Hesperian 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A category system is indeed hierarchical, but only becomes hierarchical after some kind of order has been applied to a collection of ad hoc categories. A colon convention (or one using other symbols as well, or some other alphanumeric system, and I'm not even raising the matter of classification systems such as Dewey et al.) may indeed serve to reveal an existing hierarchy, but a lack thereof cannot logically be used to infer that a hierarchy exists. We cannot know that a hierarchy exists until we can describe it; it does not exist axiomatically, nor can one safely assume that it does. So what if a collective wisdom evolved before computers! How do computers invalidate that wisdom? What have the computerphiles done to improve upon it? How is my argument about variant prose categories any more or less "truth"ful than your dismissive argument that it is mere style or grammar? Choosing between "Law:Canada" and "Law of Canada" is far more a matter of stylistics between the use of a colon and "of". "Truth" has nothing to do with it.
Your inquisitorial posturing before the law professor should probably not be taken seriously because it sets up a false dichotomy. We are, I believe still talking about categories? Turning this into a choice between the rule of law and chauvinism is unwarranted. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand most of the above. What I do understand is that we impose hierarchy by putting the "law of Canada" category (whatever it be named) into categories "Law" and "Canada".
I think this may come down to the distinction between nomenclature (what things are called) and taxonomy (how things are organised). We have a perfectly workable taxonomic system (i.e. categories) and therefore have no need to co-opt our nomenclature for that purpose. We are free to call things whatever we want, because we have some other, superior, way of defining our taxonomy.

It is universally accepted by those who study w:formal concept analysis that ontological taxonomies like what we are faced with here cannot by modelled using a w:tree structure; what is required is something more powerful, namely a w:lattice (order). Well, guess what? Our category system is a lattice, and your put-a-colon-in-the-name approach is a tree. This is fundamentally why the "Law:Canada" versus "Canada:Law" problem arises when you co-opt nomenclature in this way, and why it doesn't arise when we define our taxonomy through our category system, and keep our names for naming.

Hesperian 05:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem with the category system isn't so much whether it is arranged as a "tree" or as a "latice", it is that, having grown organically, it is "inconsistant". This makes it difficult to navigate to find the sub-catagory you want, as different people organize things in different ways. It's not so much a problem here, but it is on the larger projects (and will be as this project grows, unless steps are taken). My preference would be a (mostly) "non-hierarchical" category system - documents are place in multiple simple "base" catagories rather than the appropriate sub-catagory(s), though this would likely require improvements in the search. Documents would not be placed in catagory "Canadian Acts of Parliament, 1986" (subcatagory of "Canadian Acts of Parliament", subcatagory of "Law of Canada", subcatagory of "Law" and "Canada"), but would be placed in catagories "Canada", "Act", and "1986" (or similar), and a catagory search of with these would bring up all documents which would have been in "Canadian Acts of Parliament, 1986" (or "Law:Canada - Acts, 1986", or "Canada:Law:Acts:1986", or whatever). Heirarchy could come in by making "Acts" a subcatagory of "Law", so that a search for "Canada" "Law" "1986" would bring up "Acts" as well as other instruments, case law, etc. Advantages include easier maintenance (no or less heirarchy to organise/maintain) and easier to find documents (don't get hidden on some obsure/oddly chosen branch of the tree). Disadvantage is that that it becomes useless to browse individual catagories due to the number of documents in them.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We largely agree?? What you call a "category search" is a search through a multidimensional lattice. For that to work depends on having search software that can cope effectively with the process that you describe. It also requires a judicious choice of basic categories lest it become just as muddled as our present ad-hoc collection of categories. The tree and lattice approaches address different constituencies in the same way that in traditional libraries one can find books either by looking in a card catalog or by browsing the shelves. These experiences are qualitatively different. Why not have both? They should complement each other. Categories are still easier to maintain than the list pages in the Wikisource: namespace, the latter being more suited to want lists. The inconsistencies of idiosyncratic categorization are a gradually growing problem, and the work needed to fix is gradually becoming more onerous. Ideas that made sense when they were first applied outlive their usefulness, but there is often a marked unwillingness to stand back and view familiar categories in a larger context. Attempts to bring about reforms of this kind of thing encounters defenders of the status quo. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether you're deciding to put "Law of Canada" into categories "Law" and "Canada", or deciding to name your Law of Canada category "Law:Canada" rather than "Canada:Law", you are making decisions about names and structure. Both system rely equally upon "a judicious choice of basic categories"; both are equally prone to "ad hoc" structures; both are equally vulnerable to "the inconsistencies of idiosyncratic categorization". You're presenting your colon convention as a magic bullet which will solve all the ills of our current system. In fact it is vulnerable to all the same ills, plus it creates a whole new set of problems viz "Law:Canada" versus "Canada:Law". And if that isn't bad enough, you'd have to get it right first time, because recategorisation under your colon convention is non-trivial—it requires a category rename, and at present that is not supported by MediaWiki. A bad idea is a bad idea, and you can't make it good simply by banging on about bringing "reform" in the face of obstructionist "defenders of the status quo." Hesperian 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the first one to speak of "magic bullets", so I fail to see your basis for imputing such motives on anyone else. The "colon convention" is not my new invention, nor am I wed to any particular punctuation in that regard. I am quite willing to draw upon the accumulated wisdom of librarians, who took many years to hammer out their ideas, and others in developing working categorizations and to engage in discussions in the course of development. I like to avoid being tainted by your desire to "get it right the first time"; the system may need to be reworked several times—so what? I don't adhere to the fallacy that by getting it right the first time we will conveniently be able to avoid talking about something ever again. You seem to forget that it is searching in your lattice that is not supported by MediaWiki; that is not the case with a hierarchical system. If categories need to be renamed, that's no big deal. Consensus-building is about finding common ground; it requires presenting constructive alternatives and not just a piling on of negativity. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki searches categories. Hesperian 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles, and possibly drifting slowly away from the topic. Time, I think, to summarise our positions and refocus. Here goes:

The fundamental difference between a lattice and a tree is that lattice nodes may have multiple parents, whereas tree nodes may only have one. In a lattice-based taxonomy, such as the Mediawiki category system, a category for Canadian law could have both Canada and Law as parents; but in a tree-based category system such as the proposed system of hierarchical naming, a category can only have one parent. You have to choose between "Law:Canada" and "Canada:Law". This is not merely an extra design decision to be made; it is a fatal flaw. You have argued that we should be able to browse the category list in an orderly manner to get where we want. Thus "Law:Canada" will come before "Law:Chile"; but one might just as well argue that "Canada:Law" should come between "Canada:History" and "Canada:Sport". By adopting a tree-based system, we will be forced to make myriad decisions like this, decisions that are undesirable and ought to be unnecessary. Furthermore any decision that is made must be made consistently. If, in far-flung corners of Wikisource, different editors begin building hierarchies rooted at Sport and Mexico respectively, then the moment someone has to create a category for Mexican sport, a decision must be made whether to name it "Sport:Mexico" or "Mexico:Sport", and either way vast numbers of categories must be renamed in order to maintain a semblance of order.

I cannot see any concrete suggestions as to how Wikisource would benefit from the proposed system. I see claims that the two are complementary and "qualitatively different", but the argument behind that claim is built solely upon analogy with categories versus lists, and looking up a card catalogue versus browsing the shelves. Suggestions that the proposal would result in a taxonomy that is less "ad hoc"/"injudicious"/"idiosyncratic" have not been supported by any argument, and have, I believe, been refuted.

My position is that we already have an excellent taxonomic system in the Mediawiki category system, and that we will gain nothing whatsoever by coopting our names in order to overlay our taxonomic system with another, redundant and inferior, one. The proposed system offers no apparent benefits, and would, I believe, create vast maintenance headaches.

Hesperian 01:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One person's rhetorical declaration that a concept has been refuted does not make it so. Nor does your personal failure to see any benefits imply inferiority, nor is there any value to FUD about maintenance headaches. You would do as well standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier to declare victory; that would still not justify your cause.

The categories-versus-lists debate is an entirely different matter. It is between a top-down a priori list system, and a bottom-up a posteriori category system. Both have their places.

There may indeed be redundancy between the two approaches, as there would also be if further approaches were introduced. Redundancy can be a good thing. Multiple systems increase the chances that more people will be able to find what they are looking for. How is your series in Category:Wikisource species index pages significantly different from what I am trying to do here with law? At least I would have kept those pages to the genus level until there was enough there to warrant expansion.

Not all proposed systems will survive, but if they are to fail they should do so of their own accord, not just because some individual can argue more loudly against them. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"How is your series in Category:Wikisource species index pages significantly different from what I am trying to do here with law." Um, we're talking about a hierarchical naming convention for categories?

Yes, classical taxonomic systems in biology are clearly hierarchical, and modern cladistics even more so. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; they're even tree-based. But the topic of this discussion is your proposal to co-opt category naming in order to superimpose a redundant and insufficiently expressive taxonomy on top of the taxonomy we already have. My series in Category:Wikisource species index pages does not do that; it does nothing even remotely like that. In terms of the topic we are discussing here, these two examples are more than "significantly different"; they are poles apart. Hesperian 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny the redundancy, but "co-opt" and "insufficiently expressive" are your characterizations. I don't object to your hierarchical presentation of species; it certainly supports the necessary redundancy. Just because biology and law are poles apart does not negate parallel developments. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Multiple systems increase the chances that more people will be able to find what they are looking for." I disagree. I think it is much easier to find what you're looking for in a single coherent system than in multiple redundant contradictory systems.

How so? Different people look for things in different ways; students learn in different ways. Your system works for you, and that's fine; someone else finds that another system works better for him, and that's fine too. It is illogical to generalize that into the belief that it will work equally well for everyone. It used to be said that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States, and that's now a bankrupt extrapolation. Redundancy need not imply contradictory. In some systems such as law it can be problematic, but in others, notably where safety is a factor, it becomes a fail safe device. What evidence, other than your personal experience, is there that that your approach is so much better? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not all proposed systems will survive, but if they are to fail they should do so of their own accord". You seem to be saying that every proposal has the right to be implemented. On that basis, I propose we use non-hierarchical prose names for our categories, exclusively. Is that the end of this discussion?

It's not the end of the discussion if you want to insist on the word "exclusively," because that would make it equally valid for a contrary proposal to be used exclusively. I would say more that every broadly reasonable proposal has the right to be tried. Full scale implementation is only possible if more people are willing to make use of the proposal. Something has failed of its own accord only when no-one is using the technique any longer ... not even its inventor. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that definition; but in my opinion, your proposal is not "broadly reasonable". Anything and everything that can be expressed using your colon convention can already be expressed in our category hierarchy. Therefore anything expressed using your colon convention is either redundant to or contradictory to our present category system. Meanwhile, there are an infinitude of basic relationships that are routinely expressed in our category system, that cannot be handled by your colon convention; e.g. the trivial fact that "Law of Canada" is a subtopic of both "Law" and "Canada". As far as I can tell, your colon convention is utterly without merit, and therefore a proposal to implement it cannot be considered reasonable. Hesperian 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When did it become "my" colon convention, as you have intimated four times in that short paragraph? I began with suggesting a spaced hyphen, and readily agreed when someone else expressed a preference for a colon. Something is "broadly reasonable" if it can have some kind of sane rationale attached to it, and is not destructive of others' efforts. A denial of broad reasonability in reference to one's own opinion does not imply that it is so outside of the framework of that opinion. Nobody is disputing that "Law of Canada" is not a proper hierarchical branching of both "Law" and "Canada", but that does not justify the gratuitous dismissal of alternative treatments as "utterly without merit." Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing your last four or five posts on this topic, I perceive a distinct trend away from discussing the topic, towards discrediting me and my motives: "inquisitorial posturing", "a marked unwillingness to stand back and view familiar categories in a larger context", "inability to step back and look at things in a broader context.", "computerese mentality", "never anything more than inertia", "defenders of the status quo", "piling on of negativity", "FUD", "some individual can argue more loudly". Frankly, it is starting to piss me off. If you have an argument, present it, as I have been doing.

Hesperian 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious that I have stayed on topic throughout this discussion; if you want indulge in some perception that you have been personally discredited that is your privilege; I have no desire for such ad hominem games. Each of the quoted snippets came within a specific context in response to a specific position, nothing more nothing less. I have been presenting my arguments all along so I can only assume that your closing statement was a rhetorical claim of victory to make Schopenhauer proud. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Preference for Hesp's proposal, the hierarchical naming seems unnecessary and inflexible. billinghurst (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1901-1903 — Reforming the Army

Seeking opinions on what should happen to the above page, which is not a work. Either move it to Wikisource: namespace or possibly merged to another US page, if there is the appropriate page available. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Reserve judgement.~~ Keep. It's not clear where User:CORNELIUSSEON is going with this. The actual material that he is adding certainly fits, but the organization leaves much to be desired. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to the project namespace, if only temporarily. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks vaguely like an author page; maybe move to author:US Army Center for Military History and reformat? -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is from a series of white papers on the subject used for the main article. Each of the sub-pages is a separate paper. I got side tracked into other things, but can finish the series.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If page seems to be subject matter, rather than an overarching work in its own right, it may be considering whether it is better sited the Wikisource: namespace. That is move 1901-1903 — Reforming the Army to Wikisource:1901-1903 — Reforming the Army -- billinghurst (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A possible principal criterion for that kind of decision is the origin of the organizational structure. If the structure is inherent in the work itself, including Tables of Contents for anthologies and periodicals it should remain in project namespace. If the structure is a pure wiki creation, it should be in the Wikisource: namespace. If there is any general introductory or prefatory material to accompany the substantive pages, having it would help to clear this question. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original link:[1]

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

- Now that I think I understand what is going on (?) I can support keeping it where it is. The page reflects a specific project outlined by someone outside wikisource. The source should be referenced in the header, and the contents should faithfully reproduce what the source says about its project. The four interlanguage links should probably be removed since they are not about what this project would be in those languages. There are a few other relatively minor points, but I'll hold off for now to avoid creating confusion. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO it was a keep, though as a project it should be in the Wikisource: namespace, not listed as a work. I still think that it should be moved to that namespace, and I haven't seen any argument to have me differ from that POV. [Part of the issue is that we don't have a identified forum for such discussions] billinghurst (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So then, what are the criteria for when such a page belongs in main or Wikisource: namespace? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] United States Code

Previous discussion here.

(And all its sub-pages. I didn't put {{delete}} on all of them because there are hundreds of them.)

It's not a static work. It is too dynamic and always changing. The policy, Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Evolving works, states, "…works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." And one example given of an evolving work is: "Compilations where there are many sources of a particular text, and/or the text is to be constantly updated as more relevant information is found and added…" I know that a lot of work went into creating these articles, and it's a shame to delete them. Nevertheless, if one goes to a particular section of the code here on Wikisource, it may not match up to the code as it exists at that moment in law.—Markles 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue was handled in the case of the CIA World Factbook by preserving a 2004 version of the work. Obviously the US Code is much bigger, but one possible way to make it fit the "evolving works" standard would be to save a complete copy (djvu? pdf? not sure if this is even possible) and work from that. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

jeez, keep. Emesee (talk • contribs)

Delete. Agree with Spangineer, if we keep that it should be a specific version that is identified for replication. The current hotchpotch is a little bit of a nightmare. billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think "a little bit of a nightmare" and "hodgepodge" are apt descriptions. It already overwhelms the nice folks at Cornell (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode), the Law Revision Council (law.house.gov) and others. I suggest avoiding it altogether, even specific snapshots, because freezing it in time has little-to-no value to our readers, especially in light of how much work it would be to get that snapshot edited into Wikisource. On Wikipedia, meanwhile, we've done a good job using Template:UnitedStatesCode which links to the Cornell version and that's fine.—Markles 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Partial keep Having worked with this stuff when I largely replaced Template:USC with Template:USCX, I agree that most of this material is unlikely to be added, and totally incapable of being maintained. I can't even imagine anyone trying to do anything about the Internal Revenue Code. A few select titles, notably Title 17 (Copyright), are of great interest to those who edit here, and maintenance is within the realm of possibility. Those few should be kept. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I can see some benefit, but even a great interest to a discerning audience is still not enough to overcome the accuracy problem of using evolving documents. I think does readers a disservice to send them to a document that might not be right.—Markles 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's possible to get a complete copy of Title 17 ([2]), for example, upload it as a djvu to Commons, and use it as the source text for that Title on that particular date. If someone is willing to put in the effort to add the content of that file to Wikisource, I'm not opposed, so long as the date of download is clearly marked in the header, and a more regularly updated version (i.e., the appropriate government website) is prominently linked. As for the current material, I don't see any way to verify it, so I'm inclined to say delete all and rebuild it (if anyone has the desire) from dated sources uploaded to commons. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete; it can be replaced with dated editions. Having done some work on it, I know very well that the current incomplete hodgepodge of various editions is a total mess. —Pathoschild 21:41:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I have to agree with the above. Trying to have the entire work up-to-date would require all of the energy of this project concentrated upon it, and even then, we still wouldn't necessarily be able to ensure complete accuracy. Keeping a few select, dated editions of significant titles is a good idea, however, especially in the instance of hte Copyright Act, which is very relevant to the rest of Wikisource. Jude (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on keeping Title 17 - I think even keeping part of the Code, particularly Title 17 pertaining to copyrights, increases the problem. We are directing readers to that title everytime a PD msg is put up. But if it's out-of-date then we're doing them a disservice. Just because it's important doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep an Evolving work, in violation of WS policy.—Markles 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I think that's a good argument for directing readers to an official site with every PD message instead of the wikisource version, which, as you say, may be out of date. Any copy kept by wikisource should be presented as a historical document, not as a current reference. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Then perhaps to the extent that any pages are kept they should also include a date and a link that may be followed for a more up-to-date version. Anyone would remain free to update the Wikisource pages. This should be the case for all statutory documents, not just the US Code. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      - Look at Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states in its header: "enacted July 2, 1964." It has since been amended many times (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964). Is that what you mean?—Markles 11:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        
        Yes and no. What I really had in mind was how we treat the laws of other countries; they have similar problems. (But see more below.) Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not keep as dated? Even if the law changes in the future, we can still maintain an accurate record of what the law was at a particular time, or from a particular range of dates. This is actually useful to the extent that, when an act is committed that is asserted to be unlawful, the law applied is that which existed on the date of the act, not on the date of adjudication of liability. BD2412 T 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the general consensus, but the text we have now is not dated; it's a hodgepodge of different sources and editions. —Pathoschild 20:11:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Viewing the issue here as a proposed deletion is entirely too simplistic; there are hundreds of (perhaps more than a thousand) articles involved. Some most certainly should be deleted. A better approach might be to take a wider look at how Wikisource handles the entirety of law as a subject matter, perhaps through a new Portal:Law. We might begin by looking at the difference between an "Act" and the "Code". Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good place to start looking at this. If you go ahead to Title I, that begins "Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), and as further amended by section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90), is further amended as follows:" The primary reference there leads us to section 1971 in Chapter 20 of Title 42. That chapter is not currently on Wikisource. The numbering of that Title goes up to Chapter 148, but in all that the only section we have directly is 263a in Chapter 6a relating to "Certification of laboratories" in Public health. The text of Acts should remain as produced; they may have been subsequently amended, but that would belong to some later Act. All Code sections here should have links to the relevant Cornell and/or government sites, and the header notes, in addition to stating how recent our content is, should advise the reader how to get more recent information. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How we handle a wholistic approach to dealing with replicating laws of 200 nations and subsidiary legislatures, add in the UN, WTO, etc. is a necessary discussion, though, I don't think that is the forum. One needs to understand the differences in another countries legislative frameworks and associated jargon. I am happy with the key point of not replicating a dynamic work, and looking at specific snapshots; while the discussion on the development of how to do it, I believe belongs elsewhere, and needs consideration, and NOT just from a US viewpoint. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that codes can be different from statutes, but we also run into problems that certain codes are written at a specific time themselves and then later amended. Take, for example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.—Markles 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me add, also, that Wikisource shouldn't be a legal reference. Woe to them who use it as such.—Markles 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as we know it today is really an alternative name for Title 26 of the US Code. It replaced the IRC of 1954, which in turn replaced the IRC of 1939. PL 99-514, with the short title, "Tax Reform Act of 1986" was the specific statute that implemented this. We have only a few scattered sections of this, and the Cornell site itself states that 1176 updates remain to be integrated. Anybody who believes that we can maintain this Title needs being struck with a big clue-bot, and our few scattered section are likely good candidates for deletion. I also agree that the Wikisource pages should not be used as a legal reference in a real case, but they can be a useful launching point for someone's legal research. This distinctly parallels the situation where Wikipedia articles should not be used as references for student papers.

What it comes down to is that the holistic discussion should take place before any massive deletion campaign. That discussion will better inform any deletion process, and allow anything salvageable to be saved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturally the discussion should take place, however, the deletion forum isn't that place IMNSHO. We are talking about a structured component of WS, so that requires the opportunity for a full community, presumably WS:S. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Billinghurst (talk • contribs) has a good point, WS:S might be a better place to have a greater in-depth discussion about this issue with the wider community. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep title 17, at least. A few points, some of which have been made above:
- Title 17 is directly pertinent to, at a minimum, WS:WWI and WS:COPY, and is frequently referenced in discussions at WS:S and WS:COPYVIO. In other words, it has value as a ready (and linkable) reference for this project itself, irrespective of its additional value as another source text within our library.
- Title 17 is also referenced on (and linked from) en.wp and en.wb, several legal blogs, and probably other projects also. We are talking about breaking a lot of people’s links.
- Many of the items in Category:United States copyright cases construe (and link to) the provisions of Title 17. Contrary to the suggestion that our copy of Title 17 isn’t a reference source, it’s entirely feasible to use it as such. Just look up a provision that interests you (say, § 107) and click “what links here”: Presto, a list of cases applying that provision of the statute. That the listing is incomplete (because fewer than all cases are online here) is no reason to delete the underlying text of the statute; WS doesn’t hold itself out as comprehensive and nobody has suggested deleting other very large but incomplete projects.
- It doesn’t change that often. The last meaningful amendments to Title 17 were the additions of Chapters 12 and 13, eleven years ago. Year-to-year ferment in the Code may be a reason to delete some parts of it (at least, until somebody gets around to writing the scripts that would be necessary to keep our version synced with the official one), but carries little force as a reason to delete Title 17.
Should a consensus emerge to delete the Code in its entirety, I would hope that implementation of that decision could be delayed long enough to permit an upload of a djvu of the most recent published version of the Code and a migration of the text to the Page: namespace. In the most recent published version of the Code (2006), Title 17 is fewer than 200 pages, well within our capacity to handle. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarmstro? How did you envisage that this document should be handled, as static or dynamic? If static, then which date were you going to settle upon? If multiple dates, how are you proposing to differentiate? Does it (legislation) require a disclaimer that it is of a date, rather than necessarily current? -- billinghurst (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All pages hosting modern laws should have such a disclaimer. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As they generally do. We could record comparable information on the {{textinfo}} box. My slight preference, although I’m not trying to dictate policy, would be for us to host the most recent (current) version of the code, a document which naturally will evolve over time (albeit much more slowly, at least as far as Title 17 is concerned, than people seem to be assuming). Once our version gets synced up with subsequent amendments to the statute, former versions of the text will remain accessible in the edit history: in an ideal world, you could step back and see the law as it existed a year ago by examining our copy of the page from a year ago. At least, that is how I’d prefer to see our copy of Title 17 evolve; others may (and probably do) have perfectly valid contrary opinions. Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I think this is more of a Scriptorum issue then here; it's too large. I have no problem keeping static copies of the laws. In response to Tarmstro99, right above (13:56 04/22/09), if you want to do the 2006 published edition of the laws, or just Title 17, I'm happy with that. I think that's strongly in our mandate. However, I think each page should be static; if a law is updated on the 1st of June, and then on the 15th of November, 2009, and we're trying to follow the laws, then we should have Title 17 xxx (1 June, 2009) and Title 17 xxx (15 November, 2009). The edit history isn't to track the evolution of the text, it's to track the evolution towards perfection in the text itself and the changes in the various notes we put around the text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let me emphasize for clarity; I encourage the keeping of these texts as static texts, especially if we're matching a published edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Keeping a static edition of each title isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it could rapidly spiral out of our own control in attempting to keep them up-to-date (or the post the more 'recent' version). It would still be a massive project and undertaking, possibly more than just keeping it up to date. I wouldn't oppose this suggestion is someone were willing to implement it and see it through. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    - This is a project for all published writing in the English language; that dwarfs any tiny subset of it, like the US Codes. We have too many in-progress projects here for me to worry about one more.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the importance of Title 17 - Is it important to the readers or to the editors who have an understandable interest in copyright law because of the nature of Wikimedia? Many of the statutes in Wikisource are amendments to Title 17, but those represent a small minority of all statutes enacted. Title 17 is no more special than Title 18 (crimes) or Title 42 (Public Health - which is the largest title by far). TItle 17 may be less dynamic than some others, but what's the reason to keep it in Wikisource? Does it further WS's mission? Why not just link to Cornell or law.house.gov, where they have non-profit/government professionals who keep it up-to-date better than we ever could? —Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment on appropriateness of discussion here vs. Scriptorium - As the proponent of this deletion, I have learned a lot about this subject. I will concede that this should get a review at WS:S before any action taken.—Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be best merely to make an announcement on the Scriptorium and direct people here to involve them in the discussion. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! See WS:S#Large deletion proposal of United States Code.—Markles 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. If the United States Code is to be deleted, then I could also propose deleting the laws of the Republic of China because the Legislative Yuan now in Taipei, Taiwan amends these laws more frequently than Communist China and I cannot always maintain the English translation as I am already so busy on Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- "If delete A, then delete B." Why does that mean "Keep"?—Markles 18:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I consider the laws of the Republic of China evolving works like the United States Code. To keep the United States Code, we need a uniform governmental source to get the text including revision history. Otherwise, maintaining is so hard. English translations of the Republic of China also have the major problem about evolving changes, but I am reluctant to have them deleted, though I stop posting more for now.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think we should move the pages to a static dated version and replace them with disambiguation page offering whatever static pages we have (which presumably will grow) as well as a link to more reliably updated source. Deleting alone is a poor option, who knows what sort of incoming links we have.--BirgitteSB 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Myself, I don't think networking disadvantage should ever come between site policy. While your idea has merit, precious little should preclude action in any circumstance if it's required by policy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisting to gain proper consensus.

The current consensus appears to be that we keep some acts/titles as dated, "stable" copies, with external links to an up-to-date copy. The question merely remains is: Which titles do we wish to keep static copies of, and which titles should be deleted?. Jude (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem remains that the proposal is too big and has too many pages for a simple deletion discussion. To start with for the short to medium term I would keep the main page for the code, and for each of the Titles in the code until each can be given its proper consideration in separate discussions. These are also helpful to the reader who just wants a broad idea of how these things are organized. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep, no way. United States Code/Title 17 is an example of what we can do. In time, people will give similar special treatment to the other parts of this work. Rome was not built in a day. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point being made is that, currently, the USC is languishing with nobody giving special treatment to other parts of the work. There are parts of the code that are impossible to keep up to date--and there are parts of the code that we're currently hosting which are massively out of date. United States Code/Title 17 might be (and indeed, is) a brilliant example, but what of the rest of it? Jude (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once we are finished title 17, we will focus on the others. Title 2 and 44 are ones I would like to do. I am sure that Title 10 would be done quickly if we grabbed some of the MilHistory project. Deleting these pages destroys a lot of the infrastructure which has been started. e.g. United States Code/Title 15/Chapter 7A is probably the only good page of Title 15, but it helps set up cross links. ala w:WP:BTW. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The point about the infrastructure is important. Proposing the deletion of many of these pages is tantamount to saying that we should delete the Encyclopædia Britannica pages because we haven't been able to complete the whole thing quickly enough. Yes, there are parts, such as the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), that are probably impossible to maintain, and these may never be done, but that's normal for such an immense project. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion—I've already explained why all these titles should be deleted (with the exception of Title 17 and the existing hierarchy pages); it boils down to a) we shouldn't show inaccurate material to our readers, b) much of our material is out-of-date, and c) it's just as easy to recreate the material as update it. However, here's a potential compromise—what if on each US Code page we hide the text, as we do for possible copyright violations or long discussions, and add a template saying something like "This content may be out of date. Please see <external link> for an up-to-date version. You may also [[show]] Wikisource's text." Once a user recopies the text and date-stamps it, the text is no longer hidden and a different template is used instead, saying, "This material was accurate as of <date>. Updates since then may be reflected at <external link>." --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind actively discouraging people from using our texts where they are out of date. In most cases, we have a link to Cornell at the top. We could make that more prominent. But most of our pages are empty - they are a structure waiting to be filled. I've added text quality links for the first 17 chapters. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Spangineer's three criteria appear to make sense at first glance; however:

(a) The fundamental premise is sound, but rather than simply removing the inaccurate material, it is more constructive to express the extent of our doubts. By demanding perfection from the beginning, we can never attain it.

(b) Of course most of it is out of date. We hide possible copyright violations because of the legal implications that are not a part of this matter. That first part of the suggested compromise can probably be bypassed, and it will be enough to go directly to the second.

(c) The major failing of this view is that people don't recreate things when they don't know that they need to be recreated. Newbies who are running around looking for something to do won't touch it if they don't have a framework to work from. Most of us are unlikely to have any interest in agriculture whatsoever, but if someone comes along with a keen interest in Title 7, that little bit of structure may be all the encouragement that he needs.

The Cornell links could be a little more detailed so that they go directly to the referenced provision. The quality links on the head USC page are a good beginning toward making sense of this material from the top. I have two suggestions here: 1. The 0% template should show a symbol of some kind; this would distinguish between really having nothing and simply not having yet considered that provision. 2. The 25% template could have an optional parameter showing the degree of progress. Thus "2/63" would indicate that we host bits from two of the 63 chapters in that title. The parameter doesn't need to be super accurate since its purpose is only to give a rough idea of how far that title has progressed. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with keeping "structure" pages that don't have any text on them or contain only a framework. I'm against showing out-of-date text to readers without a clear and easily noticed warning. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then we're not as far apart as it first seemed. We agree about warnings. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I/Section 63. Are the notes there what you were thinking of? By all means let us know if this can be improved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the note a bit, but overall it looks fine to me. The notes on all these pages might be better handled with a template, so that the key information is always in the same place. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes. The template would presumably be inserted in the "Notes" section. What would it include? So far I see currency date, unconsolidated amendments, and proofread date. I would suggest that the 75% template should not be allowed on a statutory provision until these notes have been completed, but I don't know if that is technically feasible. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USC

If United States Code is deleted (see above), then this template should be deleted, too.—Markles 10:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikisource:WikiProject US Code for other considerations. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:United States federal law designating federal buildings

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: merged as proposed billinghurst (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two proposals:

Rename

Propose rename to Category:United States federal law designating federal property. Reason: to include roads, routes, whatever else.—Markles 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In principle I don't disagree with what you are trying to do, but (a) I don't see this as really being a deletion discussion, (b) we need to back up a bit over the matter of Law, its various sub-categories, and how they might generally be structured, and (c) there is great benefit to avoiding excessive verbosity in the naming of categories. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- My purpose in this, as in the suggestions below, is to group all of these statutes under one category to avoid excessive overcategorization.—Markles 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  - No problem with this. There are a lot of relatively trivial laws whose sole purpose is to name something. (It is perhaps to the benefit of congressmen that they don't need to assert Wikipedia notability for these bills, and thus rise above "nn delete". :-)). Following up on my point (a) above, I would continue this at Portal talk:Law. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Upmerge

Propose upmerge of:

to:

Category:United States federal law designating federal buildings. (or it's new name by the other proposal, "… federal property")

Reason: Some federal buildings have post offices, custom houses, courts, other agencies, and many combine them. Differentiating one purpose from another isn't really necessary here on wikisource. Let's just collect them all as "federal buildings.—Markles 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:United States federal law designating post office buildings

See discussion, above.—Markles 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:United States federal law designating courthouse buildings

See discussion, above.—Markles 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on categories for Acts naming government buildings can probably be split off from the rest. Because these are laws for one-off situations, I don't believe that they are normally included in the Code. This should be a relatively easy aspect of the problem. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolve, please

This is ready for resolution. Can someone please delete the now-empty categories:

Thank you. —Markles 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Go, Mississippi

This was deleted at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2006/11#Author:Houston Davis

The copyright details of this song have been documented by yours truly at w:Go, Mississippi and w:Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Subsection.2C_lyrics. I have uploaded a poor quality set of pagescans 1 and 2.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, our page Go, Mississippi and Author:Houston Davis attribute it to a different person (similar name, different date of birth and death).

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

John, I am not sure what you are indicating. It should not have been deleted? -- billinghurst (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's requesting the restoration of this page, but I could be mistaken...? Jude (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry I didnt make that more clear. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apuse

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Transwiki to www.wikisource.org billinghurst (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The words to a non-English language song. I would suggest that it be considered for transwiki to www.wikisource.org -- billinghurst (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki – open-and-shut case here. Non-English. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we transwiki it without at least putting a year and author to it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will someone with the requisite permissions please transwiki billinghurst (talk)

Delete. No permissions are needed to transwiki. Nevertheless, the language should be identified before it is copied over to old Wikisource, lest it just be speedily deleted there. Papua-New Guinea has numerous regional languages. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't fit oldWS's remit, we can just delete here. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:US bills concerning NASA

Only one article in it which is better suited for other categories.—Markles 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The category is too narrow at this time; but that doesn't preclude its reintroduction in proper future circumstances. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. "Delete, without prejudice." :) —Markles 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Somewhat ambivalent, however, following Ec's reasoning, and after two years of creation that seems sufficient to gain momentum. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Category:Acts of the Parliament of the Province of Canada

[edit] 1901-1903 — Reforming the Army

[edit] United States Code

[edit] Template:USC

[edit] Category:United States federal law designating federal buildings

Rename

Upmerge

Category:United States federal law designating post office buildings

Category:United States federal law designating courthouse buildings

Resolve, please

[edit] Go, Mississippi

[edit] Apuse

[edit] Category:US bills concerning NASA

Views

Personal tools

Search

Navigation

Toolbox

Create a book

In other languages