Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-01

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Unused templates

Useful for text editing

  • Template:Portal
    • What are the chances of us getting a Portal namespace?--BirgitteSB 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If our portals get off the ground, I think very well, so we might want to consider keeping this one for the moment.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Is this supposed to be for footnotes? I don't think we need this.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This was discussed at the Scriptorium, I think we need to work out whether we want one or two distinct styles of footnote. GregRobson 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But nothing links to it. By all evidence, it seems that no one even knows that this template exists. It couldn't hurt to get rid of this since no one even knew it was around.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If no-one has relinked it then I have no objection in getting rid of it and it's counterpart Template:Refl GregRobson 08:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I use this template. Yann 21:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete. Not used here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --BirgitteSB 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I use it. Yann 21:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Useful for text editing

  • Template:AuthorsList or Template:Author index they used but are basically the same
    • We can consolidate these two templates into one using variables ({{NAMESPACE}} would do it).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Have we done this yet? I think it sound like a great idea.--BirgitteSB 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Does anyone care which one we delete? I was thinking we keep {{Author index}} since it was around first and make {{AuthorsList}} a redirect. That should fix the problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I just tried to implement my idea, but something got screwed up over in the category segment. I'm not sure what the problem is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I implemented the idea and orphaned Template:AuthorsList. Zhaladshar's attempt failed because he forgot to prefix a colon, without which the category links became category tags. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I say we correct the pages that use this and just get rid of it. I can't really see what major point this serves.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Apwoolrich 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --BirgitteSB 19:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; I orphaned the template and the proposal has been up for more than the required week. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 12:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


This is a very useful exercise and ought to be expanded. Pitch in guys, please. It strikes me that while most relate to templates for text pages, there are also templates useful on users' talk pages and also for adding to WP to link with WS. I will be off-line in a bit, but later I will try to classify them. Perhaps later today. Apwoolrich 11:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, hopefully we can get them all categorised and the naming standardised so project-related templates are easy to spot in the listing. GregRobson 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

January 2006

Moon, Ceres, Pallas and Juno

  • Why for heaven's sake do some people want to require the article Moon, Ceres, Pallas and Juno?

The data published there are not under copyright, because each astronomical computer programme must deliver the same results!

Some tables were copyed from Wikipedia, but each computer programme, which is able to calculate them, must give the same results!

In fact, it is not possible to distinguish between copied data or between self-calculated data! (I calculated the data with my PC).

So, please remove the proposed deletion on these articles!

    • Comment Uncle G marked the four articles mentioned above with a deletion tag but did not complete the nominations giving his reasons here. An anom user left the above unsigned comments. To the anom user, I am not sure why Uncle G proposed we should delete them but nothing is decided yet. It is not an issue of copyright as we have a seperate page for copyright violations. This is the place to tell people why your articles are useful and why this is the best place to keep them and be sure and sign at end like this --~~~~ If you need further help or advise contact me on my talk page--BirgitteSB 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Reasons given by Uncle G were Non GDFL compliant versions of b:Ceres, b:Moon, b:Pallas, and b:Juno.
    • I think an online collection of astronomical events in Wikisource would be a great idea! To propose the deletion of the articles moon, ceres, pallas and juno would be very contraproductive.
I agree with the above. There are WP articles about these which ought to be linked with this WS information. It would helpful though if the of this had added the right templates about authorship so we can see its standing in terms copyright and the like. Apwoolrich 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. This would qualify as reference material. Since we recently decided to keep that kind of material (a policy for it still needs to be drafted, though) we should keep these tables, as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 05:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep AllanHainey 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep I would like to see this content stay somewhere in some Wikimedia project. It seems appropriate that it belongs on Wikisource, although if you don't want it here it can be turned into a Wikibook instead. This was done originally as a transwiki from Wikibooks, and is giving us grief at Wikibooks at the moment as well. See also b:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion#Juno, Moon, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta and Astronomical events --Robert Horning 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is Keep. I am removing the tags from the articles--BirgitteSB 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AEJ Collins - Highest cricket score

  • AEJ Collins - Highest cricket score - It is the cricketing statistics & mini-biog of AEJ Collins. Delete AllanHainey 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment this is actually a transript of a scorecard of a notable cricket match in 1899. I would like to see that it was actually published in a contemporay news paper account as I feel it might be a copyright problem. I searched the references from the WP account and could not find where this came from but there were two books--BirgitteSB 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This article was kept as having no consensus. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


These have been at the bottom of the Wikisource: Introduction page since last April, and in fact are pages for uploading such images. There were probably meant to relate to the ...1, 2, 3 sentence above. I have no idea what was intended then, so suggest Delete. Apwoolrich 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It says No file by this name exists. Yann 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We should keep these. They are used as an Edit-for-Dummies thing to people entirely new to the edit process on a wiki. I say we reupload these images from the multi WS (unless we delete the Wikisource: Introduction page - then we can delete these images).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tennessee State Constitution

This is the article copied from WP, and is not the actual source text. Delete--BirgitteSB 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


This is the talk page for an article that doesn't exist and, aparently, never did. It should be merged with the intended article's talk page if it existed, but deleted either way. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 12:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Another Template Only used on one page and doesn't conform. Delete --BirgitteSB 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it would be a very good idea to have such a template (not necessarily this one) for author back links. I've read in at least one place where Zhaladshar (Talk) has mentioned that people remove the "<" character from back links because they think it is a mistake. The use of a template would standardize things and naturally they can be easily improved or changed. —Droll 00:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I don't think its necessary to keep this template. It is easy enough to type <Author:blah blah without a template (provided you know there should be a back link in the first place). AllanHainey 08:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Clown

This is like some bad fan fiction. It looks like it's a self-publication. Delete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

delete AllanHainey 08:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Delete This is copied straight from Wikipedia with modifications and is not used on any pages . Also we already have Template:Cleanup which serves the same purpose.--BirgitteSB 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade

This should be a category, not an article in the main namespace. To little information pertains to it, as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - and do not make any empty category. --Kernigh 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


What is this?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Deleted.

YTMND soundtrack

Wikisource does not collect this kind of information. It's not a source text or even remotely close to reference material.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but is there a wiki that would house this information? It's not notable or changeable enough for Wikipedia, but it's too variate for Wikisource. Do you have any suggestions? -Mysekurity 01:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any Wikimedia wiki that would accept this. My best advice would be to take this to a different wiki altogether. I'm sure there are others that revolve music that wouldn't mind this, but since I only know Wikimedia, I can't really help there.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories CC-by, Explicit Copyright Licenses, Fair use, GPL, Public domain

Some of these categories are unused, some are for templates that don't exist, and they were apparently meant to group both templates and articles related to each license possibility. Category:License templates now groups templates used to designate license status, and I really don't see the need to catergorise works by license. If other editors (Wikisourcians?) feel the need to do so, I'll gladly create a much more organised structure to do so, and with community consensus I'll add works to this new structure. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 08:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely agree to getting rid of Category:Fair use, as WS does not collect fair use works. Likewise, we should delete {{fairuse}} and any work that links to this template. The empty templates I don't have a problem with deleting (Category:CC-by and Category:Explicit Copyright Licenses and Category:GPL. I also think we should delete Category:PD-self as we deleted its corresponding template.
Removing Category:Public domain might be harder as people love tagging things that are PD. I think this is a pointless gesture and that WS should only tag those things which are not in the public domain. So, let's also delete the subcategories in this category (but because of recent problems that have come up about governments copyrighting their works, I think we should keep Category:PD-UKGov, Category:PD-TW, Category:PD-CN, and Category:PD-MO).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem integrating works with problematic licenses as you describe into a standardised category structure. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I completed recategorisation and deleted Public domain. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Horst Wessel Lied

I request that Horst Wessel Lied be speedy deleted so that The Flag on High be moved back to it. Horst Wessel Lied is the real title; The Flag on High is the translation of an alternate title. It was moved by Sherurcij, who simultaneously modified the Wikipedia entry at w:Horst Wessel Lied without an edit summary to remove reference to the original name (despite it remaining the page title). Flag on high should redirect to Horst Wessel Lied. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was deleted by Yann per my request on the IRC channel. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 12:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How to Solve Sudoku Puzzles: Beginner Tips

A copyvio from here, contains advertising, not PD, written by WS contributor most likely...I count like 17 strikes against :) Sherurcij 13:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete AllanHainey 08:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Author:Frank Herbert

Modern day author; nothing of his is in the PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

delete AllanHainey 08:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Various pages by User:BS Murthy

This user has added multiple texts advertising what appear to be his own texts without any meaningful text in themselves. Further, they are very recent works still in distribution and likely not public domain. I reverted several links to the articles they placed elsewhere; if these are kept for whatever reason, my changes can easily be unreverted. Specifically: Bhagvad-Gita:treatise of self-help - transcreative verse with codification of interpolations - BS Murthy | Sundara Kanda: Hanuman's Odyssey - transcreative verse - BS Murthy | BS Murthy | Benign Flame: saga of love | Jewel-less Crown: saga of life | Crossing the Mirage. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. These pages are advertising. They contribute nothing in terms of textual content. Wikisource does not allow this sort of submission.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Reconsider the position
To seek deletion of those pages that tell about an unheralded author and his works in a world of commercial publishing is to hurt the cause of literature itself. This, especially after the recent London Times expose involving the rejection, by Publishers and Literary Agents alike, of Noble Laureate Sir VS Naipaul's Booker Prize winning book, when presented as a manuscript of an aspiring writer.
Well Wikipedia could be a source for unearthing fresh talent as the mainstream media anyway takes care of the famous. But it is a matter of policy, isn't it?
Case for non-deletion Of Bhagvad-Gita:treatise of self-help:
Bhagvad-gita is an ancient Sanskrit classic and there have been umpteen translations of the same into several languages by the famous and not so famous. Thus it is absurd for one to seek protection for his or her own version and by the same logic Edwin Arnold's page needs to be deleted as well.
Moreover,as can be seen from the text, mine is not a run of the mill Gita that has many firsts to its credit and is likely to serve the society well.I really wonder what is wrong if the users are made privy to the existence of this book.
Case for Sundara Kanda: Hanuman's Odyssey:
I really wonder what is wrong if the users are made privy to the existence of this book. As I am the author of the same, the material is authentic.
Case of a novelist:
Having written three novels, I am a novelsit and none can take away that from me. That brings into questrion whether all these are advertisements or announcements. If the media hypes a writer or a book to the hilt, it is okay with the world but if an unheralded author presents his case,it sounds as an advertisement.
My "Puppets of Faith - theory of communal strife", merits the indulgence of every informed reader as it shows the vexatious communal strife in new clours. Well, as the saying goes, there are books for reders and readers for books. The text in the objectional pages is meant to bring them together. That is, if Wikipedia pleases and the misguided are silenced.
After all, when porn stars are okay with Wikipidia, how come unheralded authors become a taboo? Just think once more and restore the pages for the deletions have been affected even without giving a hearing. It pays to appreciate there always could be a second opinion, and that wisdom lies in acting after sizing both sides of the coin.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by BS Murthy (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 January 2006.
Delete - B.S. The purpose of wikisource isn't to assist the cause of literature or to provide an advertising forum for new & unpublished authors. Maybe your works do merit a wider audience but it isn't here. AllanHainey 08:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Rejoineder from BS Murthy;
The advocates chorusing deletion seem to miss the point that Wikisource is meant to be "The Free Library". What does a library contain than the catalogue of books? What is presented in the sought to be deleted pages is only information relevant to the books under question.
As for the accusation of advertising my books,just pause and think. If someone, after reading what a given book of mine is about, likes to access the same, how would he or she go about it in this wide world? Won't the publishing information given therein help the prospective reader to locate and procure the same? Fine, Wikisource need not tell where to find a Tolstoyean work but the same may not be the case with the books of lesser souls. Of course, it is nobody's case that readers have no business to know about the fresh talent that periodically emerges.
Whichever way one might look at it, the clamour for deletion is devoid of reason and hopefully in the end, sanity might prevail after all. One may bear it in mind that by deleting these pages, the umblical source of literary joy to many a potential reader would also be severed.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by BS Murthy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 26 January 2006.
Wikisource is a free library, and as such carries the texts themselves. Would you go to a real library expecting a big poster about a book the library doesn't stock? Puppets of Faith - theory of communal strife should also be deleted for the same reasons. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 12:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I give up now.

Aftera all, you run the show and so your view prevails.

Sorry for the bother, any way.

BS Murthy

Author:Queen Elizabeth II

We have Author:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom which is a more accurate title/name. AllanHainey 13:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--BirgitteSB 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How many Queen Elizabeth II's are there? If this is unique I'd propose we just make it a redirect. If not, we might want to think about making a disambig page for future queens.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect --Kernigh 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirected.Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogo sort

This appears to be original research or examples for the Wikipedia article, but it's not a text either way. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 14:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WS has been having a fight about source code for quite some time. WP seems to think it's our job to hold it—I think they consider us to be text dumps for all the junk they don't want to have cluttering up their pages. The editors here have been taking a more "purist" approach to WS, and wanting prior publication of this (i.e., we'll take the famous source codes, but not mindless stuff). However, we recently relented and are allowing mathematical and scientific works to be published here (although the actual policy has yet to be written; it's on my to-do list). So, I really do forget, but we might have said we'll accept source code. Anyone remember?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here (sort of), and an admin on Wikipedia. I'd personally say that you guys shouldn't be a dumping ground for Wikipedia. I agree that if it isn't published, then delete it. Otherwise you'll be getting all sorts of crappy (and buggy!) source code. Wikisource, IMO, was never designed to be a code source repository. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the Wiki Empire ought to have a site for computer code, manned by Admins who know about it and can police it properly. Apwoolrich 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be good, but with how difficult it is to get a proposal actually turned into a project, this could be years down the road (if it happens at all). We've still got the question about "here and now" to deal with. I would love to see a sister project established for this stuff, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:Conversion of Dale-Gudbrand

Excerpted from the Heimskringla (The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway) by Snorri Sturlson However we already have the Heimskringla Delete--BirgitteSB 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

DeleteZhaladshar (Talk) 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Quran Explicit Explanation

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but it's not a text as far as I can tell. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, delete.Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
deleteAllanHainey 08:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


This page was originally edited for the purpose of serving as footnote references to the Tao te Ching (Wikisource translation), and as the footnotes are quite long I would prefer not to put them at the bottom of the article itself with all the rest of the information I have decided to provide. Someone has asked me to transfer the footnotes under a better title- as the present one is rather ambiguous- and I have done so upon a page which can now be accessed from the Tao te Ching itself. As this is done the now empty Footnotes page became rather useless. Delete. --User:Luthinya 16:18 26 January 2006

Delete -AllanHainey 14:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted as request from creator--BirgitteSB 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Author:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

This author page has no works list by Mozart, just about him. As such, this page is not needed as it gives nothing productive to the community.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

delete - AllanHainey 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:Non-English works

This page is redundant with Category:Non-English and incomplete. I can't think of any reason to go with manual listing with this one. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This was set up so that people could list the language in which a text is written. That way, we don't have to rely on them to move it themselves should they know the language. All they have to do is tag it, and someone with more experience (or less laziness) could do the move. We can still delete this if it seems redundant, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be useful, but none of the entries on that page include the language information. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole point is for people to add the language information. I agree that it's redundant, but I can find no other way to better figure out what language something is. I can only identify a few languages, and I'm clueless on anything that doesn't use a Latin alphabet. Can you think up a better scheme? Because I agree that there is something better than this method.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any opposition to my proposed replacement on the Scriptorium, so this should be deleted once everything's been switched over to the new system. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The templates on this page seem to have been obsoleted by recent developments, notably {{title page}} , {{header}} , and Wikisource:Text quality. Relevant usage information should be added to their talk pages and/or the appropriate help pages (such as Help:Adding texts). All incoming links are placed by the {{welcome}} template, which will soon be updated to reflect the changes in the help pages. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I am not a fan of this style of info box--BirgitteSB 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Palau is coming forth with strength and power

Only a partial translation of the national anthem. We should either remove this or find a full English version.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete AllanHainey 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of countries

The following list of countries should be deleted, as they serve the function that categories should serve:

Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, better done using categories. Manual lists tend to be unreliable, since they're rarely updated and prone to vandalism. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete AllanHainey 08:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What units say in Age of Empires III

Information compilded on an internet forum relating to a computer game. Not a source document.

Lists of Palestinian children killed

These lists are by no means source texts and do not belong here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous chapters

None of these works have any known source. Google turns up nothing. They are orphaned. Since they are part of a larger work (which is not here on WS), they should be deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wakefield Regional Council - Green Paper

Its talk page indicates it's only extracts from a larger work. It also is claimed to be used under fair use, which is not compatible with WS's mission.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:To a Mouse

This is an annoted version of a text we already have at To a Mouse.


This is trying to serve as a category.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:Reusing water bottles/chain email text

This is unfournately exaxtly what it claims to be