Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-04

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

Deleted

Eliminate Category:LC-

I propose we eliminate Category:LC-, which was intended to categorise all works by Library of Congress categorisation. It's unneeded, as it parallels Wikisource's more readable and organic categorisation. Further, it seems to have been abandoned by it's creator and is currently unmaintained. See these comments excerpted from Category_talk:LC-:

The problems with this system

I don't mind using a standard categorization system such as that of the Library of Congress, but the way these categories are named completely destroys the main advantages of the MediaWiki Category: feature:

  1. "Organic" category building from the bottom-up: The main benefit of the Category: feature is that it allows a bottom-up approach to populating and maintaining categories. This is as opposed to the bottom- top-down approach of "index" pages (which we already have here) and "List of..." pages (e.g., at Wikipedia).
  2. Enabling browsing via the category hierarchy: To enable readers to browse through this hierarchy here, you have to copy the meanings of the subcategories to each category page rather than letting the subcategories "speak for themselves". (For example, check out a category where this has not been done yet. It's almost useless.) By requiring such a "duplication of effort" before the category scheme becomes useful, you're not gaining anything over simply using Wikisource: pages as "index" pages, as previously mentioned.
  3. Enabling readers to look for more information on a topic: Readers typically can use the link to a category at the bottom of a page to find more articles on a particular topic that interests them. But these categories won't mean anything at all to readers who see them on a page. In fact, the page Boynton v. Virginia points out the problem perfectly. The categories there are meaningless, but the Subject: links make sense. Unfortunately, the latter just redirect to the "useless" categories! This is madness...
  4. Encouraging editors to expand the category system: As the first comment on this talk page makes clear, there's no obvious way to expand this system unless you have some knowledge of the LOC classification system itself, and even then most people probably won't have the nerve.

I propose we scrap this system (apologies to Eclecticology) and use readable category names. They can have a prefix like LC- if you want, but it should be obvious upon seeing the category name what kind of things you'll find in it. - dcljr 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) [some corrections and updated links by dcljr 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)]

I perfectly agree with you. I would add that the LC categories have not been maintained much during the last 10 months or so. I guess this system is too obscure for most. I think you better replace it with readable names. also, have a look at the french category system on wikisource. ThomasV 09:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with its deletion. Remove the entire structure.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete AllanHainey 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--BirgitteSB 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This category should be deleted sometime within the next week, when I port the AutoWikiBrowser to Wikisource. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed this deletion proposal. Note that I was working on some stuff on the talk page (Category talk:LC-#LC- category structure) which I've now moved to User:Dcljr/LC. While I don't object to the deletion, per se (obviously, since my own comments were quoted above), I still need the category structure to stay in place a bit longer as I was planning to go through and check what articles were in each category (there aren't that many, so I should be able to finish that tonight or tomorrow). So please don't delete these categories just yet... - dcljr 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, you can delete the categories now — even their talk pages, since I've copied all the "important" existing discussion to User talk:Dcljr/LC (please put any new comments about what I'm doing on my main talk page, User talk:Dcljr). I'm still working (offline) on drawing up a complete list of all the articles (and categories) that need recategorizing, but I don't need the categories themselves anymore to finish this (I've cut-and-pasted all the info I need). - dcljr 03:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Depopulated and deleted. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Writers Cramp

This user's page is an attack on homosexuals, and inappropriate as a user page. User pages should be related to the project or, to a certain extent, introduce the user to visitors. Wikisource is not a host for non-notable attacks on groups of persons. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete Yann 17:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:Vayavinu Bamikra Project

This page (and associated category) doesn't have any content, so it's not really a WikiProject. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --BirgitteSB 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. I had just put that in as a placeholder for the project page, but there was nothing real there. In general, the Vayavinu Bamikra project is progressing very nicely in Hebrew (over 400 recordings listed), but the English index to it has been kind of stagnant. It does list some things, however, and has potential for the future when someone adopts it. The ultimate goal would be to allow the user to follow the cantillation from a bilingual Hebrew-English text like at this website. Dovi

Category:Works by year

I don't think this is needed. Works are often republished multiple times, and the specific date of original publication is a relatively trivial detail that should be specified in the editorial notes. In a more general sense, it is redundant with Category:Authors by era. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Along that line, let's also delete the subcategory Category:1899 books. Any book in this category could have been published in many other years, that this just isn't all that helpful.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fundamental

The subcategories should be recategorised to Category:Works by subject, a more descriptive name. Category:Categories is the actual fundamental category. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought this had to do with religion (like Fundamentalism in Christianity). But it has a completely different purpose. CAT:CAT is a much better category to use.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

This text is released under a noncommercial-only license, which is prohibited by foundation policy (see the proposed copyright policy for details). // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

B. Brinckman on The law to cut federal state party-funding in Belgium

This doesn't seem to be a source text. It is "reworked compilation" of "a series of articles (in Dutch) concerning the law to cut federal Belgian state party-funding." if it is a source text, it was published within last year and is likely copyrighted. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The copyright isn't much of a problem. See its talk page. However, the compiled nature of it leads me to believe that we should get rid of it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zhaladshar that there is no copyright problem. But in my view this text should be retained for the simple reason that there is no alternative as to make a compilation of different Brinkman articles. Indeed the subject came into existence step by step too and otherwise the reader loses the overview. Moreover, it is a valuable item, certainly for specialists who are looking for a good base to start making a feature about political Belgium. The article gives a brilliant insight in the very complex Belgian political situation and this possibly at a turning point in Western Europe. --Jvb – March 30, 2006
Is the text published in this compiled form, or was it compiled separately? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The text is a close résumé/translation of articles written by Bart Brinckman, originally in Dutch. For the case you understand Dutch, compare with: [1]. The reason why references to English texts are incorporated is because it is supposed that most English-speaking readers don’t understand Dutch. --Jvb – March 31, 2006
In that case, the text we're hosting is an unpublished compilation of texts. As such, it meets criteria for speedy deletion A2 of our deletion policy, "Non-notable content, not significantly peer-reviewed or previously published in a significant edition or forum". See also our inclusion guidelines, which state that "The distinguishing feature of Wikisource is that it is a collection of source texts. As the name implies, the texts here already exist as sources outside of Wikisource, and are not created from scratch by Wikisource contributors." // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. That’s quite too simple. The political plot evolved during a time of period. The individual articles in Dutch were not important enough to publish in English each time again, but the whole certainly is. This text offers the whole of the information, therefore Keep. --Jvb – April 3, 2006
If the page is not an actual source text, but a recap of Belgian politics, it just does not fit WS, regardless of how important the information is. I suggest this be incorporated into relevant Wikipedia articles.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is a misunderstanding. This page is an actual source text in that respect that it is not created from scratch and that it has as source one author (and his team). --Jvb – April 6, 2006
Then please give the source. A web link would be helpful, or even a hard copy would be fine. This still reads like a news article and I have a hard time seeing how this is a true source text.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Listing of web links (in Dutch):
--Jvb – April 7, 2006
  • Delete summarized complilation I would allow translations of the actual articles --BirgitteSB 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting source for Belgium – John – April 4, 2006
  • Deleted. All votes counted equally, this discussion reached no consensus with 3 deletion votes and two keep votes. However, weighing the discussion in favour of established users (in this case, users with more than 15 edits), the discussion reached a consensus of three deletion votes. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

TWA Flight 800 passenger list

List material.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Misspelled Author Redirect Pages

I've been carefully going through the "Author:" pages to make sure there are not any missing from the indexs and there are not any redundant or unneeded pages. The following are redirects that seem to exist from an initial misspelling of the authors name and don't seem to really be needed.

I propose that these pages be deleted. - illy 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And I see that one of them has already been deleted between yesterday and today. Good. - illy 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the ones with typographical errors. However, I think the others should be kept as people commonly omit the space between the two initials.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
However, we don't do this consistantly. Should we add redirects for all Authors with double initials without the space? I think we should either do that, which I would not mind doing, or delete these. - illy 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should add the redirects for the other authors who go by initials.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll go ahead and do this. - illy 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Author:Rich Michaels

This page appears to be simply a self-promotion page for Rich Michaels. - illy 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The following nomination was closed as a duplicate of this one on 10 April 2006.
This a pure vanity article of a "young poet"--BirgitteSB 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've beaten you to this one, see 1.9 above. - illy 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to tag the article with {{delete}} :)--BirgitteSB 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just figured out that part of the process. :) - illy 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Merged into the previous discussion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also come across the poem mentioned on the author's page, Last Night I Dreamt of Vietnam, while going through the orphaned pages. - illy 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress and poverty & Progress and Poverty

We apparently have two copies of this work. The Author's page links to the 2nd one, but it doesn't link back to the author, while the first one does. I really have no idea which may be the better version. - illy 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletes from orphaned pages

I've been going over the orphaned pages listing and have come across the following pages that appear to be unneeded. They fall into four basic categories and then others. The categories are:

  • Not English - these pages are in some other language.
  • Unneed redirect - these are mainly from me fixing page titles.
  • Copy with incorrect name - these are pages that are copies of other pages but have errors in the page title.
  • Incorrect author pages - these are pages that attempt to be author pages, but the authors already have correct "Author:" pages.
  • Other - misc. reasons.

- illy 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not English -

Autor:Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

  • Speedy deleted, non-English with no content to transwiki. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Autor:Karl May

  • Speedy deleted, non-English with no content to transwiki. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Autore:Shri Mataji Nirmala Shrivastava

  • Speedy deleted, non-English with no content to transwiki. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Aŭtoro:Kálmán Kalocsay

  • Speedy deleted, non-English with no content to transwiki. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Scriptor:Giacomo Leopardi

  • Speedy deleted, non-English with nothing to transwiki. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tratado de 1904 entre Bolivia y Chile


Unneeded Redirect -

The Charming Month Of May

The hiltons' holiday

Trojan women

Copy with Incorrect Name -

Don Quixote – Volume 2 – Chapter I

Elemoont/Charge 21

Heart of Darkness: Chapter II

Heidi/I

Inaugural Address - of James Buchanan

John Jay Johns Journal 1876

Ode by O&

Preface (Art of War)

Sirte Delaration

The Masnavi Book I

Copy with incorrect name:

The mystery of Dewinter's

Harry S. Truman's farewell address

Incomplete as well.

Incorrect Author Pages -

Bhagat Singh

Che Guevara

Ho Chi Minh

Oops. This is actually a unneed redirect now. - illy 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Other -

Around the World in Eighty Days: Chapter 38

Not need. Book has no Chapter 38

Hamlet's soliloquy

Excerpt.

Kitáb-i-Aqdas/note link

No meaningful text on page.

Missions

Text seems to be random thoughts. No context.

Paolini

Page about a current author.
  • Deleted; very little content, wrong namespace, no works, current author. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Secret History of the Mongols

Appears to be a machine translation of a French translation of Mongolian. Does not make much sense.

Two Treatises on Civil Government

Empty page.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Chapter2

Empty page with incorrect title.

That's it. Hope I didn't overwhelm everyone. - illy 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lake—To—

Templates Navigator, Navigation, NavigatorBegin, Chap, Chap simple, Chapter foot

All of these do the same thing. I propose we keep {{chap simple}} and move it to {{chapter}} or {{chapternav}}. (I picked this one, because it uses HideIfEmpty, so it is the most advanced, and hence the most versatile. Of course, the colors might need to be changed.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, also think that we ought to have a consistent colour scheme, a WS page livery Apwoolrich 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As a general thought we should aim to end up with a schedule of templates for text editing which the editor uses automatically from first off. eg Author, Title, Text Quality, Chapter Navigatiom, Notes & References, and, hopefully Page Numbering.(Plus anything else I have forgotten to include) If these are consistent in typography and colouring, it will do much to enhance the appearance of pages WS-wide. It is this page of template codes tht is used on the text editor for working off line, as proposed on my talk page Apwoolrich 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree; we could considerably expand the {{chapter}} template with great flexibility along the lines of the discussion on the WikiProject IGD talk page. I think we could easily merge all the header templates into a single {{header}} . // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 08:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete the duplicate templates. Do not let Wikibooks dump their templates here. --Kernigh 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • All have been deleted except {{Chapter foot}}, for which a new discussion has been opened to determine whether to replace or just remove it. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:1911-Entry

This template was renamed to and heavily modified as {{EB1911}}, a {{header}} meta-template that replaces both {{1911-Entry}} and its sister template {{1911Dict-Entry}}. All pages using it have been converted to the new template. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Author:Bart Brinckman

This is a modern editorialist for a Belgian newspaper, and as such his works are likely copyrighted. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See next discussion. --Jvb – March 30, 2006

Continuing Time (author's timeline)

This is some sort of complilation put together on the internet. --BirgitteSB 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — This information was written (as a press-release) by the author—Daniel Keys Moran—of the series involved. It is not a compilation of smaller parts. The press-release discusses the background of the world the series is set in. It is of interest because of the timeline, which of particular interest since the stories involve time travel. I added it here, as I thought it was germane to the Wikipedia article about the author and his books, but as primary source material, did not fit the Wikipedia guidelines. —MJBurrage 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
*I originally thought this was a press release with the time compiled on a usenet group. After looking at this closer I am worried about copyright:

NOTICE: The preceding is copyright 1994 by Daniel Keys Moran. It may be disseminated freely so long as the information contained herein is not altered in any way

I do not believe this notice is GDFL compatible as altered in any way can include the hypertext--BirgitteSB 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be the same as any poem or short story included in WikiSource, in that we would not want someone changing the text of a story or poem, such that it was no longer the words of the original author. I think there is a difference between content (what the words say) and formatting (font, heading style etc.)
Just as if I was adding a poem that was available for free use, I formatted the text for readability, but did not change the wording.
For example I kept the first and third sections even-though the information that would be of interest to most readers is the timeline which is the backdrop to the stories in question. —MJBurrage 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstood me. Wikisource certianly allows such changes in the works on this site. I am questioning if the copyright notice allows such things and if it is compatible with GDFL which is a requirement of Wikimedia. Copyright issues are murky and I am no expert.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The site it's taken from says nothing about the licensing of the release. I still say delete on the grounds that we can't tell if this is GFDL compatible or not (after all, being able to freely distribute something, and being able to freely distribute something that is actually compatible with our licensing, are two different things) and because this is highly unimportant and not at all notable.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if we are unable to verifiably determine the copyright status. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete AllanHainey 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template UNESCOCopyright

This license template is not compatible with our updated copyright policy, and is not currently used in any work. The associated category was apparently never created. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

§ 4. “Vehicle” as including all means of land transportation

Orphaned page. No indication to which work it belongs.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

Not a source doc. I coppied all the info to the Category:Ayyavazhi. Delete --BirgitteSB 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita, 1

Content - "Bold text"--Politicaljunkie 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thé Tálé üf Rándüm

According to its talk page, it is the result of a "last minute English paper." As such, it does not fall within our scope.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pah, it's still interesting, regardless of its relevance. Okay, that sounded really lame, but still...
Deleted after being blanked by the contributor. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dievs,Svētī Latviju!

This is the same page as Dievs,svētī Latviju!.--Politicaljunkie 13:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Online Ranks

Does not appear to be a source document--BirgitteSB 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Author:Edy Carso

Looks like a vanity page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:Robert College

This is an incomplete text of a non-notable and possibly copyrighted brochure. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Mishnah Eduyot 1:4

I'm not sure about this. There is no atribution and I can't find it on Google. Also the content does not seem meaningful as there is no context. --Inge 00:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of similar texts put on by the same user. See Special:Contributions/Nesheekah. They don't seem to be continuous though & certainly could be organised better than i page for each with no connections between them, I'd suggest contacting User:Nesheekah, asking what this is, what the source is & how it could be better organised. I'd do it myself but don't have time now. AllanHainey 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
These seem to be from something called the Eduyoth, which I gather is related to the Jewish faith. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I notified the user that the works were nominated for deletion, and requested that they provide the work information. I'll delete if we can't identify these within an additional three days. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Mishnah is part of the Talmud, and Eduyot is a tractate of Mishnah. In other words, it is an important texts, which will also exist in the Hebrew Wikisource. Keep. Danny 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If you know the relevant information, please tag the works with the {{header}} template, or provide that information to me so that I can tag them. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi guys, these wiki Mishnah translations are legit, and they are not the sort of thing you will easily find on Google. We are not using header templates for these, but something specifically useful for Mishnah. For header examples, see Mishnah Tractate Berakhot. Dovi 11:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, you're using plain links to navigate; that would be better accomplished using {{header}}. Regardless, As this is only a formatting issue, kept. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletes from orphaned pages

I've been going over the orphaned pages listing and have come across the following pages that appear to be unneeded. They fall into four basic categories and then others. The categories are:

  • Not English - these pages are in some other language.
  • Unneed redirect - these are mainly from me fixing page titles.
  • Copy with incorrect name - these are pages that are copies of other pages but have errors in the page title.
  • Incorrect author pages - these are pages that attempt to be author pages, but the authors already have correct "Author:" pages.
  • Other - misc. reasons.

- illy 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Not English -

Main Page/archive 1

Partes de guerra chilenos sobre la batalla de Calama

Copy with Incorrect Name -

Heidi/Introduction

Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

This does contain editorial info that the main copy does not.

Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address

This does contain editorial info that the main copy does not.

Not English -

Crist

  • Conditional keep; the phrase "Verse Indeterminate Saxon" at the top seems to imply that this is Old English. If we can determine the source and verify the integrity, it should be kept per previous community decisions. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's a collection of Anglo-Saxon poems by a poet named Cynewulf. I'll try and track down an actual Old English version shortly--well, when I've got some time to dedicate to it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto

The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath

Worldwide public domain categories

This deletion nomination concerns these listed categories.

These categories group unambiguously public domain texts which do not have any problematic legal technicalities. There's no need to categorise these, as the license tag suffices. The following statement was added to the Works by license category description following a previous deletion discussion (See "Categories CC-by, Explicit Copyright Licenses, Fair use, GPL, Public domain"): "This category should only contain licenses that are problematic or potentially problematic to Wikisource; fully public domain texts need not be categorised as such". // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 15:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • As a native Chinese-speaking administrator here, I would like to ask if you fully reviewed the Chinese, Macanese, and Taiwanese public domain tags? I have said that concerned works are in the public domains in Mainland China, Macao, Taiwan, and possibly other jurisdictions because while many governmental works therefrom should be in the public domain worldwide, I am unsure about private works ineligible for copyright there but possibly copyrightable elsewhere. How about Template:PD-UN that I have prepared to replace Template:UNCopyright?--Jusjih 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The templates should not be used for any work that is not public domain elsewhere. It is the laws of Florida, United States of America that apply to Wikisource. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good idea to to keep everything tagged as to specifically what it copyright status is and why. Who knows what will change in the future or who will end up with this information downsteam. I think it would bad to just tag everything as "accepted as public domain in Florida, USA 2006." I don't know that we couldn't get rid of some of these, because I don't understand them all. But the ones I do understand I think we should use--BirgitteSB 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not proposing that we delete the templates. Works would remain tagged, but they would no longer be categorised to Works by license. The categories listed above contain only works that are irrevocably released into the public domain worldwide. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree that they are PD worldwide, but I am no copyright expert so I could be wrong. I think there are things which are PD-1923 for example where a UK author didn't not die till the 50's therefore are not public domain in England. I have seen at least three different US federal notices that claim the material is only public domain domestically (This strikes me as incorrect or impossible but I have seen it in several different places). The no notice and no renewal could be copyrighted outside the US. Also they are hard to verify so it would be nice to keep the categories in case we ever find a definitive database in the future we can check them against. Since none of us are really experts here, I think we should keep these sorts of categories to help us as we become better informed about copyright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 April 2006.

No consensus

Pi to 1,000,000 places

A note on the page claimed that the page was previously deleted, but I can't find any discussion about it. An anonymous user failed to find the discussion as well, and reposted the content.

I don't think we should have this type of data on Wikisource at all. We're a free library, not an indiscriminate storehouse for data. Keeping this is not particularly useful to the end-user, who can find them on other websites (often via Google). Many of these pages were placed on Wikisource because no other project wanted them.

We should delete this for the same reasons any of our sister projects would. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I cannot see why we should delete this without a complete reformation of the policy for accepting reference data. I am not say we should keep everything nor delete everything, but we need to decide what sort of reference material we want not pick at it piece by piece--BirgitteSB 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh boy. This is a tough one. We still need to get down our reference material policy, which would talk about this (I admit not having the desire to draft it, but I might do so anyway, just to get this down pat). The acceptance of reference material was a compromise; I honestly do not know where the discussions took place (so much of it happened at the multi-WS, as well), but we agreed to take reference material within certain bounds. Now we just need to declare what those bounds are.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • As a possible compromise compromise, we could move these back to the multilingual Wikisource. This isn't English. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If we were to move some of the "math only" works to the multilinguial site we need to figure out a better way of naming them. I don't think we can just move it there with English titles. But we really need to look at it as a whole. How many reference works do we have that need no language specific explanation? How many do need accompaning text? What is the best way to organize reference material anyway? We are going to have to deal with these questions sooner or later. Alot of things are on Wikisource just because no other project wanted them. That is not necessarily a problem. I personally would like to know if there is something in terms of completeness, organization, or comparison that we can do better than anyone else regarding reference material. If there is that would convince me to want to make a place for them here. If not we need determine where we will draw the line on what we will accept.--BirgitteSB 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) BTW I just noticed the old disscussion is on the talk page to this very page.--BirgitteSB 17:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree that accepting dumped pages is acceptable. If a work is outside our scope, we shouldn't be accepting it in the first place. Alternately, Wikibooks might want the data. These pages are often created by users or found online, aren't usually published, and are ideal for text books. If others think that might be acceptable, I'll leave a message on the Wikibooks community page asking for their opinion. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose this nomination be speedy kept for now, and the discussion about math and data tables re-opened at the Scriptorium. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, but know that in all the past discussions on this topic, the discussions go on for months, get extremely derailed, and everyone and their brother from all the other sister projects get involved and tell us what and what not to accept. This ought to be a blast... :-).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Whee! :) I'll post a message later today to start the discussion, then. Speedy kept. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006-04&oldid=5266167"