Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-07

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 July 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Category:Quebec authors[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept

I'm not sure if this category is needed, since few of the other nationality categories have seperate categories for each of their political subdivisions. This should probably be merged into Category:Canadian authors. Wild Wolf 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, it belongs as a subcategory of Canadian authors, just as we might use Navajo authors or Romani authors, they're distinct populations not easily bunched together with the overall country. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, For reasons stated by Sherurcij. Also, from 1534 to 1760, the overwhelming majority of "Canadian authors" are in fact "Quebec authors". The genesis of a national literature in the French language occurs in Quebec during the 1800s. While nobody doubted the existence of a literature in English in Canada, until the 1960s, it was still an object of debate whether or not there was something like a "national literature" of Canada (meaning, an English language literature specific to the Canadian nation). Nobody doubts it today, but writing its history is still a problem. Meanwhile, Quebec's literature kept on being written primarily in French in parallel to Canada's English literature. The two are clearly distinct, although English translations of Quebec's French language literature appear to have impacted the English writers of Canada to a certain extent. -- Mathieugp 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' Basically, this means French Canadian authors; would it be better to rename? An English-speaking author from Quebec would be quite different from the french-speaking ones.--Poetlister 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. It is better to distinguish by territory, if only to respect the usage in Québec. Littérature canadienne-française is only used in a historical sense in the French language today. We always say littérature québécoise. In what is called Canada today, 90% of those who speak French as their everyday language are Quebecers, hence their calling themselves Québécois more often than else. Québec English-language authors, although usually more strongly attached to the rest of Canada by identity of language, also insist on being identified as Quebec writers. Even if it is never the intent, it always is perceived as some form of discrimination to speak of Québec writers as only writing in French and likewise as a negation of the distinctiveness of Québec and its culture to speak of French-Canadian authors as if Québec was not home to such a high percentage of them. (If I refer to percentages, it is because I read on your user page, after staring in disbelief at your photograph, surely a fake, that you are a statistician. :-) It should also be pointed out that Quebecers, French-speaking ones at least, insist on their distinctiveness with the French even more strongly than they do with their co-citizens of Canada. Basically, to us, Quebecers are to the French as the Yankees are to the English. To mix up the two peoples is unspeakable profanity. If we go by language alone, making abstraction of the territory of Québec, some people will think that "French Canadian" authors means all Frenches in what is now Canada and therefore include the distinct literature of the French-speaking Acadians. That is unfortunately more complicated than that. "French Canadian" would actually exclude Acadians, who form a distinct nation, and include diaspora writers in the USA, mostly in the New England States bordering Québec. I apologize if I made things even more confusing. If I failed completely at explaining Québec, let me know and I'll make it even more cryptic in a poem just for you on your talk page. ;-) -- Mathieugp 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept Yann 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pcu123456789/source2[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept

This is a list of pages that were deleted as beyond scope. As a userpage, it has outlived its usefulness. Alternatively, blanking the page might be appropriate. I cant see how to contact the user. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless the author wants it removed, I'm loathe to remove anything in UserSpace that isn't violating copyright law. Hell, my profile is mostly a collection of broken links - I'd vote to leave this be unless we get a green light from Pcu123 Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto Sherurcij Emesee 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, no reason to delete unless they ask for it. —Giggy 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/The List of Popes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept

Clearly not what it claims to be. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Søren Kierkegaard 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is not part of the printed edition, and should be updated to reflect that, however the imported list isnt subject to copyright as it is just facts in order. I've updated the format. See also OCE. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, essentially for the same reasons. The problem with all the red links is a matter of inconsistent titles. In the original Pope Gregory I was simply listed as Gregory I, and "Pope" and "Saint" were added in small caps after the main entry. Advent's OCR version used for our pages put these titles as a part of the article title. This page will need to be substantially revised if we want to be consistent with the original. Eclecticology 02:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    Correction. It was a part of the printed edition as a section of the article "Pope", beginning at page 272 of volume XII. The list article retained the title "St." for each applicable pope, but this was not followed on the individual articles. Eclecticology 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; per updates etc. by the above commentators. I concur with their arguments. —Giggy 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Category:Writers[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

This category probably should be deleted, since there there isn't much to differentiate between a "writer" and an "author". Wild Wolf 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have no objections. You are right Dmitrismirnov 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
However Writers means here the prose authors that differs from the authors of poetry etc. So it has some reasons to stay here. What do you think? Dmitrismirnov 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:Novelists for those writers who wrote books, if that's what you meant. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Cookbooks 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that poets are authors rather than writers. They are both, and anyway ought to be in Category:Poets. Category:Novelists would not cover writers of short stories or non-fiction works.--Poetlister 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, by the broad stroke of "Writer" would apply to every authorpage we have, since we're hosting letters they wrote, speeches they wrote or something similar. I don't see the need for it anymore than Category:Humans, to be faecestious. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: John Gould 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sherurcij, given the scope of Wikisource (text works) I think the "Author" category would be a wee bit pointless. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the category system in Category:Authors seems to do a good job with Category:Authors by genre being more organised, and makes intuitive sense. This category therefore seems superfluous and only confuses author organisation. Suicidalhamster 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, for it would seem that the entire author namespace would fit in this category otherwise. There are better navigation methods out there. giggy (:O) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted However keeping a redirect might be useful, for there could be external references to this category. Yann 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:History of specific countries and Category:History by country[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Merged and deleted

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to deal with the same subject. Wild Wolf 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes should be merged. Would prefer to end up with Category:History by country, which also fits with en-wikipedia. Suicidalhamster 09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal. giggy (:O) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Category:History of specific countries is merged and deleted. Yann 08:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Teachers, Category:Educators, and Category:Professors[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Mixed; Teachers redirected to Educators and Professors subcategorized under educators

I don't think there is sufficient difference between these occupations to have a seperate category for each. Maybe they could be merged into a single "Educators" category. (Or, alternatively, the teachers and professors could be made subcategories of the educators category.) Wild Wolf 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree "Educators" is the best route, it's difficult to categorise many ancient and antique persons otherwise :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. Professors, maybe, a subcat? But teachers and educators are close enough, I expect. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think maybe subcats would be the most appropriate course in this situation. While all teachers and professors are educators, it does not quite work the other way around (I'm thinking of people who focus more on the educational theory side or do teaching that does not happen in any kind of classroom or academic setting--still educating but maybe not in the traditional sense as teachers or professors).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that all professors are educators, but broadly I agree.--Poetlister 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think "educators" is all that's needed. "Professors" could be kept if we think it's useful, but "teachers" is not needed. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All professors and teachers are "educators" to some degree, so I suggest merging into that one category. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged I changed all "teachers" cat to "educators" and redirect the category page there so hopefully people will not recreate it. Also I made "professors" as subcat of "educators". That solution seem to have the widest support.--BirgitteSB 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Author:Earl W Arnold Jr[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

Yann 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the works of this author were published in peer-reviewed publications. The contributor, who is also the author, was notified. Yann 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)



Category:American history and Category:History of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to deal with the same subject. Wild Wolf 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Two expeditions into the interior of Southern Australia[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a category for the subpages of a single work. Wild Wolf 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Category:Economy and Category:Economics[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Category:Economy deleted John Vandenberg (chat) 08:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to be about the same subject. Wild Wolf 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy would include statistical material such as National Accounts and price indices, which describe the economy in numerical rather than economic terms.--Poetlister 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Economy and Use Economics Right now everything there seems to be works about Economics if we ever get the other kind of works the category can be recreated.--BirgitteSB 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Economy and move contents to Economics for same reason BirgitteSB gives.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)