Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-07

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 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Deleted[edit]

Apuse[edit]

The following discussion is closed: reclose deleted billinghurst (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: 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 DissidentTalk 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)

Other[edit]

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

The following discussion is closed: 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:

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)