Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2010-12

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 December 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Deleted[edit]

EB1911 superseded djvu file[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all.
*Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica-vol01-alaric II-almoner.djvu

are now superseded by Index:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu. I think they were created because the maximum file size on commons was 10Mo, nowadays 100Mo. I propose to delete them. I sent a message to the creator. The few existing sub-page can be deleted too, they has been moved to the right place. Phe (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. What of the Commons files? Perhaps mark them as duplicates. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I checked only the last one, it's linked from it.wikipedia.org, fix the links to the new volume and {{duplicate|new volume link}} on commons. Phe (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Usage fixed on it: Phe (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dasalan at Tocsohan[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
Personally to me this should not be in this part of wikisource, it is not in English and I do not know if it is really a government document of the Philippines. Just my two cents. It is no longer even in english anymore. Wabbit98 talk 11:35pm(PST), 11 August 2010
After over a month without any comment here, Wabbit98 has lost patience and tagged the text for speedy deletion. I have complied with this request, deleting it as G5—Beyond Scope. I'll leave this open for now in case someone wants to review that decision. Hesperian 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Route 90 (California), Route 19 (California), Template:CAFES[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete
Snippets from pieces of legislation, so does not comply with WS:WWI, and a template that contains a repeating snippet of text — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A "project" started in 2006 that seems to have been abandoned ever since. Agree - it's random snippets rather than proper revisions or amendments of California statute.


Template:Publisher[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Unused, was experimental at the time.

Template:Book cover[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Weak deleted cygnis insignis 17:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This template is a variant of {{use page image}} which in our current styles doesn't seem to have much purpose. Most books in our works generally do not have a cover that adds value to the work so we have the application of the template without benefit or need, and on the occasions where it does I would have that either a direct use of the underlying template; or {{page contains image}} and an extraction of that image would have more value. Note that the template is used on about 20 pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding the templates

which have no evident function beyond identifying the pages as such. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete I can see some benefit from these templates, and the fact that the latter two have so many uses supports this. However, on balance I am not convinced that they should be retained.--Longfellow (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see that we can identify certain pages, and will freely admit that that I cannot see a (perceived) benefit and look forward to have that argument pointed out to me. At the best at the moment is that of a marker. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Middlebush Giant[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
Snippets of work that have not had any maintenance, not split, despite requests for extended period of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are some relatively interesting snippets in some of these "collected bits" pages. Obviously the ultimate aim is to have the works in their own subpages, and link to them from a collective "hub page", perhaps Wikisource:Middlebush Giant? I think maybe these need a little bit of attention, like moving to a WS: namespace location (if that is how we do thematic collections), adding headers, and splitting out to well-organised subpages etc, but in general don't merit deletion for the crime of being unmaintained.
Perhaps create a category for pages like that that need some TLC? Then we can keep an eye on these pages, and help them along rather than junk them out of hand. Inductiveload (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to tidy, and bring them up to the standard for the site, be my guest. We have let the contributor know previously, and they have long been abandoned, and not brought to standard, and no-one has wanted to manage, and I have done my bit on these. Yes. thematic is from WS namespace. Our scope indicates that excerpts/snippets should be part of a collection for a reason as per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and these have generally been in support of our authors, or as part of a work. Excerpts alone is not within the scope of the site. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I see, I didn't realise that these snippet collections were excluded in general from Wikisource. I'm not really bothered about these pages, I was just surprised, through unfamiliarity with the policies to see stuff getting canned (cf Commons where you'd think orphans die each time a file gets nuked). Delete away. Inductiveload (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Susannah Lattin[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted
Combined excerpts, unmaintained — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. It can be deleted (or converted into a topic index) once the excerpted sources have been done. Hesperian 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, what is the rationale for deleting? --69.142.103.133 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Seems like all of that was taken from the WP article at some point, but never followed-up with the transcription of the newspaper clippings (which are in the form of images) into acceptable articles here. George Orwell III (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Here is another take on why it is problematic. A combination of excerpts is beyond our scope, a new and unpublished work, each part needs to be organised by its publication details. We don't generally create new content, except to allow access to existing content. This sort of thing is done at other wikimedia sites, and as noted above this page is duplicated at wikipedia. Secondly, there is no source given, only named, the transcribed material is not easily verifiable and hosting a synthetic page gives it a semblance of integrity. A page of public domain material that had been republished together, in a later source, would be appropriate, if it was named and therefore verifiable. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Earth Plus 5%[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, ND content is not permissible under WS policy. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This has been posted with the explicit declaration that if copied, it must be "intact and as is". This is contrary to WS policy.--Longfellow (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think not. CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ doesn't affect the author's moral right. Even in public domain works of literature, we have to keep author's name and not to make sense distortions. It's unethical to impute own thoughts and words to another man or vice versa. Hannigan's notice is about that. We can change fonts, colours and other appearance. But modification of text which changes the sense of it, can be made by author only while he is alive and by nobody after. Derivative work and distortion of sense (derogatory treatment) are not the same. Alexander Roumega (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
How does this declaration differ from requesting the "ND" clause on CC? We don't accept that, so I don't see how this request is compatible with our licencing. Lankiveil (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The Wikimedia Foundation has explicitly endorsed this "Definition of Free Cultural Works". The "intact and as is" clause denies the "freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works". Hesperian 07:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, it is completely untrue that "even in public domain works of literature, we have to keep author's name and not to make sense distortions." See wikipedia:Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Hesperian 07:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite so. Though there may be a moral case against distorting a person's work without their knowledge or consent, as long as there is no copyright violation, there is no legal case. (And if there is no copyright violation, the author is most likely either long dead or explicitly licensed it as derivation-allowed). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Incompatible licence (Wikisource must have a "derivation allowed" licence on all works). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

More unused templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: All four templates deleted.
All the following templates from Category:Article templates are unused with no prospects of being useful. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{Style}}
Unused equivalent to {{standardise}}
{{Header-layout}}
{{Header-layout-override}}
These seem to be left over temporary templates from the switch from "header2" to "header"
{{footer2}}
This is a poor cousin to the automatic footer generated by {{header}}
  • Style and Footer2 ... delete
  • 2 Header… keepmove to user namespace as I asked John this year and he said they are still of value. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    (noting JV's comment below) Wouldn't we better to just transfer them to the user space, retain the history, and have them parked out of the way? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete & redirect {{Style}} so that it will not be recreated. Delete {{Header-layout}} and {{Header-layout-override}} unless someone can say for sure that they are still in use. --Eliyak T·C 15:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The layout templates were used by a script I have. I haven't used it in quite a while, so feel free to delete them. I'll recreate them in my userspace if I need them again. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per JV's comments.--Longfellow (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Userbox templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Unused templates deleted, ones in use moved to the relevant User: namespace, and redirect suppressed. I've also made a note at Category:User templates about when userboxes may be in the Template: namespace.
There are a few use box templates that have cropped up recently, and not so recently. I don't think any of the following are actually useful to have as templates, and can be replaced with {{userbox}} if the user in question wants to. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates

  • Definitely delete the unused userboxes. The university one is odd, as it has been moved to a nonexistant user[1]. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Olifer Tƿist[edit]

The following discussion is closed: creator requested deletion, moved to user space
This is an Old English translation of Oliver Twist. Perhaps it belongs at the old/main Wikisource? --Eliyak T·C 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I notified the creator [2] cygnis insignis 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
We do host Old English files, so if it should be anywhere, it should be here. I don't really think we need new Wikisource translations into Old English, though. And if we do, this needs to be correctly labeled as a Wikisource translation and needs a translation license. Biblioþēce also has several translations by the same author into Old English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I recall a discussion, and I think that it was at WS:S that enWS is for English language in the broadest sense, not the narrowest sense. That said, translations to archaic languages does seem a pointless exercise as our translations are to broaden the exposure to a text, not as an intellectual exercise. So I would encourage the hosting of original Old English works, and translation of those works to modern English, I wouldn't be encouraging the addition of modern translations to Old English. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It does not seem to be a useful resource for all but a few hardcore enthusiasts. --Eliyak T·C 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that while this work should be here, if anywhere, it should certainly be ensured that it ends complete, and that the contributor doesn't wander off, leaving us with a half-finished translation in a dead language. I think it could conceivably be an interesting and informative work for scholar of old English, though I don't see any immediate use for it myself. If we accept Beowulf and translations, then we can accept this text. As I mentioned on the Scriptorium recently, I think translations need to be held to a higher standard of completion that our average work, since they cannot be just picked up by another user like your run-of-the-mill transcription. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've never read any scholar who cares about modern translations into things like Old English and Elvish. They're fan games--basically individual artistic exercises.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that the Beowulf comparison is necessarily relevant. It was written in the older English, and is being translated to modern English, not the reverse. It is the reverse translation to an older and basically unusued language that we are questioning. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I read it [Beowulf] as relating to where it should be, OE is hosted at en.ws. This can be viewed separately from the merit of such a venture, a translation of a familiar work would be of value to someone studying the language [a scholar]. cygnis insignis 11:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I think translating into Old English is not the purpose of this wiki and such an endeavor has a number of problems. Hosting OE works and works translated from OE is fine, but into OE is an activity not worth the time.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zhaladshar. The exception would be if it was a published and public domain translation then it would fit our normal criteria, and we would host. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we should withhold judgment of translation into OE as a whole; I personally think that such things can be an interesting personal challenge, and the result have some artistic value. What I do think we can say is that it doesn't forward Wikimedia's educational mandate and that we aren't the right place to host it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • keep/delete (precedent/scope) The judgements on the value of any particular translations are merely opinions, which I agree "we should withhold", the constraint on what is translated to what is not documented; pronouncements otherwise seem to skirt the core issue, wikisource hosting user created content. The point made above is telling, this would be included if it was published, objections and personal opinion would be moot points. Having a user account, new or established, does not imbue a person with authority, creation of new content is almost entirely without guidance, review and 'publication'. The exception made for translation is unconstrained, and I reckon, somewhat cynically, that if an established user had created it we would not be having this discussion, new users are exposed to the failings of this vague "policy" and the whims of those who preceded them (logging in being 'our' only qualification). Libraries are not publishers, this is a good thing and ignoring that is perilous, but even supporters of anyone can translate, while acknowledging it is problematic (e.g. The Bible), are unwilling to document the exceptions to the exception. cygnis insignis 11:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    There is a recent conversation about translations and their alignment with our scope at WS:S#Plagiarism of Translation?billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I contributed to that discussion, and it is linked above. I see how this example is relevant to that, but why is it given as a reply to my comments on the inconsistent application of inclusion policy? cygnis insignis 14:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not "unwilling to document the exceptions", but the discussion stopped far short of consensus on any exceptions, and I didn't feel like pursuing the issue. Right now we're working on discussing an exception, and instead of discussing that exception, you're attacking translation as a whole. To abuse me for not pushing for consensus on an exception, and use the discussion of an exception to push for the end of translation as a whole is unfair and counterproductive; it only encourages me to adopt an absolutist hard-line on translation, because any concession is going to be used as an attack on translation as a whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have not abused you, or anyone else. Your comments are clearly addressed to me, not on how to close this; except to say that it will be a reaction to a perceived attack. Mine address the problem of new users creating content that seems permissible, only to have it brought here for and deleted for specious reasons and personal taste, as one of the new exceptions to the exception to "not a free web host". cygnis insignis 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You accuse "supporters of anyone can translate" of being "unwilling to document the exceptions". I don't see how that is directed at closing this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Policy evolves. Sometimes, material that has been brought here in good faith by both new users and experienced users gets deleted. This particularly happens when something new and unexpected gets added. It doesn't seem unreasonable to discuss whether we want translations into Old English only once they start to appear, as per w:Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see the justification for translating a foreign language text into English to make it more accessible. I cannot see the justification for translating a text in English into another language, one not easily comprehensible to most people, on the English WS. If we can have WS sites in so many different languages, why not one for Old English?--Longfellow (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
All Old English texts are inaccessible to most users, that is not a basis for deletion. Old English is hosted at this wikisource, whether it should be is irrelevant to this discussion. cygnis insignis 14:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The general agreement is that we host all the English languages--Old, Middle and Modern English and Scots. No matter what we do with Old English, we should continue to support English into Scots, as that's a modern language with native speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete I would like to translate the whole work, but it will take some time. I did kinda start that page on a whim... If I ever do complete it off-Wikimedia, then I might think about posting again or something. Gott wisst (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Brayall v. Dart Industries‎[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
The source to this text is not evident, I notified the user of that. I don't think it is a published text. cygnis insignis 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It appears to be the user's own account of a court case he was involved in. --Eliyak T·C 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Not an actual report of a court case. BD2412 T 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have stuck a {{delete}} notice on the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I brought it here instead of speedy moving or deleting it, thinking it better to undergoes process, but I was unaware it had been this way before. Deleted. cygnis insignis 17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Index:Pictures From Italy.djvu.djvu.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted - redundant
To delete; it's simply a page with a wrong title (the right version being Index:Pictures From Italy.djvu. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A very bold try[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted - Author's request
As briefly discussed into Scriptorium, I'm testing something as a "help+sandbox" tool devoited to proofread procedure. The idea is, to build a help/model text, to transform it into a djvu file, then into a formally plain Index with its Page and Ns0 transclusion, to let new users to test and to "try and learn".

While doing so, I build a start File:Sandbox.djvu and a Index:Sandbox.djvu but I found that the keyword "Sandbox" into Page ns takes into life some js automation so I uploaded a new file File:The book of try and learn.djvu and I created its Index:The book of try and learn.djvu, after a mistake in naming it.

Please delete "renaming ruins": Index:Sandbox.djvu and Index:The book of "try and learn".djvu; both are mere unuseful redirects IMHO. I apologyze but I too am going on by "try and learn": it's a new, test project. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Polling templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus to delete, but these are not generally applied. Usage is discouraged. cygnis insignis 06:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Vote keep}} and so on. {{polling templates}}

We don't generally have polls, the one forum which has votes can manage without this noise. These strongly suggest that matters are resolved by votes, and overshadow comments and discussion with attention grabbing icons. They don't clarify anything, and people get the idea they should add them even if they have nothing to add to the discussion. Voting is evil. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I wasn't intending to make a formal vote. These things just look pretty.--Longfellow (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing personal, quite honestly, its a discussion regarding discussion. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep(ish), the names with a VOTE wrapper may be give connotations that are not in standing with how we do things, however, I feel that in themselves they are innocuous. To the issue of not having polls, that is about the culture and how we manage it, not how we have graphics and templates. If it is the word vote that is offensive, let us move it to {{keep}}, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Yeah, this ^^^. I imported these templates from Commons as I felt they would make it easier to follow discussions. I think the reason I kept the name as "vote keep/delete" was that {{delete}} exists already. Feel free to change the name, but personally I like having a graphical and colour-based way to see the opinion (and even though we don't vote, we do take opinion into account). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Agree with Billinghurst's suggestion to shorten if vote is problematic or misleading for some folks & I also think Inductiveload had it right with bringing some "life" to what can be percieved as a bit bland visually. They do help me differentiate the series of parrot-like reponses that at times can be peppered through out longer discussions spanning several days, even weeks, from the actual contributor(s) final thoughts or summation. George Orwell III (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. The tendency of nearly all of us to boldface a one-word summary of our position is votey enough. I've long felt that the use of icons was a bridge too far.

    In response to Billinghurst, I agree that this is about "culture and how we manage it", but I think these templates are not innocuous: their presence negatively impacts our culture. How do we manage our culture if not by encouraging some ways of doing things, and discouraging others?

    In respond to Inductiveload's assertion that they make it easier to follow discussions, I would argue that they serve no such function to those who actually read the discussion. They merely make it easier for those who can't be bothered reading, to gain an utterly superficial impression of how a discussion is going. And unless every participant in the discussion uses them, that impression will be misleading.

    Hesperian 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The last point is a crucial one, I believe the evidence is that this changes the culture from interesting discussions to politically charged polls. Using them becomes compulsory, in fact it seems to create a situation where users feel compelled to use them, eg {{abstain}}. Whether it is to bring attention to a comment, or one's self, the tendency of non-secret ballots replacing genuine discussion adds an ugly and noisy aspect to the community forums. They are sexy, not innocuous, I think that is a problem. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but discourage use (give me an icon for that!). I think they're gaudy, unnecessary, and largely unhelpful, but others apparently like them. If these were deleted, it would be rather heavy-handed to forbid them from being recreated in the user namespace and used in discussions by those users who feel constrained by bold text. And since I don't think they're hurting anything by existing in the template namespace, I can't support deletion. That said, it would be much nicer if everyone would just embrace the beauty of simplicity... —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Spangineer has expressed my views perfectly. I endorse the above but without a template.--Longfellow (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain (and discourage use) JeepdaySock (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least remove the image part, they are pointless and can only disturb the normal reading flow. Phe (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Icons just make it look nicer --Diego Grez (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)