Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-06

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kept[edit]

JTF GTMO 'SERE' Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

A work that is a header only, and has had no progress for 2 years. No scanned text. Feel that without prejudice that the frame can be removed, and if someone wants to get to the work again, they can do so. The work itself should be listed at Portal:Guantanamo and its original location identifed with {{ext scan link}}. I believe that there is value in an in principal discussion about the creation of a header where no text exists, and how long a work should be left unattended. For this purpose it would also seem worthwhile having template {{incomplete}} by date specific, and for there to be consideration of the varying degress of "incomplete" from next to nothing through ... — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a draft version of this document from TorturingDemocracy.org. It is at Index:JTF GTMO 'SERE' Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure.pdf. I have dumped the OCR text, and made some gestures at formatting some of it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

Robinson Crusoe, USN[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A work where only the header appeared (2008) and no further progress, and no evidence of the work or its contents, nor the ability to even determine whether the work is in the public domain. A search for me doesn't show enough detail, so maybe someone who isn't Google limited can say more http://books.google.com/books?id=v6u0QwAACAAJ. I feel that works where there is no body, no scans should have a reasonable period to progress and if no progress is maintained, they should look to be deleted. Billinghurst (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Gen. History (Myers), bc Maps (1890 ed.).pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a construct of images to supplement A General History for Colleges and High Schools (Myers). - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashōmon[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following some of the other proposals above, Rashōmon is currently just a header with no text. In this case, text used to exist but it used an unpublished translation (or rather, an unlicensed web-published translation, as far as I can tell). No activity since 2009. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original work is eligible for inclusion on jaWS, I have added it there (ja:羅生門), and redirected the link to enWS from the Wikipedia article. If someone feels like translating it in future, the enWS page can be re-created. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notes on equitation style[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted with authors approval - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used in a single work to create an unnecessary margin. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Looking at it in Layout 2 is bloody ugly. While I would not generally interfere in the typesetting of a work by the original contributor's preference, this is one where we should be insisting on a more standard formatting. BTW, can I recommend that you either put {{delete}} into the section and/or notify the creator of the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest then that you can speedy it, and we can slide it in as "Author request" — billinghurst sDrewth 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revoloutionary Mathematics[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

This looks like a collection of self-authored thoughts that was first started in 2007 and never come back to. I've searched (title and some of the key phrases) and I can't find an appropriate text/work that matches. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superscript text==File:Mountain Parkway - Sharon Post Office.JPG==

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Not seeing a reason for this file to be on Wikisource. Is beyond the scope of Wikisource. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that we offer to the uploader to relocate to Commons, and then delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no need already made the request to do just that SchoolcraftT (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

Delete; as an initiator in the creation who has now been properly informed, all issues being addressed regarding copyrigh, and with the works being migrated to various Portal:Children's literature pages, there is no reason this needs to be hosted on en.ws - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Scriptorium

We have had created Portal:1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up, which is based on a commercial product. What is the community's opinion on the creation of a portal for such a topic, or might it be more appropriate that this be a subpage to Portal:Children's literature. My thoughts would be that it would be a subpage, where the works would utilise the parent link in the portal parameter of the header. We could definitely categorise based on the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since we are hosting only the portion of the list which is in the public domain (a list which is available on other websites) then there is no issue. Making it a subpage of Children's literature seems to be more properly organized. Regarding keeping this work as its own specific category, I have to object. I think that since there are many lists which could come into en.ws and a work may appear potentially on hundreds of these lists, we may end up with having, well, hundreds or categories per work. Therefore, I think going the route similar to Portal:Disney, in which Peter and Wendy is not under the Category:Disney, would be better functionally for the site. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also list the works that are not PD, we just can't host those works yet. I like the subpage of Portal:Children's literature. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the idea of having a portal for this, it seems more Wikiproject territory; I'd be upset if The Jungle Book weren't listed at Portal:Children's literature because it was on a subpage...or if we had Portal:1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up , Portal:100 Greatest Children's Books Ever, Portal:10 Best Books for your Kids, etc. Movedcolor (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think we were going to remove The Jungle Book from anything, I assumed we could link the work at multiple levels, and that the move to this Portal under Children's literature was purely organizational for the Portal, not the content. Actually, now that I think of it, I am leaning towards moving this portal as a subpage of Reference works and not Children's literature. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a move to Reference works; eventually the Reference works portal may have a Literature Reference Works portal under it, and this portal could be a subpage of it. —Spangineer (háblame) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've just moved it to Bibliography & Library Science before I came here (I searched the LOC index and this entry came up, so I stole the call number). Feel free to move it again if preferred. AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with concept of the portal: "What does Wikisource have from this list of books my child should read?" However, for it to be effective in its use, it will have to mimic to some degree or other the structure of the publication - which is where we would be heading into tricky grounds. It's a shame we can't use a Wikisourcehas template on some of the listing sites and get round it all that way.

The eponymous category should be deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category, portal, or both? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as I look into this more it appears to be a partial recreation of 2009 book which is a list of books that has been copyrighted. It may be most appropriate to move this discusion to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been runnning with the idea that without the illustrations, layout, critical commentary and summarizations, that simply listing the works of this book that are in the public domain may not infringe on any copyright. This may include removing any trace of the books formattting, maybe by simply listing the work alphabetically (and removing the current reading level style of organization). Can only a list of works, some which are PD and some which are not, be copyrighted? - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that such a list is copyrightable as it is an opinion based on sweat of the brow, not intellectual property. That said, I would more think that it is for Wikisource:Proposed deletions though to the same end result. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to Google for some information about this but the best resource I've found is Ask Metafilter. (I keep getting bibliographies of copyright rather than the opposite.) Originality, including the selection and arrangement of a limited list, might be a problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any way that this isn't protected by copyright. This isn't an exhaustive list or an attempt at an exhaustive list; it's not a research list that we may need to use in our own research (like one case on the Metafilter page.) It's a limited selection driven by creative choice, that we're copying in whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - likely my last before I actually end up voting delete. Because of the nature of this list; many notable childrens authors, and others, writing summaries about books they like, I thought that it was more or less compiled as opposed to a single persons creative choice. And also, that lists couldn't be copyrighted. Admittedly, no lawyer though, but Prosfilaes makes a good point. Whether or not a compilation list is copyrightable or not will sway my vote. Still, something feels odd about what is in my mind something barely creative: a book which lists famous books (many in the public domain) that famous people like, with illustrations from the original books and commentary by the famous people. I'm not saying this was easy to do, in fact, I'm sure this was exhausting to do, and it looks like a beautiful book, but I just can't discern what is definitively copyrightable. The works and illustrations by the original author and or illustrator (if not PD)? The book summary and choice by each respective commentor? The compiler for getting it all together and designing the layout? - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, well, well. There was such a long and interesting discussion about this and I didn't even notice it until now. My views on it are: the reviews and all those commentaries may be copyrightable, but I am not sure the list is. I mean, there are famous books listed here, some of which are even in public domain. However, the category should definitely be deleted. I do not think the portal should be, though, if it turns out that the list is not copyrightable. - TayyabSaeed (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked inside the book, and it says on the Copyright page that no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the permission of the copyright holder. Now make what you may of that. - TayyabSaeed (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand of w:Feist v. Rural, lists of information are not copyrightable, but the presented form is. In the case of FvR, the list of phone numbers is ineligible for copyright, but the phone book is copyrightable. In the case of a list which is more subjective than a direct listing of public knowledge such as this, I would imagine the list itself is also copyrightable. Additionally, I don't see this as a useful division of the Portals. If it was based on some concrete figures rather than the whim of the editors, maybe. If it was an official Library of Congress list, then probably (it would be freely licenced in that case anyway). As a list thought up by someone, it doesn't have much importance to me. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list as a 1-1001 ordered list is arguably protected, and this is not a work for which we wish to fight to die in the ditch. As a selective list at WS by one editor it is problematic for it being a choice, for us it holds no special weight. Make the problem go away I say. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a back up option, what about merging it with Children's literature, keeping the age ratings and citing the book as a reference? That's largely what Wikipedia does anyway, so it may be legally acceptable. There must be more sources of age ratings, and similar, in other books and across the internet. Adding them all together moves us away from copying a single work (as I was told a while ago: stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from lots of sources is research). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once the works are merged with other works, it is not that list, and as you state it is a compilation of sources. I would also think that we would only be listing works that are online or could be brought online as they are PD, hence, it is again not that list. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that lists aren't protected by copyright is rubbish. Copyright protects creativity. Lists that lack creativity, such as phone directories, are unprotected, no matter how much "sweat of the brow" they take to compile. But when the compilation of a list is a creative act, as in this case, the list is absolutely protected by copyright. Hesperian 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete — Inductiveload had it right in citing Fiest earlier. The listing goes beyond the threshold for excluding such works by demonstrating "...the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression...". One would need to find some other way to compile such a list without using the same overarching theme(s), its range divisions and the selections found under its sub-divisions but still come to the same conclusion(s) as the author in question did in creating an independent end product on WS. Unfortunately, the same title/premise was blatantly re-used here for categorization/presentation purposes via the portal namespace and the fact this resulting discussion is taking place makes whatever attempt at a re-hash or re-incorporation of the listed selections into "some other box" that may or may not be undertaken by us, automatically suspect at this juncture. Alphabetical and numbered lists generally do not meet the criteria for copyright because such ordering has been around for thousands of years now and is commonplace. Even these lists, if ridiculously large or long enough in the layman's POV to constitute creativity, are still not automatically accepted as such no matter the effort expended in compiling them. I know its a bit too late now but one can "beat" this bare minimum threshold test by taking any textual based list and convert it into a series of color coded tables with a key for the code at the very end for example or take any structured table and break it out into a list-item outlines or a series of well defined bullet lists. At any rate, I believe its arguably no longer eligible for hosting if it ever was. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category and the portal; merge PD works into Children's literature, use book as a reference for building our library. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Other[edit]

Grendon[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

moved to user space — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While tidying up, I stumbled over this work. It would seem to be an unpublished work and seems to be more oral history. No evidence that it fits within Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nature (book)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

keep until transclusion complete, then redirect. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced version appears to be identical to Nature (1836). Author page lists with both, with the former as publication date not specified. With no source to determine date, and no scan to show that it comes from a different or later edition, I do not think we need both. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that the work by Emerson is identical; the only difference I see is the appearance of a quote as opposed to a poem in the beginning; without a source this difference seems too trivial as a reason to keep it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added template to the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We have had a practice of versioning works in similar circumstance, though I feel more comfortable with that practice where there is provenance on the work. If there is no source to support it, and we do not hear from the contributors then I am comfortable if we do convert to a redirect. Naming-wise, I would think that disambiguation with (Emerson) is most useful to identify the nature of the work, neither (book) or (1836) are particularly helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall doing this disambiguation back when the 1836 edition was in the November 2009 validation POTM. It hadn't been transcluded and so I set it up with the same name as the Index. Based on the extensive note at Index:Nature (1836).djvu I wasn't prepared to make the call on the pre-existing copy's edition details, but it looks as though there was some reason I thought it was a later edition - though what that reason was I don't remember. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this comes down to a matter of fundamentals. I feel that without a backing scan, and with (IMO) such a small difference, this deviation from the publication we have a scan of can be covered in the talk page of the scanned copy, or at en.wp. I totally support hosting multiple versions (cos I don't think we should be the ones to decide which is the definitive version, even if it comes down to something as trivial as one with a few spelling errors and one without) but I feel like we need the scan at least in order to do so. Even in this case, simply hosting the scan (if we can find one), but not proofreading seems like a silly effort to keep both. I don't know, ha I hate to see the almighty scan share space with the old version. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Index:Nature (1836).djvu, I noted that the unsourced version is from the 2nd edition (published as Nature; Addresses, and Lectures James Munroe and Company, 1849) or later; and according to page lxxiii of the "Statement of Editorial Principles" in the Harvard Press edition of Emerson's The Conduct of Life edited by Joseph Slater, the changes were "extensive." These first two editions are the important ones. IMO the ideal solution would be to have both Index:Nature (1836).djvu and Nature; Addresses, and Lectures (1849) included on Wikisource and for the unsourced version of Nature to be deleted. A Google scan of the actual 1849 edition is available. I've paged though the entire scan, and it is clean enough to use. I've looked though the other scans on both Google Books and Archive.org, and the one linked was the best. Unfortunately, I have little time to work on it.--Winkyland (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it! I will try to upload it by the weekend; deletion request retracted. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that you noted its existence at the bottom of the index file.I had only clicked on the library of Congress link, which appears to no longer work, and thought that it had been lost. I apologize for the haste in proposing it. Would you be interested in proofreading the text eventually? - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, some of those links on the index page are now dead. Anyway, I think you are actually correct in proposing the deletion of the unsourced version. If it were up to me, I would have done it when I put the 1st edition up, simply because I don't trust it and will not read it. I've come across too many ebooks riddled with mistakes, and I think it is essential to have things sourced properly. In addition Nature; Addresses, and Lectures includes 200 or more pages of other writings, and I have never seen an edition of Nature published separately except for the 1st edition; So I suspect that this unsourced version was just scavenged. Ideally, an OCR of the Google scan should be proofed. I'm not sure if you were thinking of using the unsourced version or not. IMO, this would be the wrong way to go, as it's missing 200+ pages, and what's there may have subtle mistakes that the OCR just would not make. I am interested in proofing, but my track record in recent times has not been so good. I started Index:Essays (1841).djvu a while back and have made little progress. But it's been on my list of things to do to get all of Emerson's important editions uploaded and proofed.--Winkyland (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm looking, I do find an 1849 edition of Nature published separately. It looks like they use the same plates to print both. However, I still think the correct way to go is with the collection Nature; Addresses, and Lectures, as this is how it's come to be known. Also note that the page that I linked to gives the incorrect reference of "Houghton, Mifflin and co., 1883 - 315 pages". It's "James Munroe and Company, MDCCCXLIX" and 383 pages. The scan is correct, however. Maybe this is a better link.--Winkyland (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the solution is going to be {{migrate to DJVU}} which I think is a wonderful choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of match and split; conversely I do not mind leaving it there in the mean time, but noting that the scan needs proofing on the page. You could ask for it to be the next PotM; that will likely ensure that some significant work gets done on it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2011-06&oldid=3011827"