Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-11

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


Talk:Open Letter to Shaykh Bin Baz on the Invalidity of his Fatwa on Peace with the Jews[edit]

I dont see how the link on this talk page relates to the text. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Since this is on an article talk page, I wouldn't be concerned about that. Eclecticology (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the person who manually transribes these speeches, it's nice to be informed when people use WS texts to republish elsewhere. I see no harm in it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 03:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Talk:For the Fallen[edit]

This poem is user contributed; if we have one here, why not two, or three. It has been here a while, so it is worth giving an opportunity to discuss. Perhaps blanking it would suffice. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not really what Wikisource is for. I don't see a reason to merely blank the page. The anon hasn't made any edits (in three years) other than this; if it was a regular user, I'd say userfy it, but since that's not an option, just delete it. EVula // talk // 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of prior publication. Eclecticology (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca L. Mahady v. Joseph D. Mahady[edit]

I am not sure whether WS gets many court papers about divorce cases, however, it would seem to me that we should not be encouraging this sort of contribution. It would also seem that it is personal commentary with the description that could cause harm to reputation. billinghurst (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Question. Do we know whether this court decision was published in S.W.3d? We generally include only previously published texts, and not all court opinions satisfy that criterion. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No idea, not my country. Here it would specifically be excluded from court reporting services. One would have thought not, as it is of zero value to anyone (personal opinion). From a quick look, it didn't seem to be through any higher courts to enable it to be defining case law. Indication would be that we have one of the parties to the dispute, :-( billinghurst (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The case is here, and this text is available here, which says "Publications Containing this Opinion: Southwest Reporter". I'm not sure whether that means it is going to appear in print or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It may just be to say it was sent to them to decide if they wanted it. Eclecticology (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A private decision in the absence of appearance in a legal report. The link at the bottom of the page is of no help. Some private decisions may still merit public distribution, but it's up to the contributor to make that point. Eclecticology (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted The contributor User:Rmahady blanked the page herself on Oct. 22 (even though that was reverted). It could be revived if it really does appear in the SW3rd, preferably as a part of a larger undertaking. Without this we risk being used as a kind of "gotcha" between enbittered spouses taking advantage of these case reports being in the public domain. Posting legal decisions to which one is oneself a party might be a little corner of Wikipedia's BLP that could be used to good effect. Eclecticology (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Christian works[edit]

{{Ancient Christian works}} and :{{Ancient Christian author}} are both unnecessary if we simply make the "Previous" tag in the header point back to Wikisource:Christianity. Also, the portal's being deleted as I recall.
I disagree with the suggestion. Christianity is obviously much broader than Ancient Christian works.--Poetlister 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--Poetlister 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a useful category, and it is much easier to add categories to a work (when importing the work) than to add the work to multiple project pages. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and create some sort of page that makes sense... it is highly useful as a catalog of authors. The Christianity portal simply does not help in finding these authors and their texts at present. Perhaps making the template point to something like Wikisource:Christian Authors before 1000 AD and creating additional portals for Christian authors from 1000-1500 and 1500-1600, 1600-1700, 1700-1800, 1800-1900... I know it isn't a perfect solution, but if you were looking for what Christian Authors were here, this would help categorize them by era. Looking, for example, at Author:Augustine of Hippo, there is currently no categorization of this sort. --Mkoyle 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Both linked through to the previously deleted portal. The organisation of various Christian and other religious pages seems particularly muddled at present. The Portal: namespace is seriously underutilised, and many of these topical lists would be better moved from the Wikisource: to the Index: namspace. I would certainly support reinvigorating the Portal: namespace to top-level subject areas such as, in the present case, religion. Eclecticology (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Print version notice[edit]

After a very long discussion from January to June this year, print-ready editions of texts were deleted. I have just now found three more, two of which use {{Print version notice}}:

John Vandenberg (chat) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of them need to be split. I'll help with this. Also, why is this under a new superheader? Shouldn't this be on the talk page? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the discussion agreed on deletion of full text versions of other texts, and not on print versions created through transclusion. Just what would be the problem in having these pages, and what is the reason for their deletion? Nikola Smolenski (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted, also Treaty of Lausanne/Print version which is one more of the same kind that I found. Eclecticology (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Could someone please undelete? I don't see anything close to consensus or even a majority here. Nikola Smolenski (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The deletion took into account the lengthy discussion referenced by John when he first made this nomination. They likely would have been deleted then if they had been noticed. Apart from the naming of the subpage extension, how do therse differ? Eclecticology (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, like Eclecticology said, the deletion seems appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Said lengthy discussion concerned pages that had text copy/pasted from multiple other pages; such pages have various problems (for example, updating text in one of the pages won't update it in the full version). But these treaties are made by transcluding other pages, which means that they don't have the same problems. In the discussion several people have stated that they support print versions made through transclusion. I'd add that the same system is used on Wikibooks, from where I have copied this template. Nikola Smolenski (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
          • As long as this involves a series of pages and subpages isn't this the sort of thing where a software solution should be sought where calling a print version with a "/" parameter at the end of the page name would summon all subpages? I also have issues with the way we transclude pages, but this is not the place to enter into that argument. Eclecticology (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Such a software is not the best idea since 1) it can not know how to order pages, nor if and how to insert titles between pages and so on, and 2) wouldn't work with works that aren't grouped under a subpage, which is the case with a lot of poems; and in any way it does not exist.
              Anyway, there is no consensus to delete these pages; will someone please return them? Nikola Smolenski (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Auditory vs. Visual AD/HD: Deepening Our Understanding of AD/HD Complexities and Processing Disorders[edit]

There was some indirect discussion of this more than a year ago, but it seems to have been inconclusive. (See Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-08#Manntaireachd.) It may or may not be a copyvio. There is a claim that it has been freely licensed at he bottom, but this seems to be hased on a statement that the contributor's author/employer asked that it be posted. Was there ever an OTRS permission ticket? Has this ever been published elsewhere? While I believe that there are times when we should be including unpublished material that should be the allowable exception rather than the rule, especially for recent material. There is also the matter of the article having been put as the only article in Category:Dissertations even though the above-noted archive discussion states that it is not a dissertation. Eclecticology (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Academic journals and Category:Magazines[edit]

The problem with these categories is the difficulty in defining exactly what they mean. Simply having "journal" or "magazine" in the title does not make it so. Whether a publication is academic or not depends too much on a person's point of view. I have restructured the entirety of Category:Periodicals with a view to sub-dividing according to topic areas. I am moving everything out of the two subject categories, with the temporary exception of the pages for America's Best Comics whose fate depends on a separate deletion proposal. Once these moves have been made the two categories can be deprecated. Eclecticology (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Excerpts from study report of third battle of panipat headed by Arthur Wellselley for English east India co.[edit]

This purports to be an extract from another document that has not been properly identified. The assortment of spelling and grammatical errors in the text suggest that it may have been edited to present a particular Point of View. Eclecticology (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Durrani Vazir Wali Khan Qajar and The American Historical review of conflict between durranis & marathas appear to be from the same person or his old sockpuppet, and have similar sourcing problems. These were put into Category:Deletion requests/Unpublishedin August, but no discussion appears to have been started. Eclecticology (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete all three. See also w:User talk:Gymnindia
John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lber AL vel Legis Persian Translation (Chap A)[edit]

This has been here since 2005. It has a misspelled title, and is an incomplete and purportedly a Farsi translation of an Aleister Crowley work. There is no translator information, so it may be a copyvio anyway. Eclecticology (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a unique work by Sepand (talkcontribs). We have a Farsi sub-domain, and I am sure they would love to take this of our hands. I have notified Sepand via email so the user can confirm the copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I am the translator of this content and I placed it in wikisource myself. At first I put the material in English Wikisource but then someone moved the content to Persian section. I am not sure if this proposition is for deletion of both English and Persian section or only English. But if the Persian section will be preserved it doesn't seem necessary to keep it in English section too. P.S. Thanks John for contacting me. --Sepand (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The concern was only with what appears in the English Wikisource. The page here should really have been deleted at the time of the move to the Farsi project. Now that I know that it's there, we can bypass the Transwiki process. Eclecticology (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It is here --Sepand (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleted. I read these comments as agreement, Eclecticology (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


We have Category:Works originally in Spanish, and Category:Spain. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I fundamentally agree with what you're trying to do, but have a reservation about whether there might be a more efficient title for Category:Works originally in Spanish. Eclecticology (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, would be misleading if applied to works originally in Spanish, and I think the nominator was also pointing out that people from Spain are "Spanish", so it would not be clear what the category was referencing. BD2412 T 07:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The other categories seem appropriate. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Emptied and deleted. Giggy (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More non-English works[edit]

Category:Non-English works whose languages are known should just be a sub-cat of Category:Transwiki templates so we have all the "move this off our server" stuff together.
Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is fine where it is under "works by language" as that is a common sense way for people to find works to transwiki to a different subdomain. John Vandenberg 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If something needs to be transwikied just do it. Don't put a tag on it and wait for somebody else to act. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on this one. The category has a number items that have remained tagged for a long time without any progress. Bold or brutal treatment may be warranted. Eclecticology (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The contents of the category have been cleaned out and the category deleted. There are a number of other categories to which Category:Wikisource backlog applies. These should be systematically reviewed by experienced Wikisourcerors. These categories tend to accumulate contents without anyone taking notice, allowing those contents to grow without limit. Most such categories should be deprecated when the ultimate intent of being listed is to have the items listed there deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Jeepday makes a good case, so I see no reason to withhold deletion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The current content is

This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the Zimbabwean government.
All official Zimbabwean texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.


The reference Copyright in Publications of the State indicates that {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} is wrong and that copyright falls to the president on all government works for 50 years. The tag is currently used on two articles, one has {{PD-GovEdict}} and the other is being discussed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#2008 Zimbabwean power-sharing agreement, which will either be deleted or qualify for {{PD-GovEdict}}. I am suggesting that {{PD-ZimGovDoc}} be deleted because for Wikisource {{PD-GovEdict}} is a more liberal license for WS usage and there is no content on Wikisource that could be covered (for several years) by any changes that would be legal for a corrected template in Zimbabwe. Jeepday (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mishnah Berakhot Translations[edit]

This and a few similar category redirects were set up two years ago to reflect that "Translations" would not normally have been capitalised in a category name. Since then this is the kind of situation where a soft redirect might have been used. Eclecticology (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished[edit]

The problem with this category is that it invites backlog. Articles are put into the category through a template tag at the beginning of the article, but unless there are procedures for resolving these nominations they could stay in such a category forever. Could "unpublished" be changed into a parameter instead of a sub-page? Eclecticology (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the contents of this page below if anyone wants to comment on any of them before deletion. Eclecticology (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Eclecticology (talkcontribs) that this would be better as a parameter or even sub-category than a sub-page. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed; good nom. Unneeded page should be deleted. Durova (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Contributions by User:[edit]

There are currently five pages contributed by this person, all dealing with Islamic subjects. They are all properly marked as unpublished. In the absence of publication information we are unable to determine whether they represent a correct interpretation of Islam or are the opinions of a particular Islamic sect. Eclecticology (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Bowen Day[edit]

I found this in Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished, where it has been marked since August 28. The article West Virginia Governor's Special Citation Honoring Ben Bowen is related. Unless there are clear views to the contrary within the next week both will be deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like they have both had issues and deficiencies for some time now. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Durova (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I object to this deletion. It is used on w:Ben Bowen, and obviously is a local government edict; possibly also was given in a modified form as a speech at some function. The contributor is an active Wikipedian, they have email enabled but was not contacted, and Eclecticology is both proposing deletion and performing it after little more than a week. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    If you look back at the article's history you were the one to propose the article for deletion as unpublished in August! So now, when I brought it back up in an effort to clean up backlog, and deleted it after waiting for a full week, during which I received only two comments, both supporting the deletion, you decide to change your mind. You did comment on a few other proposals during the same time frame, so it's not as if you didn't have the opportunity. If cleaning up backlog is important to you then get serious. Under the circumstances of your tag I would have been perfectly justified in deleting it outright without further discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to step in, without comment on the Bowen text, to say that deleting items from a backlog "without further discussion" is not "perfectly justified". A backlog of texts that "appear unpublihed" or "with unknown translators" is cause to start a collaborative project to gangbang the problem and motivate the community to tackle it over the coming month. The 'delete' button is not the answer. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 09:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not propose it for deletion! I asked a question: {{Published?}} - the question mark is important. Many times, this question is answered by the initial contributor. You dont see those cases, because they are fixed soon after they are tagged, or they are deleted when I am pretty confident it has never been published. If it is left tagged for ages, it is because someone needs to do the research, and bringing it here is the right thing to do. Votes to delete are not worth much unless the person says that they personally have tried to find a reason to keep, and come up empty handed.
I didn't comment on this one because I spent my time on the others, and didnt have time to look at this one. I would have appealed if you had deleted it outright also; deletion tends to give me reason to find the time that I might not have otherwise used to do the research required. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can afford to equivocate somewhat less than that. Yes, you put {{Published?}} on the article, but that question mark looks very small when you consider that when you created that template in January with a single edit it was to be nothing more than a redirect to {{No publishing info}}. Furthermore, throughout this time the latter template has added Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished, amazingly as a part of your design of the template.
Your statement "You dont see those cases, because they are fixed soon after they are tagged, or they are deleted when I am pretty confident it has never been published," bears repeating. That's all very nice if they are fixed. The second part that depends solely on you being "pretty confident" Given Sherurcij's complaints about my "perfectly justified" statement, which I only put forth as an alternative to bringing them up for discussion as I have been, I am surprised that he has not taken you to task on your statement.
As to your complaint that the proposal was here only a little more than a week. My actions were perfectly consistent with Wikisource:Deletion policy which states "The discussion will be held for at least one (Proposed deletions) or two (Possible copyright violations) weeks." Eclecticology (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Equivocate?? That is a bit rich. This is simply not the place to discuss template design in detail. We have {{Unpublished}} and {{Published?}}, the latter being a redirect to {{No publishing info}}. I created them all, using {{No translator info}}/{{Translator?}} and Category:Deletion requests/Unknown translators as a model.
I have never been keen with the name "Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished", as I agree with Sherurcij that they shouldnt be eligible for deletion without a proper investigation, however Category:Deletion requests is where all sorts of "deletable" material is grouped together. I am pretty confident that Sherurcij is concerned about speedy deletion of items that are left in these maintenance categories, rather than the pages that are ushered off this website after a day or two. If you are seriously worried that I might be deleting pages that might be able to cleaned up and kept, my deletion log is here - have fun.
The template says that an admin is permitted to delete a page at any time so that the contributor knows that it is their responsibility to provide more meta data. These templates only work well if the initial contributor sees the template, and we can be quite sure that the initial contributor did not see them in this case.
Regarding policy, please see Wikisource:Scriptorium#Deletion policy: closure by uninvolved administrator.
Note: I am also appealing the deletion of West Virginia Governor's Special Citation Honoring Ben Bowen.
John Vandenberg (chat) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no dispute about whether this discussion relates to one or two articles. The two are clearly connected, and what is good for one is good for the other.
I see no benefit to making a semantic difference between "Deletion requests" and "Proposed deletions", and trying to draw the conclusion that a deletion threat in the notice doesn't mean what it says. A notice on the face of an article speaks to everybody, not just to the contributor. Adding an article to a deletion category speaks to everybody, not just to the contributor. If a template says "that an admin is permitted to delete a page at any time", this is quite different from saying that it needs to be discussed. If your intent is to get action from the contributor, you would do better to put the threat on his talk page. If the intent is some kind of a things-to-do reminder to yourself, a personal user sub-page of your own would be more suitable. Eclecticology (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

3 works by Author:Victor Yan[edit]

These have been tagged in Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished since August 20. They also show no licence information. The Author page adds no other information about the person. Unless support for keeping thes is provided within the next week, the 3 works and the author page will be deleted. Eclecticology (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Most certainly. Per above rationale. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tried to find out whether there is a famous Victor Yan, unsurprisingly couldn't find any! Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    I thought of the Chinese cooking show on TV called Yan's Woking, because he used to make some incredibly bad puns on the word "wok", but it turns out his first name was Stephen. :-) Eclecticology (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Deleted, Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


America's Best Comics/subpages[edit]

The head page for this America's Best Comics already shows the covers for all the comics published under this title. The various sub-pages were all started with good intent, but none of them appear to show anything more than the same front cover. The contributor appears to have abandoned this project. We should keep the head page, but all the sub-pages should be deleted without prejudice unless and until someone is ready to add content. Eclecticology (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps one of them could be left as a template, when someone decides to upload an entire comic. Nikola Smolenski (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
America's Best Comics/18 and America's Best Comics/20 contain more content, as do many others found at images beginning with "AmericasBestComics". Deleting only those with a single image is reasonable, as it helps new people see which issues are needing more work. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I had only spot-checked a few, but I have no problem with keeping any that have more than the single image. I'll check carefully when it comes to the actual deletion process. Eclecticology (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:Searching and Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print[edit]

Orphan index pages that don't really provide any information that couldn't be summed up in a single sentence on one of our many Help pages (or even on the Special:Search page for the first and Wikisource:Sources for the latter) - at this point they're basically massive advertisements for Google. "Extra" indexes will only work against us, as readers find them and marvel at how poor some of our pages are. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, they are not index pages - they are project pages. The "Wikisource:" namespace is the publicly visible name given to the "Project:" namespace (try hovering over Project:Works to see that the URL it will take the reader to). The searching page could be moved into the Help: namespace, however there are many "project" pages that are neither help nor topical indexes. As I keep saying, we need a "Topic" namespace, which has grown into a large separate collection, like the "Author" namespace. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of their exact nature, the pages are useless tripe that isn't helpful to Wikisource readers. If there is any valuable information on either page, it should be merged into Special:Search, Wikisource:Sources or Help:Reading. But requiring a reader to find all eleven pages that are about "searching" to get a full grasp on the concept is counter-productive. Have one page about searching WS. Since when does WS "suggest installing the Google Toolbar"? The page is rubbish, and instead of "cleaning it up", we should clean up Special:Search, Wikisource:Sources and Help:Reading Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They are in the Project namespace, as they are useful to some project members. I have Wikisource:Searching once or twice since I updated it, in order to recall how to use the "google:" keyword. If you want to move WS:SEARCHING into the Help: namespace, or merge the "Google Print" page into another list, be all means go ahead, but do a good job of it.
There is very little benefit in deleting any project page; OTOH, it is useful to keep the historical project pages visible (under a redirect) to non-admins who might be curious enough to want to learn the history, for whatever reason. I find it extremely rude to remove peoples contributions from their list of contributions, unless there is an overwhelming need for it to no longer be viewed by anyone. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we either move the pages to User:Jayvdb/stuff (similar to User:Sherurcij/stuff) where you can keep all the links that you use "once or twice" on your personal userpage and subpages. The problem with leaving them in the "public" is that they distract readers who come across them, give a poor focus to WS ("wait, why does WS suggest Google for all my searching needs? And why should I install their toolbar? What does this have to do with WS?"), and sap up information that should be collected on a single page or two, and spread it across dozens of pages. Moving it to userspace will preserve its edit/contribution list, if that is important. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the idea of Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print is useful. Sure, it is far from complete, but I don't see the harm it would do if we keep it. Yann 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any convincing reason why it shouldn't be merged into Wikisource:Sources though? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to merge these. Abandoned projects don't need to be kept forever. Seemingly competing projects by long departed users soon become little more than clutter. Eclecticology 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe both pages are useful to the project and I have actually used Wikisource:Searching a number of times. I understand the reason for merging Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print and Wikisource:Sources, however if this is done, as much of the information on the former should be added to the latter. John brings up the important point about retaining the history of these pages which is, in my opinion, a good argument for not deleting. Suicidalhamster 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep but tag as historical. --Sunstar NW XP 14:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This heading was started in February, and is still unresolved. I don't dispute the good faith of those who want to keep this stuff, but there is still a tendency to let this stuff stay out of fear of stepping on someone else's toes. Most of what is referenced here is organizational material; it is not article material. It involves organizational schemes that are no longer in use, sometimes by contributors who have not been active for a very long time. Conflicting organizational schemes tend to create confusing clutter when they are not subject to occasional clean-up. If we need to have a detailed discussion for every item at every time someone wants to reorganize a category nothing will ever get done. The work still needs to be done with a great deal of sensitivity, but it needs to be done. Eclecticology (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


I for one find the Wikisource:Searching useful. I am using it to navigate to Google search, which has some more functions like searching for word phrases such as "black hole", and excluding search terms using '-"excluded term"'. In any case, I would prefer having a quick way of navigating from the internal search function to Google search function, which the Wikisource:Searching, linked to from [1], provides to me.

Wiktionary has Google search integrated as one of the search options, along with other popular search engines, so one does not need to go to the help page on search. See [2].

The Wikisource:Searching tells how to search Wikisource, not what sources there are for the texts to be taken over to Wikisource, so a merger seems undesirable to me.

Heaving a dedicated help page for searching is usual in other MediaWiki projects:

--Dan Polansky 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would keep this, but I'm also inclined to move it to Help:Searching. That namespace seems to be more suited to situations where a newcomer is looking for how to do things without reference to the policy aspects. The four projects listed are not consistent about where to have the page. This thread has been here since June, and unless there are serious objections in the next week Iwill make the move and close the discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print[edit]

Given the page on Google Print and the one on Sources are so much related that they are a candidate for a merger, a first step would be to let them link to each other in a ==See also== section (or ==Related pages==, ==Related guides==, or whatever preferable), so that whoever comes accross one of them does not miss the other one, isn't it? --Dan Polansky 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The page is currently an orphan, and appears to have long outlived its usefulness. It still a few links to outside discussions, but to whatever extent these are still useful they could be merged to a relevant other page. Eclecticology (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request: Osip Mandelstam[edit]

I think Osip Mandelstam's poems published before 1923 (Stone, 1908-1915, and Tristia, 1922) are not covered by URAA, and therefore can be undeleted. Yann 15:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please specify which pages to undelete?--Jusjih 03:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
From Stone: The careful and muted sound, 1908; The Christmas trees are shining, 1908; From the semi-dark hall, 1908; To read only children's books, 1908; More tender than tender, 1909; I'm given a body – what to do with it?, 1909; Up out of an evil clinging pool, 1910; A meagre beam in a cold measure, 1911; The dull air is moist and resounding, 1911; Hagia Sophia, 1912; Insomnia. Homer. The rows of stretched sails, 1915. Yann 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Are the years given for English translations? If so, then they may be undeleted here as pre-1923 works.--Jusjih 02:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
All of those years are for the original Russian editions; the translations on English Wikisource were created by Dmitrismirnov (talkcontribs), and so were released as GFDL. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
A copyright English translation edition of Tristia comes complete with pagescans of the Russian. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The deletion discussion occurred here (I dont think that discussion was been archived properly; I've noticed other discussions from that period were not archived either). I was not happy with the outcome, but it was complex. The interplay between PD-1923/PD-1996/URAA/rehabilitation/etc was not fully explored from a legal sense. w:Osip Mandelstam still doesnt mentioned copyright, and Copyright law of the Soviet Union is mentions only the Russian copyright situation. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles in NYT pre 1963 that might be PD, or at least give more clues on what was published in the U.S. that might be PD. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"In 1922, when he was thirty-one years old, the Russian poet Osip Mandelstam published an essay in which he deplored what he saw as widespread Buddhist influence on European culture in the nineteenth century." - An End to Suffering, by Pankaj Mishra. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I have undeleted most of them translated by Dmitri Smirnov. However, From the semi-dark hall and Insomnia. Homer. The rows of stretched sails never exist here. I would like to request evidence that the translators of Up out of an evil clinging pool have agreed GFDL. Is User:Dmitrismirnov the same as w:User:Dmitrismirnov and w:Dmitry Nikolayevich Smirnov (composer)? If yes, I am going to add this to w:Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.--Jusjih 19:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Dmitrismirnov is the same as w:User:Dmitrismirnov and w:Dmitry Nikolayevich Smirnov (composer). John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have reported this fact to Wikipedia for better administration there while conflicts of interests are more serious matters there. Now, who can prove that the translators of Up out of an evil clinging pool have agreed GFDL, please?--Jusjih 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've personally received the permission for this publication under GFDL from Gerard Author:Gerard McBurney and Author:Rosamund Bartlett when I met them in London in January 2007. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please forward the evidence of the permission to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org so it can be ticketed. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be completed and will soon be archived with the restored articles kept. Eclecticology (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject US Code/subpages[edit]

There are a few hundred such pages, all of which seem to be redirects to the corresponding "United States Code" page dating from when the move was made in March 2007. With soft redirects these would have disappeared long ago. Eclecticology (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC) PS:There are so many of them that I wouldn't mind if someone used a bot to delete them. Eclecticology (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep, if you are referring to the pages listed in Category:United States Code by reference code. These are used by our {{USC}} template. Tarmstro99 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This makes no sense. That template was developed before all the pages were moved. There are between 150 and 200 such links, but 438 of these subpages, so they are not all linked. Why not just revise the template so that it links to the correct page rather than to a redirect page. Eclecticology (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wiki keep, {{USC}} is heavily used in content and discussion pages. It should not be subst:ed because many parts of USC havent been touched in years, so it is quite likely that pages will need to be moved around. Any redesign of that template (and thus these redirects) needs to be thoroughly discussed before implemented because ... if it aint broke, dont fix it! (or be bold and brace yourself).
There are more subpages than links because some of these deep-link into a page. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems tantamount to support for double redirects. A procedure similar to what was done with Header/Header2 could easily apply here, beginning with new {{USC2}}. The orphaned redirects can still be deleted without damage; links to the others can either be replaced by the new template or direct links to the referenced section. (I believe that deep linking is not user-friendly, but the more general arguments can wait for a different time.) Thorough discussions are fine, and that's why I began by raising the point here. Eclecticology (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started {{USCX}} (USC2 in retrospect was misleading). It leads directly where we would want. Any improvements by someone more adept with templates would be welcome. Eclecticology (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion will be moved to Wikisource talk:WikiProject US Code. Any decision to delete these pages will involve a large number of deletions and have the characteristics of a small project. A deletion proposal page is fine for introducing such a proposals, but it could become hopelessly backlogged if it keeps complex deletion projects that would take significant time to accomplish. Eclecticology (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)