Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-12

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



Template:Blank page[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.—Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This template is now redundant as the Page: ns now has the grey "Without text" radio button. I have cleansed all the relevant uses of {{blank page}} from the Page: ns and the only remaining refs are from archives or talk pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there definitely not going to be any more bot-uploading of djvu-embedded OCR text? I ask because I believe the pywikipedia framework's, which is/was used by various bot accounts to perform this task, is set up to use this template, rather than leaving pages blank. My personal opinion is that such bots are now worse than unnecessary, so it is safe to go ahead and delete the template. Hesperian 07:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not up to speed on the enhancements, however I think the OCR text is not exposed to search engines until the page has been created. So that would be a reason to continue uploading OCR text using bots.
In regards to this template, the bot logic can be improved to make use of this new "Without text" option.
So, I can't think of any reason to keep this template. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Brigham Young[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Emptied and deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how or why this category page exists. We have author pages for and works about authors, having the category is modifying how we are looking to accumulate and present information. [Apart from the fact that we seem to have aspects of over-categorisation on subpages). -- billinghurst (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk)
  • I agree in principle. There are currently 367 pages in the category so this is going to need a lot of work. I would suggest this as a two stage process beginning by removing the category from those pages where he is the author. Once this is done, the proposal can then be reconsidered based on what's left. In the more general question our author pages are probably over-categorized and main space under categorized, but the general question of categorization is a broader one for another place. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Also, Eclecticology (talkcontribs) suggests a very good way to go about doing this. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks like a lot of the pages are individual journal articles that aren't listed individually on his author page, and might well need a subpage for a reasonable sized page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm quite sure every non-Journal page has now been vacated from the category. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
All the subpages to the work have now been vacated too. I think that we can close and it be removed.-- billinghurst (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
E-mail: No evidence of publication or worth, no source data, and I doubt it's worth chasing around to find out more. It's currently a mess, and can be remade properly if necessary (doubtful). Stale for a month. Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a laboratory results sheet that has been emailed. I doubt that it has been published, or holds relevance as a historic document. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is most definitely an EPA response to a Freedom of Information Act request but there's little else to go on in the e-mail header or in the content itself. I do know that the Lummi Indian Tribe (Washington state?) has brought court action against the local & Federal government for violating their water rights secured by treaties with the U.S. Gov't back in the 1800's over the years - the latest giving the EPA the motivation it needed to actually admit it and do something about it I believe. I'd touch base with whomever does/did the Supreme Court category stuff and maybe even the early Statues at Large pages to see if this was suppose to fit into one or the other somehow. George Orwell III (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted billinghurst (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated template and no longer in use. Not sure whether went through a discussion previously. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
deletedProsfilaes (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

paroled article and posted here محمد عماد محوك, Jeepday (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Translate says "MEM calligrapher Aleppo Is interested in Arabic calligraphy and writing the Koran or parts thereof in various types of Arabic calligraphy and writing calligraphy art and restoration of the manuscript Koran and the writings of mosques in addition to the work of woodlands Sharif family and descent according to the appropriate technical methods, decoration, art, the Arab-Islamic in general." Good for speedy deleting, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Jeepday (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unused and ancient templates[edit]

As part of clean-up I have deleted some old pre-parser templates (unused and undescribed), was going to bring them here however Pathoschild indicated that it was wasting everyone's time. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete(d) per nom. ;-) Hesperian 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Section 3/Title X/Workforce Investment Act, Section 171 amendment[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedy moved billinghurst (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the lack of a header or even being an orphan here, the page, and whatever it's intent was, is also completely redundant. It is basically a copy of the original amendment being made found in the main article -- which happens to be in the form of an addition to the end of existing statue with completely new content; not a series of deletions and/or insertions made to existing language where it's conceivable creating such a page is worthwhile or actually serves a purpose.

   This, however, is nothing more than pointless clutter.

There's a pointless redirect related to the Title X page that, at the minimum should get the boot too (but in light of the 2 dozen other pointless redirects clutering things up}, I guess keeping this single one makes no housekeeping difference at the end of the day. George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While I keep away from US legislation, it sounds like a delete for redundancy/replication. Pointless redirects should be converted to {{dated soft redirect}} so they can be cleaned out by the bot in a couple of months. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Well I think I figured out what the original author's intent may have been when he/she pruned out most of the significant "branches" of changes being made to existing law(s) as they should have been found in the original work's layout and placing these paragraphs & sections on separate subpages instead.
    • An example of what I believe the author was trying to do starts in Title XI, Subtitle C, Section 1121, subsection (a). Here, subsection (a) instructs that a new Chapter is to be added to the existing law(s) at the time and the text for this new chapter was to follow. The author instead cuts this entire new chapter from where it should have appeared as it did the original's layout and places it on it's own sub-subpage, a link & back-link to the now "missing" chapter is substituted {‘‘CHAPTER 556—SHORT SEA TRANSPORTATION’’ in this example} and returns to following the original work's layout until the next point where a considerable amount of new or amended content normally would have appeared, repeating the above.
    • Anyway, isn't there a way to kill the substituted link and just have the content appear where it should, under the Title/Section that it should, without making this into more of a project??? I've seen something similar to this being done with certain templates and their documentation page popping up for you when actually viewing the template instead of applying it. George Orwell III (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking about transcluding a page? You can include the text of another page or a section of a page readily. If you want to transclude a whole page you would code it like {{:Some Other Page}} and you can use relative links if it is a subpage or a full path. Happy to point you to an example, or directly assist if that is required. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
YES.. that's it. Thanks (I keep forgeting that made-up term). I gave it a shot but I get the feeling I renamed the page being inserted into the main work's subpage's section incorrectly. I'm also curious to know what to do about the missing header on the page being inserted too. George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Scratch all the stuff above re: trancluding a 3rd page into the main body of the article (resolved) except for the original request to delete the page with the duplicate content linked in this section's header. Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Note, I placed a header on the page, you should consider the appropriate linking. billinghurst (talk)

Move to Wikilivres[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Transwikied to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since they are not edicts, nor legislation, nor court decisions - none of the existing WS templates adequately allow us to host the following works of Canadian Prime Minister Author:Stephen Harper, and I propose moving them to WikiLivres which is hosted in Canada and allows reproduction of the copyrighted texts.

Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statements to parliaments that are voted by parliamentarians could be seen under a different light in my limited opinion, they are formal statements.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Victi Resurgunt (2009)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Moved generically to Author:Florence Earle Coates, page deleted by (text arrangement) author request. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a modern anthology of public domain works. I don't know that we have permission to use it; it hasn't been properly annotated or sent to OTRS, but given the behavior of the person adding it, I suspect that they are doing it with the permission of the editor and could give us clear permission. While the contents are acceptable, the anthology itself is a self-published artistic work that shouldn't be here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless clear permission that all of the anthology is in public domainDelete as anthology in main namespace. That said, the anthology it could be similarly compiled as such in Author: namespace. Also there is probably not the requirement for the blatant push on each page towards the author's project. Put it on the Author: namespace page, and leave it at that? -- billinghurst (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate direction here. I am the compiler/self-publisher of this work. The pamphlet has been assigned an ISBN number via Bowker; the hard-copy pamphlet itself is protected under general copyright because of its unique organization and formatting (font, etc.), but the poems and quotations themselves are public domain material and are eligible for listing at Wikisource -- unless I am in err. Please feel free to correct me on this! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When I began my research on this poet, I was hard-pressed to find any information online about her. What information I have been able to compile, I have listed on my website, as well as on the Wikipedia pages. If it appears that I have made a "blatant push" toward my informational website, it is because it is the only website with any comprehensive information about the poet... Which is why I have chosen to "spread the wealth" on Wikipedia and her sister sites. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I have made a great effort to make sure I add information and sources responsibly, and would like to fully cooperate with the rules of your site. Thank You, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I see no problems with keeping this. Individual contents all appear to easily qualify for inclusion. A simple listing of the contents of an anthology is descriptive information rather than a creative work, and as such not copyrightable. Artistic presentation and organization, new illustrations, biographical notes, etc. could be copyright protected, but are not essential to what we do here. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • An anthology does have a collection copyright; you can not produce a new anthology with the same works in the same order. More over, while the individual contents all appear to easily qualify for inclusion, I have the same concerns about the anthology itself as motivated the inclusion principle; we're not a place for self-published material. The description of the anthology is as irrelevant as the description of any self-published work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Self-publishing is a separate issue from copyright, so let's avoid conflating the two. Two anthologies with the same works in the same order can be legally published as long as one is not derived from the other; it is possible if two editors choose the same selection and ordering criteria. Londonjackbooks's primary selection criterion appears directed at including all of her Coates's works. This kind of careful effort takes time. For a database site such as Wikisource ordering is a meaningless concept. Even where order would be relevant a common predictable order such as alphabetical or chronological would not be copyrightable. It's dismissive to say that a description of an anthology is irrelevant. The description is on the other side of the w:Idea-expression divide from the anthology itself. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • With all respect, Florence Earle Coates also "self-published" her 16-page pamphlet, Pro Patria (1917). Is that work also irrelevant here? Or does it carry more weight since it is historical?... I do understand your "collection [order] copyright" argument... Here is my proposed solution: I will list the name only of the collection in the "works" section, but will do so without the brackets ([[ ]]); i.e., without the link to the work details... Since most of the poems contained in the collection are "fugitive verse," I will list them under the "fugitive verse" heading in the order that they appeared in the magazines, etc. That should satisfy both the "order copyright" issue as well as the "irrelevancy" issue (although I disagree with the latter argument). Hope this helps... Please continue to provide feedback! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
        • WS:WWI specifically includes works published before 1923, whether self-published or not. Most projects like ours tend to be a lot more generous about the inclusion rules for older works than newer works, since older works don't have the vanity issues new self-published works tend to suffer from.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No "vanity issues" here! I have given away more hard copies than I can ever expect to sell (zero so far!)... After I discovered the contents of the original pamphlet, Pro Patria (1917), and later Mrs. Coates' subsequent fugitive verse on the war, I wanted to give the fugitive verse a "home" of sorts to serve as a complement to Pro Patria--to complete the story... I have no problem if the site chooses deletion of Victi--I am happy just to be able to contribute Mrs. Coates' works and verse for others who may appreciate her poetry as I have! I am learning much here!Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any item should be accessioned with proper attribution. A note on the source in the header or on the talk via {{Edition}} is best practice. From an electicological perspective, sub-paging the works to the title would allow this detail to be noted once, eg. Victi Resurgunt/Serbia. An even better contribution would be if the Londonjackbooks provide the 'wealth' of transcriptions from the original publications, with annotation given as above. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Electicological??? :-P I don't think that sub-paging would solve the problem. A typical anthology is a collection of works which have all or mostly all been previously published in separate contexts. They are a derived source. We probably need a broader discussion about the position of anthologies in the hierarchy of any author's work. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I meant to type eclecticological :) Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I do plan to more completely expand the 'wealth' of info. in the days ahead... It is slow-going being new to the formatting, etc. Thank you for the suggestions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
      You're doing fine. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please allow me to add that removing the wikilink to the collection on the author page and letting the collection "float" without any link referring to it on any different page is not a satisfactory solution. If the work has an ISBN number, it's a published work and can be licensed. I don't think anyone here cares if Londonjackbooks is deciding to retain the copyright on the typesetting arrangement. In essence it would be a case of "some rights reserved". By the same token if you are adding more source info to your proposed public domain wikisource edition that's not a copyright concern either. I think the consequence of what Eclecticology was saying about Londonjackbooks anthology ordering being the result of "careful effort" is therefore that Londonjackbooks should either issue a license release of the ordering of the anthology, or remove the anthology page and contribute the poem titles in a generic manner on the author page, with any productive originality involved being automatically licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. ResScholar (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone with the authority/ability to do so may permanently delete the Victi Resurgunt (2009)page... I have already listed the titles chronologically (as published) under "Fugitive verse" on the author page, and feel that is sufficient! Much thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for patiently and considerately addressing our sometimes all-too-cumbersome licensing requirements. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Redirected to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Header. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two document templates in use for 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Template:EB11 and Template:EB1911. Pages were duplicated with Template:EB11 as top level pages, and Template:EB1911 as subpages of the work. I have created redirects for the former, to respectively point to the latter. There are no active pages using this template and it should now be deleted.

I've removed Template:EB11 from the one article page it was linked to and replaced with Template:EB1911. The article was 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Münnich, Burkhard Christoph. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have redirected this template so that old revisions like this work correctly. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Protected against recreation[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Softredirect to Special:ProtectedTitles. I've protected all the pages on the list manually. As pointed out by the nom, the page is redundant to the new software which allows for pre-emptive protection. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This page was originally created to allow administrators to protect pages from creation using cascading protection. However, the MediaWiki software now allows administrators to directly protect pages from creation. Administrators can also "mass protect" pages that match certain regular expressions by using Mediawiki:Titleblacklist. As such, I don't think this page is needed anymore. (I cannot add the {{delete}} tag since the page itself is protected.) Alternatively, this page can be unprotected and turned into a soft redirect to special:protectedtitles. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Many of the pages on the list should probably be removed. The Ass Pus vandal, for example, already has proven that he has enough imagination to come up with new names, so maintaining these on the list only leaves us with a long list of titles that nobody will ever use. Keeping them on the list seems consistent with his aims. Some titles are listed for copyright purposes, but it is the actual work that is copyright, not the title. The protection on the titles should expire after a reasonable time. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for us to be repeatedly manually deleting 1984. Whatever the copyright issues, having that on a list against recreation does nothing but save us admins time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I see that the proposal is to delete the page with the listing, not to stop protecting certain pages. Subsequent to that there is the intimation that those that are protected could look to be moved to varied types of protection that may be more effective.
Personally, I had never seen the page, and I believe that it is redundant to needs. That said, as admins, we probably need to review all the new(er) mediawiki components, and look to update as necessary. Until that is done, I believe that the page should be retained. billinghurst (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)