Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2010-05

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

Kept[edit]

Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn, kept — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
A stray article or two in proposed legislation. The language contained within did make it into law ~2003, but as (sub)sections under a title in a more encompassing bill rather than as stand-alone bills.

I went ahead and built the frame for that Act and redirected anything linked to the old nubs there. A similar proposal from the prior session, the RAVE Act, had a different author but its still somewhat redundant if not abandoned now that the matching incorporated language can be found under the proper heading(s) and as it was when passed into law. George Orwell III (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry for not being more clear at first - let me try this again.
Neither article is my work though I have come across both at one point or another and tried to categorize or clean-up the piece(s) then move on. The primary stray was the Anti-Proliferation Act because, while both were proposed before Congress at some level, only the APA was adopted, incorporated into broader legislation and eventually passed into law in that larger legislation as a simple §ection (608) - no longer a standalone bill in other words. I figured out where that Section 608 really belonged and built the Act's framework with Sec 608. in the right Title using the enacted title as well.
I would have normally deleted the stray's content and redirected it to the new but with some anonymous-user game(?) going on or something in the naming of the page(s) (EYE-EYE-el- licit Proliferation etc. and EYE-EL-EL icit Proliferation etc.) I figured better bring it here instead.
The RAVE Act is just the proposal that did not get anywhere beyond talking points and the end of the Congressional Session. At the end of a Session, anything not re-introduced in the next Session is no longer pending legislation. In this case, there was no need since the Illicit Drug APA of 2003 had most of the amendments to the law that the RAVE originally had anyway. You can argue keeping it goes towards 'legislative history' but that chain or timeline of events is best explained over on Wikipedia IMO. I added a blurb to it's Notes field to point to the passed Act & it's Sec. 608. anyway. 2009: George Orwell III (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC) • 2010: George Orwell III (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to withdraw this proposal if there are no objections - its just taking up space at this point. George Orwell III (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Order finding Matthew Cooper and Time Inc. in civil contempt of court[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept, useful document. Header and license added − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be a document that is not specifically of any historical significance, not maintained, not linked, not particularly anything. No licence, no header. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep; PD-USGov, about w:Matthew Cooper (American journalist) and his leaking of Valerie Plame's name as a CIA agent. Not maximally historical, but any history of the presidency of George W. Bush will mention it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, note re fidelity
This has been proposed for speedy deletion on the grounds that the license is invalid. The rationale is that this is probably a hoax that was written much later than its nominal date. According to wikipedia:Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride, this rationale is correct. PD-1923 is not therefore not appropriate here. PD-Disavowed might be better. I've declined the speedy request for now, but would like a community decision on how to proceed. Hesperian 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep: I believe its a reprint from The Madison Institute Newsletter, Fall Issue, 1894 — [unsigned, George Orwell III, 06:48, 18 March 2010]
From the Wikipedia article:
"No independent confirmation of the text's authenticity exists, and investigators have pointed out that the piece is likely a hoax, citing as evidence that the Methodist Church had no Eastern Regional Conference in 1894, among other telltale signs, such as the fact that the language is not that of a typical Victorian writer. Some have suggested that the piece was written in the 1960s or 1970s as a spoof of Victorian prudery."
Hesperian 07:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Until proof positive is given that what wikipedia has is actually true via another citable source, you can't simply dismiss it based on subjective investigative hearsay IMO. George Orwell III (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you overlooked the link provided above, they seem to be attached to course notes from the University of Washington. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Add: G Gordon Liddy, in When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, 2003 p.122 says "Then here is this gem, purportedly by a woman writing over a century ago." ... Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep. It is a written work and we are a library, so it meets our criteria whether it was published in 1894 or 1964, and we will have to hunt for the right copyright. Label appropriately. Stick {{fidelity}} if that helps. None of it is disavowed until we find that it is a breach of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep, per billinghurst, I like the fidelity template suggestion. (perhaps a warning about forwarding it to work colleagues too ; ) Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Per Wikisource:Possible copyright violations the rule is that we have to prove it is not a copyright vio, if it free in the US then we can have it, else no. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really, we have to prove that all good-faith efforts have been taken to ensure we are not violating anybody's rights in publishing it. There remains a large chasm of difference between the two. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 15:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Concure with amended description. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Kept disavowed and fidelity two comments to be added, will reference this discussion on Talk page


Berber Dahir[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn, translated and kept — Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
an official document in French.
Would it be appropriate to post an original translation to the English-language Wikisource article? Mo-Al (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If there is an English version of the text in the public domain, then we can host it. On the same page we would provide interwiki links to the document in French, Arabic, ... that are on our sister wikis. billinghurst (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I translated to English, reformatted, and removed the French text (it's still in the history, and at the listed sources). Inductiveload (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Code[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Relisting to gain proper consensus.

The current consensus appears to be that we keep some acts/titles as dated, "stable" copies, with external links to an up-to-date copy. The question merely remains is: Which titles do we wish to keep static copies of, and which titles should be deleted?. Jude (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem remains that the proposal is too big and has too many pages for a simple deletion discussion. To start with for the short to medium term I would keep the main page for the code, and for each of the Titles in the code until each can be given its proper consideration in separate discussions. These are also helpful to the reader who just wants a broad idea of how these things are organized. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, no way. United States Code/Title 17 is an example of what we can do. In time, people will give similar special treatment to the other parts of this work. Rome was not built in a day. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    I believe the point being made is that, currently, the USC is languishing with nobody giving special treatment to other parts of the work. There are parts of the code that are impossible to keep up to date--and there are parts of the code that we're currently hosting which are massively out of date. United States Code/Title 17 might be (and indeed, is) a brilliant example, but what of the rest of it? Jude (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    Once we are finished title 17, we will focus on the others. Title 2 and 44 are ones I would like to do. I am sure that Title 10 would be done quickly if we grabbed some of the MilHistory project. Deleting these pages destroys a lot of the infrastructure which has been started. e.g. United States Code/Title 15/Chapter 7A is probably the only good page of Title 15, but it helps set up cross links. ala w:WP:BTW. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    The point about the infrastructure is important. Proposing the deletion of many of these pages is tantamount to saying that we should delete the Encyclopædia Britannica pages because we haven't been able to complete the whole thing quickly enough. Yes, there are parts, such as the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), that are probably impossible to maintain, and these may never be done, but that's normal for such an immense project. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion—I've already explained why all these titles should be deleted (with the exception of Title 17 and the existing hierarchy pages); it boils down to a) we shouldn't show inaccurate material to our readers, b) much of our material is out-of-date, and c) it's just as easy to recreate the material as update it. However, here's a potential compromise—what if on each US Code page we hide the text, as we do for possible copyright violations or long discussions, and add a template saying something like "This content may be out of date. Please see <external link> for an up-to-date version. You may also [[show]] Wikisource's text." Once a user recopies the text and date-stamps it, the text is no longer hidden and a different template is used instead, saying, "This material was accurate as of <date>. Updates since then may be reflected at <external link>." --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    I don't mind actively discouraging people from using our texts where they are out of date. In most cases, we have a link to Cornell at the top. We could make that more prominent. But most of our pages are empty - they are a structure waiting to be filled. I've added text quality links for the first 17 chapters. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    Spangineer's three criteria appear to make sense at first glance; however:
    (a) The fundamental premise is sound, but rather than simply removing the inaccurate material, it is more constructive to express the extent of our doubts. By demanding perfection from the beginning, we can never attain it.
    (b) Of course most of it is out of date. We hide possible copyright violations because of the legal implications that are not a part of this matter. That first part of the suggested compromise can probably be bypassed, and it will be enough to go directly to the second.
    (c) The major failing of this view is that people don't recreate things when they don't know that they need to be recreated. Newbies who are running around looking for something to do won't touch it if they don't have a framework to work from. Most of us are unlikely to have any interest in agriculture whatsoever, but if someone comes along with a keen interest in Title 7, that little bit of structure may be all the encouragement that he needs.
    The Cornell links could be a little more detailed so that they go directly to the referenced provision. The quality links on the head USC page are a good beginning toward making sense of this material from the top. I have two suggestions here: 1. The 0% template should show a symbol of some kind; this would distinguish between really having nothing and simply not having yet considered that provision. 2. The 25% template could have an optional parameter showing the degree of progress. Thus "2/63" would indicate that we host bits from two of the 63 chapters in that title. The parameter doesn't need to be super accurate since its purpose is only to give a rough idea of how far that title has progressed. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't have a problem with keeping "structure" pages that don't have any text on them or contain only a framework. I'm against showing out-of-date text to readers without a clear and easily noticed warning. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. Then we're not as far apart as it first seemed. We agree about warnings. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I/Section 63. Are the notes there what you were thinking of? By all means let us know if this can be improved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I rearranged the note a bit, but overall it looks fine to me. The notes on all these pages might be better handled with a template, so that the key information is always in the same place. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the changes. The template would presumably be inserted in the "Notes" section. What would it include? So far I see currency date, unconsolidated amendments, and proofread date. I would suggest that the 75% template should not be allowed on a statutory provision until these notes have been completed, but I don't know if that is technically feasible. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the old discussion, someone suggested downloading a complete copy of the U.S. Code and working from that. This is feasible as the House of Representatives makes the whole thing freely available for download.[2] In fact, I think this is what Cornell uses as its own source. ASCII and PDF are both available. Seems possible to write some kind of script to parse at least one of those formats and rewrite it in MediaWiki markup. Then cite the "2008 edition" or whatever to let people know how old the copy is. --LarryGilbert (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what LII (Cornell) used originally at some point and still applies for the changes to the Code since then as well as for keeping each Title's sub-division's "Notes" page current & relevant. While I agree that it's possible to bring the category up to ~January 2008's revision of the Code with some combination of scripting and importation (above my skill set & pay grade), the feasibility of doing so would require an effort that is beyond the level of interest shown in the category to date (well at least that's my perception from the short time I've been here I should add). While I hope for a complete Code to be hosted here not only for the related WS content that can utilize the info but to do away with the clutter and redundancy of the Code on Wikipedia as well, the likelihood of tackling a project like that are slim to none in my opinion.
The best solution offered that I've read has been to have the basic framework (or 'the folder tree' if you prefer) of each Title's sub-division's reamain in place and hopefully pass the reader off from there to a related Wikipedia article or to an external source hosting the Code such as LII so they can investigate the content and how current it is on their own if they wish to. George Orwell III (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. To solve the issues raised, we need to set up guidelines for how to includetexts so that the date of accuracy is unambiguous. As Prosfilaes suggested, each page title should be followed by a date in parentheses. Also, laws which were amended at some date should ideally have a disambiguation page pointing to subpages which contain the law as it existed on various dates. Consider the following example: Law A is enacted in 1978, and its Section 2 is amended in 1990. The following structures should exist:
Law A                //disambiguation page
 Law A/Section 1     //redirect
 Law A/Section 2     //disambiguation page
 Law A (1978)
  Law A/Section 1 (1978)*
  Law A/Section 2 (1978)
 Law A (1990)
  Law A/Section 1 (1978)*
  Law A/Section 2 (1990)

Notice that Law A/Section 1 (1978) is linked from both Law A (1978) and Law A (1990), since it was not changed.

Also, we should have disclaimers stating that Wikisource may not contain the most recent version of any given law. Needless to say, this will take quite a while to fill out, but that hasn't stopped us before. I think Wikisource should not have to stop short of including this important legal text. --Eliyak T·C 00:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, did I just reply to a discussion from October? Is there that little interest in the USC? How sad. At least we are keeping it, apparently. --Eliyak T·C 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That was kind of funny... Anyway, the 'born-digital' versions for the USC are linked on on the main talkpage. Still no XML but they keep promising they'll release one every quarter George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:USC

If United States Code is deleted (see above), then this template should be deleted, too.—Markles 10:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikisource:WikiProject US Code for other considerations. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept at this time. No consensus for deletion, though there is the consensus to tidy, and to better clarify the dates of the specific parts and to clearly annunciate that it is not current legislation, but legislation of a date. Persons advocating keep should possibly consider the formation of a project that captures this information, and encapsulates the principles proposed.billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

Wikisource:Requiem[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This page was originally at Requiem, however, I needed to create a disambiguation page there. The page that has been moved does not seem to actually to be a work, rather more of a commentary; definitely unsourced. billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I think the contributor considered the linked Wikipedia article to be the source. I'm not sure what purpose this adaption serves, because it seems to contain nothing that isn't already in the Wikipedia article. —LarryGilbert (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This definitely shouldn't be in the Wikisource: namespace, but it would be good for us to have an English translation of the complete Requiem liturgy here. Yes, it's at Wikipedia too, but it should be here as well - or even only here, since Wikipedia generally frowns on reproducing complete source texts. Angr 13:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lauren.Star.Spangeled.Banner.ogg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: reclosed
The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused machine recording of the Star Spangled Banner (uploaded in 2006). Better quality audio exist at Wikimedia Commons. Blurpeace 07:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
delete as per Blurpeace. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (append) Migrate to Commons if they are interested in receiving the file.
delete? The rationale states: "Better quality audio exist at Wikimedia Commons", is it meant that there is a superior version at commons? The category at our sister contains a variety of sung versions, so I linked the lot, but it does not appear to be redundant. I don't see basis for excluding, or even hosting, an audio file; it is legitimate content in general. Moving it to commons makes it more widely available, but that doesn't necessarily imply it is was inappropriately accessioned to this site. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Was it moved? Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, did you want it moved? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you reckon Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
From a WS I see no special attraction for the file, though on a Commons principles basis I can understand that some may want to keep; though on a value basis, I personally don't see that we are losing anything. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Poem[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted — Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This template is not used, and apparently does not work. --Eliyak T·C 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • delete we need to more to standardise and tidy as possible — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mlk/Qur'an (English translation)/The Opening Chapter[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Snippets of text, no translator, not compliant with standard, not maintained and not rescueable by general editor. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, per nominator − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No actual legislative text, just some highlight info from 2 different bills introduced in 2 different years. Orphaned; never had a header either. George Orwell III (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Atoeam page[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Template was used to call pages of a work, similar to {{Page}}, however the .jpg images have been replaced with a .djvu compilation. I have undertaken a clean up of all associated pages and it is now clean of links. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Per suggestion Jeepday (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearing out old templates makes baby Jesus smile. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. No longer needed.--GrafZahl (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Author:Tony Zappia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete — billinghurst sDrewth
No sources identified and unlikely there ever will be anything suitably licensed anyway. Suggest speedy deletion based on previous discussion. Moondyne (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, as per earlier referenced discussion — billinghurst sDrewth 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

E-PAK Machinery Inc.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted
There are so many reasons to delete this that it's better to see them for yourself George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedied. It's clearly an advertisement and way beyond our scope. I speedied according to criterion G5.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unused deprecated templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted: Unused, obsolete templates − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The following deprecated templates are completely unused:

They can all now be safely deleted. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unused Index file[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete, Zeph
Index:Principiaethican00mooruoft.djvu, all subpage in Page:* has been moved and no redirect from the move has been kept. Delete too the two redirect going to this index, keeping them is misleading as there is more than one edition of the Principia Ethica. Phe (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Author:Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, unpublished works — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Author who created a collection of articles in Wikipedia to promote his hardly notable or non-notable student organization. Here on Wikisource he contributed his personal speeches and essays. Its not only that the author is not notable, I also fail to see why this texts are "sources", they are not even published by someone besides himself on his own website (or in front of a plenum of an ordinary student congress, something that happens a million times every year all over the world). --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional information that may or may not influence decisions, w:Codewit Global network and w:African Students Convention 2005 are similar pages, and Martin has expressed his concerns about their notability at that forum. billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. Yes, this pages are of questionable notability as well as the person on Wikipedia, w:en:Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret and this clubs w:en:Mind Opener magazine. I also removed him, that was some "climax in pretentiousness" (if this phrase exists in english language) from the w:en:Template:Pan-Africanism. Note that the only editor of all this is exactly one user with various accounts (not based on a checkuser). Someone is greedy for recognition here and abusing Wiki projects for this purpose. However, on Wikisource the WS:OR argument is much more important. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you make hasty decision in deleting, Maybe check different international offline newspapers. Remember website sources may not be only evidence for notability. Maybe see the recently uploaded newspaper archives of different international newspapers for your judgement. See Sin hua Newspaper and Sarawak Tribune at Wikimedia Commons. I think we should request for more secondary sources than moving to deletion....that is my view to avoid vandalism Thanks --Stella Ig (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, this is not WP, and we have clear criteria … Wikisource:What Wikisource includes , it is not for secondary sources and we don't rush to decisions. The editor can contribute that information and discuss here as appropriate, in fact that is expected. The lack of discourse works against their case, rather than for. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst I noticed that you are the person that created this author page at first. I just went through the link you mentioned here. I think those people requesting for deletion are missing the point because here is not WP as you said. The main aim is to archive free intellctual works created throughout history either diaries, speeches, personal correspondence, constitution etc. so where did this page you created failed?.I dont get their contention. As you mentioned above, I know that it was not called for to put seconary sources here or request for one but I saw that some body was arguing on secondary source which is not neccesary and I included those newspaper archive to show that such documents has been carried by different sources. Wiki is for educational purposes and should be seen so. I noticed recently from the talkpages of different wiki project that some specific individuals are contending seriously for deletion of related pages for reasons best known to them. Thanks --Stella Ig (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not quite our purpose, there is the expectation that works housed at Wikisource have been through a level of "review" (book editors, other authors) as a published book, article or are historical documents (have stood the test of time). The claim presented here is that a speech to African Students Convention 2005 does not meet our standards as it is not published, or gone through a credible peer-review. I am tending to agree with Martin's assessment, though have been waiting for a response from the editor. Though it does not seem to be coming. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You may add that it is a convention of African Students in Malaysia. The name is pretentious, but it still is a local organization of a few students. Also I think you just talked to the creator, the account Stella Ig, Buty20, Petra02, Vincent demart, Peter489, Hardy bla are all the same from an behaviours view point, all engaged in the same POV pushing and filling Wiki projects with spam. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have similar suspicions too, though I haven't CU'd (to this point). Being open, assuming GF, having the discussion, working with the principles of the situation, and will do the analysis and the judging of truthfulness later. Deception would count against the the case. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I dont understand what you meant. What are you talking about? I think you are getting your assumptions all wrong. which accounts are you talking about. Anyway you are free to say whatever you like. I think wiki project is open for contribution and I dont see what offence i have done here to share my views. Thanks--Stella Ig (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per Martin and Billinghurst. Subject has only marginal notability and seems to be using Wikisource for self-publishing purposes. Moondyne (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete author pages and linked works — billinghurst sDrewth 11
29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics of Prayer[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced, unreferenced and looks like snippets of a work rather than a complete work itself. It may be possible to be rescued, however, at this point it looks sad and discardable in its present form. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I dug around a little bit and found this site. It's got the Characteristics of Prayer. Apparently this is but a sub-collection of Islamic hadiths. So, in a sense it is incomplete, but not too badly. I know nothing about the translation, but doubt it's PD.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
no author, neither source of work nor translation. Delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 0249, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
Addendum: this work had previously deleted as COPYVIO. Possibly one to watch. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 681[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete
This sort of reference info has long been retrievable via the template {{USHRollCall}}. In this case the year is 2008 and roll #681 so using the template
( Roll call vote 681, via Clerk.House.gov )

we get the automatic link to the page with the same needed information. (note -- site down during Easter Recess for maint.) George Orwell III (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed; delete no evidence that fits within WS:WWI as a complete document. — billinghurst sDrewth 02
16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Pad-shortpage[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Template is unused, and in itself says that it is broken. [Operation get rid of junk and confusion] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per billinghurst. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per billinghurst.--Longfellow (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More unused templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The following templates are totally unused, and I don't see how any are useful (or even know what some are for):
  • {{Breslev chart}} - just a link to a page's URL
  • {{Adbx}} - some sort of author template with a confused description
  • {{Author category}} - seems to be the same idea as {{author index page}}
  • {{Authorindex}} - reverses name and surname (was it an early defaultsort workaround?)
  • {{Box portal skeleton}} - some sort of primitive layout for Portals. Received only one edit, back in 2005.
  • {{John-Long-copyright}} - a license template without a work to license.
  • {{Pad}} - some sort of formatting template, with a span with just a nbsp; in it. Maybe supposed to be like {{gap}}?
  • {{Title path}} - seems like a technical test from 2009 (first edit summary:"temporary")
  • {{TPSMV2}} - a hard link to a PSM volume (at least this should be a template that links to any volume).
  • {{Wikipediareturn}} - we have {{wikipedia}} for that
  • {{Wikiquote2}} - dupe of {{Wikiquote}}, without autocompleting the page title.

That's enough for now. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Inductiveload -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Italian sonnets[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete
This category only contains one article, On Re-reading "The Sick King in Bokhara". I see no reason to single out this article when all the other sonnets in Italian form are just categorised as sonnets.--Longfellow (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Index:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1, 1836.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy delete {CSD4]
and the only existing sub-page. This file exist now with the name Index:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1.djvu, the old one is a reprint of the new. Only the first volume has been reprint so there is no way to get a complete set of the second edition. Phe (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete underlying Page:, and create a dated soft redirect of Index:. I am interpreting the statement the old one is a reprint of the new means that the file recommended for deletion is a reprint of the work linked in the body. I think that we can speedy this as Redundant. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeps, my wording is ambiguous, the old one is the Index I created first, not the newest print. Unsure if a dated redirect is needed, no links to it and it's a recent creation. Phe (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, redundant page as duplicates primary edition. Recent addition of back of house page, so no soft redirect created)

billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum, I have asked for the identified and nominated image file to be dealt with as a duplicate. — billinghurst sDrewth

Index:Constitution of the Western Cape.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete G4 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added Index:Constitution of the Western Cape 1997 from Government Gazette.djvu, which is a more official version directly from the Government Gazette, and includes the other two languages in which it was published. Therefore Index:Constitution of the Western Cape.djvu is redundant. - Htonl (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a valid document and we are prepared to host multiple versions if they are significantly different.--Longfellow (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Htonl is saying that the pages shown of the recommended deletion are a subpart and hence an exact duplicate of the aforementioned work. They being an exact duplicate rather than significantly different would be able to be speedily deleted. From my quick look, p36. and p.26 of the respective works are dupes. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, they are not significantly different - in fact the only difference between Index:Constitution of the Western Cape.djvu and the English part of Index:Constitution of the Western Cape 1997 from Government Gazette.djvu is in the formatting. It is the same work in every respect. ETA: that is to say, the two DJVU documents represent different sources for the same work. - Htonl (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, as Billinghurst suggested speedy deletion, I've changed the {{delete}} to {{sdelete}}, criterion G4 (redundant). Can I close this nomination myself, or must someone else do it? - Htonl (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
closed, speedied as redundant

Other[edit]

Delete Template:Endofpage, replace with Template:Page break[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deprecated, move to phase out Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have picked up two similar products for ending a page, and I would think that we can give better guidance if we went to just the one. Personally I find Template:Page break more aesthetically pleasing and a little more versatile. Propose that we convert and make the former a redirect to the latter. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Support sounds like a good plan to reduce template crowding! {{Page break}} seems a bit more flexible, and the page numbers are more likely to be done by transclusion of the pages that labeled at the page boundary, so keep that one. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Conversion all undertaken

File:Dictionary of National Biography volume 09.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Higher qulity version moved to Commons, local copy deleted. − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a locally hosted duplicate of commons:File:Dictionary of National Biography volume 09.djvu. Our version appears to be higher resolution (6784×10300, versus 3150×5078 at Commons), but it is also much larger in size (70.1 MB versus 26.55 MB). Is there some reason why we cannot delete the larger version of this file hosted here, and simply use the Commons copy for proofreading? Or, in the alternative, move our copy to Commons if we think it is better than theirs? Tarmstro99 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to keep the larger version whether that is at the commons or here. I downloaded both versions of the files and the smaller file is much harder to read thus much harder to proofread. (I think that is why the larger file was created in the first place). I know the larger file is using up more disk space, but in this case I think it is for the best. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we move the larger version to commons? I agree that larger is better for proof reading smaller text.JeepdaySock (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
To retain the version history at Commons, it will need to be downloaded and reuploaded. Looked at using import from Commons, however, it is not available at this point of time for WS files. Once that is done then we can delete locally. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolute font size templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Templates deprecated, replaced and a protected against accidental recreation by a warning template. − Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Template like {{large}} and {{small}} are counter-intuitive and inflexible, because they use absolute font sizes that do not line up properly with the "normal" size on the page. For example, large text is two sizes larger than "normal" and small is "normal". Compare with relative templates such as larger and smaller which apply a relative change, and are guaranteed to provide the right direction of sizing, and, moreover, will continue to work even if the user has different default font size in their browser.

Therefore, I propose the following templates be deleted. The replacements I suggest are the ones that seem to have the same effect, however, if the templates have been used as would make sense (eg {{small}} for smaller than usual text), then a straight replacement with {{smaller}} might be better.

Ideally, I think that we should not have these templates at all, as they are misleading. We have a good set of relative templates. Comments? Inductiveload (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Convert to redirects of equivalents I am very much into the KISS principle as being appropriate, and very much into relative font sizes, rather than fixed font sizes. Here I am learning from conversations with Cygnis insignis about coding for the variety of devices that are making their way towards us. They are all lightly used, and making them redirects should circumvent legacy issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I wrote most of these templates and fully understand the value of relative font sizing. The intent here was to encapsulate the css font-size property; the template names correspond to the css spec's standard absolute properties values. In other words, invoking these templates is a shortcut to invoking specific css keywords.
    I wrote most of the proposed replacements, too (I think, have not checked;), although {{xxxx-larger}} wasn't me and that nesting technique should be a single level percentage; 300%, or so; that's also not a css keyword, so the correspondence breaks down. Anyway, these are not really 'equivalents', they're relative font sizing, which is good form. There is an old discussion about this here. I'd be inclined to be sure the documentation is clear about the trade-offs involved in font sizing techniques and possibly review the present usage of these templates. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
JM, I think something like that would be useful as I have no background in the dark arts of CSS. Inductiveload and I did discuss this a little in IRC, and part of the aspects of difficulties imposed by various size templates with regard to line spacing, etc. Presumably others, apart from just me, fallback on their preferred templates and hack away at getting the formatting to fit. — billinghurst sDrewth
I looked at the old thread and see I even suggested redirecting some of them. I think this pivots on the trade-off between offering a complete set of tools vs an inordinately large suite of tools. This was of concern, before.
Also, I see that I started using the nested-spans; I believe the spec says this is explicitly supposed to produce a cumulative effect. And Hesperian offered structures such as: "{{larger|{{larger|}}}}", which should produce reasonable results for the set of templates.
I do expect these to be little-used and cautioned against. My reticence to redirect is primarily about muddying the semantics; in css, "small" means a specific absolute size keyword, and "smaller" means a relative change. And in html, "small" is a keyword with a relative meaning, so it is really about which set of terminology one is drawing from for the naming of templates.
There is an issue of browser compatibility, as IE6 does not support the relative sizes well; not at all, I think. I'm no fan of going much off the proper path for out-of-date browsers.
I will look at usages, and believe a bunch of the absolute form will be best simply converted to a relative form. Once any extant usages are checked, I have no real issue with re-casting the terminology to use the names as shortcuts. From that view, "small" certainly maps to an intent of "smaller" than normal. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, {{xxx-larger}} and {{xxxx-larger}} were me, but I felt it would be good to extend the range. Using the same nested structure seemed logical (it's what {{x-larger}} does, so i just extended the system. I didn't know a lot about CSS, but it seems that will always give consistent results, as opposed to anything using a fixed value which may not look right under certain settings. In this case, it shorthand for many CSS tags.
I am aware some of the "equivalents" I gave are not really the same thing, semantically speaking, but they have the same actual effect for me (and others I suspect?), so we need to decide how to do it (effect vs intention of the CSS tag vs intention of the writer}.
As for the redirects, the first template I reached for was {{large}} before I found about the relative templates. Thus I anticipate a lot of new users will end up using the redirects, perhaps without realising it. If that heavy double usage is acceptable, despite the disparate meanings of "small"/"smaller" etc in context, then redirects are fine. If not, I would say replace (carefully) and remove the absolute ones without redirects, and a note saying that the proper template is {{larger}} to stop well-meaning people filling in the perceived gap before they find {{larger}}. Inductiveload (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • {{xx-small}}, {{x-small}} and {{small}} are all cleaned put, and can be dealt with easily now. The "large" templates all have a lot of usage, so probably need some botting to replace, if we will replace. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've marked {{small}} as deprecated and put a placeholder there to prevent well-meaning people trying to create a new one. If there are no objections, I will do x-small and xx-small soon. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • {{x-small}} and {{xx-small}} now also removed and replaced with a blocking template. The "large" templates still need to be replaced appropriately. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Big-welcome[edit]

The following discussion is closed: converted to a redirect of {{welcome}} — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This template seems to pretty well duplicate {{welcome}} though just have different tabs on show, it is used twice, and seems superfluous to needs. I would propose that this be converted to a redirect as there seems no obvious reason to have a separate copy of the same file. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
delete by conversion to a redirect — billinghurst sDrewth
Post-archive note: It was a duplicate of {{welcome}}, but without the offensive image. The image was later removed and the template moved to {{Welcome tabbertab}}. Arlen22 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)