Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-12

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 on 01 December 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


EB1911 category hierarchy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep but rework, Hesperian's summary and recommended action drew only one other comment, for a potential solution (new technology). Hesperian has added the task to his "to do" list and indicates he will publicly address anything that appear untenable. Jeepday (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The EB1911 category hierarchy contains over two hundred categories of the form Category:EB1911:Countries:Asia:Russia.

I had always assumed that this isolated and independent category structure reproduced a hierarchy published as part of EB1911 itself; that is, I had thought that the category hierarchy was a rendering of source content. That would make it perfectly acceptable; but, as I have recently discovered, this is not the case. Like the rest of our category system, it is a hierarchy devised and implemented by Wikisource contributors to aid in navigation.

My opinion is that the EB1911 category hierarchy is a classic example of a Walled Garden. It functions to isolate EB1911 articles from the standard community-wide category tree, preventing them from sitting alongside other works. Specifically:

  1. It duplicates our community wide category structures. Articles that ought to be enriching Category:Russia are instead hidden away in Category:EB1911:Countries:Asia:Russia.
  2. It is isolated from our community wide structures. Category:EB1911:Countries:Asia:Russia is not a subcategory of, or otherwise accessible from, Category:Russia, so that one cannot locate works about Russia without searching on both sides of the wall.
  3. It uses category names that are thoroughly at odds with our wider naming conventions, and this too functions to isolate this project from the rest of Wikisource.

I can see several partial solutions, but I think the best and only complete solution is to merge each EB1911 category into its corresponding community-wide category. If it is agreed that this should be done, I will volunteer to undertake the task.

Hesperian 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour (with respect to reference material) of any navigational structure that helps readers find the articles they want on the topics they want, without clairvoyance and in a way usefully complementary to using search. I would certainly see a renaming of Category:EB1911:People:Individuals:Europe:Britain:Mathematicians to a subcategory of Category:Mathematicians as a step in the right direction. Since at present it isn't a subcategory there (your #2) something should be done. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge into existing category structure as per proposal, and remove duplicates.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed combination of deletion and merger on the ground that the categories dedicated to EB1911 make it possible to browse articles that are both (a) on mathematics and (b) from EB1911. From what I understand, the main Wikisource category structure is for complete works rather than for parts of works. The category structure dedicated to EB1911 should isolate the individual EB1911 articles from other Wikisource material. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of comments. If there is a clear statement of what the category system is for, it isn't at Wikisource:Categories or any other policy page I can easily find. Second, starting from the view, which is perhaps accepted widely, that the category system mainly is for classifying texts, it seems hard to construct an accepted view of how the system should be fashioned to enable the reader to browse easily by topic. There are various putative solutions based on namespaces, but I wouldn't see the "intersection" approach as anything like ideal. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I oppose any deletions or removal of duplicates. I think a community-wide system for classifying EB1911 articles would be desirable, but also a system specific to EB1911 is desirable so it can be examined in isolation. My preference would be to leave the existing category structure in place, and just put the EB1911 categories into the appropriate community-wide categories, that is Category:EB1911:Countries:Asia:Russia can go into Category:Russia in addition to Category:EB1911:Countries:Asia. I have done this for Russia. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the spirit of this argument, but it needs shaking up. It is a neat solution to have the EB1911 articles packaged separately, but still linked tightly to the main category tree. However, the naming is not good - it would be better to have a category name like "Category:Russia in EB1911". It is totally unnecessary to specify the full root of the category: that is done by the categorisation of the category itself.
In my ideal scheme, we would have "C:Asia", with the subcat "C:Russia", with the subcat "C:Russia in EB1911", which is also in the category "C:Asia in EB911". Thus it is linked tightly to the main category tree. It also should not invent a whole new tree structure, such as Countries->Asia->Russia. Keep it the same as what we already have: Science->Earth Sciences->Geography->Asia->Russia. Each can then have the relevant companion subcategory, such as "C:Geography in EB1911". This way, all EB1911 categories can be easily found by looking in the "normal" category for the subject, which is the entire point of the category system! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My concerns relate to the treatment of EB1911 as separate and in isolation, especially when there are technical means to achieve the best of both worlds. Looking at m:Help:Category#Category intersection, union, etc. it discusses Extensions that are able to undertake the actions that are of interest, and in seemingly a more reliable and efficient means, and that keeps our collection as a whole. I agree that someone should be able to browse EB1911 articles by category, I don't think that a separate hierarchy is the means to achieve that aim. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Having mulled this over, I come down as delete; because the arguments to keep seem to me not to scale. It would be much better to have some tools to sort by reference source (something on the toolserver). As soon as we have a dozen general reference sources or encyclopedias posted here, we would be talking about the need to create a dozen versions each time a "subcategory" was created, one of the most basic operations on the category tree. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments—having this system isolates EB articles extensively. —innotata 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge and delete. In the absence of a category intersection extension, I support inductiveload's parallel hierarchy solution, but I'd prefer the extension. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep but rename, as InductiveLoad, Category:Geology will easier to use if we have a sub-category: Category:Geology in Popular Science Monthly and such category for each voluminous periodical or encyclopedia, the problem with merging all articles in cat:Geology is that the category will be full of small articles, bigger works as text books will be lost among hundred of smaller works. Beside that, the actual naming scheme is too unusual, we can get the hierarchical view by the category hierarchy. Perhaps things will change with a true category intersection, but actually we haven't it. If EB 1911 maintainer are reluctant to rename the category, we can do only the first step, insert all EB 1911 category into our hierarchy. (add Category:Geology to Category:EB1911:Science:Geology, some are done but not all.) Phe (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been here over a year now. I won't close it because I proposed it in the first place. But what I see here is very strong support for elimination of the naming scheme (8-0 support), and no consensus for elimination of separate EB1911 categories (5-4 split). Therefore I intend to put category renaming on my list of things to do, and will come back here with a separate request should I come across any EB1911 categories that I hold to be untenable. It would be good if someone would endorse my reasoning and close this discussion. Hesperian 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

New technology

Could a more effective method now be developed with category intersection and the DynamicPageList extension? If all EB1911 pages were in category "EB1911 articles", and in the relevant topic category (eg "Russia"), then a simple intersection of the two categories is all that is required to find what would otherwise be the contents of "EB1911:Russia". Having full-length works swamped by articles in "Russia" is still an issue, however. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The International Jew[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, PD work, no consensus to delete. Jeepday (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A second hand transcript, copy-pasted from jrbooksonline. See Talk:The International Jew for the 2007 discussion on the integrity of the text's source.
  • Delete CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without something coming in to replace the work, then nothing on the article's talk page convinces me that the work should be discarded; and the work was contributed by two experienced Wikisourcers, which means that it had value for them. Which specific parts of the discussion and the work are of concern? If there are concerns about the fidelity, then maybe we should stick {{fidelity}} onto the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Who contributed it is almost completely irrelevant, but fwiw:

the account Sherurcij is inactive and usually uninterested in doing anything beyond creating provocative pages, refusing to say where he got it, and expecting someone else to fix up the uncorrected and incomplete garbage by tagging it. In this case he stated "Fine by me, just seems like a lot more work. I've sworn off large projects since finishing..."

"Both sites looks like they have a strong agenda on this topic, so I think we will need to verify the content against other sources as well. John Vandenberg 02:00, 12 August 2007", coming up to four years ago! Vandenberg also made a comment at 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC) that begins "This may still be a real legal minefield, ...", indeed this is something that should be carefully considered by contributors and apologists, seeking to disseminate texts of this type is possibly illegal in some countries. Nevertheless, I would not object to a text that which can be attributed to a proper or authoritative source; which a web-site for the home-schooling of white nationalists is not. If it of value to them they can keep it on their own hard-drive, the tenure of a user is not a keep rationale. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Found a better source on Google Books, and have tried to clean it up stefeyboy 18:58, 22 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Kept, appears to be PD, source and cleanup provided by stefeyboy. Jeepday (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I converted this close to a comment. The account made four edits to the document, and one to the talk.
  1. changed the intro to link to en.wp [1]
  2. changed the text info box on the Talk to state that the "source =" the above mentioned scan at google books. I cannot access this document, but this is .... 'inaccurate'. [2]
  3. inserted a title page, redundant gap templates, removed the {{delete}} and the {{incomplete}} [3]
  4. changed The International Jew/Volume 1/Preface to div class prose, inserted a leading {{gap}} at every paragraph and added a drop initial. [4] This was changed by billinghurst to a text indent class 45 minutes later [5] [6]
  5. made the same formatting changes as above to chapter one, removed the image File:19200522_Dearborn_Independent-Intl_Jew.jpg, removed line breaks, and added "To the victor belongs the spoils" is an old saying. And in a sense it is true that if all this power of control has been gained and held by a few men of a long-despised race, then either they are super-men whom it is powerless to resist, or they are ordinary men whom the rest of the world has permitted to obtain an undue and unsafe degree of power. Unless the Jews are super-men, the Gentiles will have themselves to blame for what has transpired, and they can look for rectification in a new scrutiny of the situation and a candid examination of the experiences of other countries. [7]
  • The document remains unverifiable, dubiously sourced and, perhaps, incomplete. User:Stefeyboy removed the {{no source}} from his earliest contrib, without an edit summary. His response to my enquiries remain in my talk archives, but he removed both billinghurst's and my own requests and explanations of what was de rigueur regarding sources from his own talk [8] and [9]. On this requirement, the account, with 380 edits to en.wp in 5 years, is as elusive on providing enough detail for verification for his uploads as the original contributor of this work, who has supposedly 'left' en.wp and CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The does not appear to be a question about the works PD status, the original publication is on Google here The international Jew: the world's foremost problem, being a ..., Volume 1 By Henry Ford, a brief review of the WS version and Google version does not find any differences, the political agenda of any contributors live or dead is irrelevant, religion of any contributors is irrelevant, this is a work that was published prior to 1923 in the united states, with scans available for validation, it does not fail an criteria at WS:WWI that I am aware of, no edits of any single or group of contributors is fundamentally different then contributions to any other work on WS. Please describe any deficiencies in this publication covered by WS:WWI or list a valid reason to delete. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There are also local sources at Commons, from the IA and Google Books: v.1, v.2, v.3, v.4. Apparently, the transcript we have is questionable, so the {{migrate to djvu}} was removed from the work page, but scans do exist on-project. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - Work is in scope, Public Domain and there is no serious question about the fidelity of the current text - nonetheless, the work is being migrated to scans. Controversial text is not a reason to get rid of it; if anything it's a reason to have it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I reopened it, again. Read the remarks above. This ongoing series of strawman arguments, especially where I am involved, is highly disruptive to the site. The text is not being "migrated to djvu", the first proof of the scans is less the 5% complete, 50 of the 1000+ pages. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Precisely why is that a reason to reopen the discussion? Please point to the fidelity issues with the current text. From what inductiveload and I have found, it is quite accurate. If you have found errors then please point them out. You have already stated that you are unwilling to touch the work. Please explain what about the text being accurate or there being an active project to migrate it to djvu is a strawman and how your involvement makes those particularly disruptive. The fact that we have only gotten to page 58 in the past week does not mean that the work is not being migrated.--Doug.(talk contribs) 03:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I don't see any issue that can warrant the deletion of this work. In fact, its 80 to 90% closer to the preferred method of editing/contribution compared to other existing mainspace works considering when it was created. Now that its been split into the 4 published volumes, with scans to match, I see no reason to delete it. Can't say I agree with its message but that is not a valid reason by most account either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

American Jewish Year Book[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, volunteers working on project. Jeepday (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Propose for deletion - Very incomplete, American Jewish Year Book & American Jewish Year Book/Volume 29, started in 2007. No progress. Suggest delete, no objections to recreation should anyone want to complete the work. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Thoughts on what should happen to American Jewish Year Book/Volume 29/Statement by Henry Ford ? 02:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It has a source available, but it is only a small part of a more complete work. I looked around and don't immediately find anyone using the work as a reference. I left a note at w:Talk:The_International_Jew#WS about this discussion. As a rule we don't keep partial works, but if someone has use for it other then re posting what is available at I would be ok with keeping it, and maybe moving it up it's name up to a top level page (American Jewish Year Book Volume 29 Statement by Henry Ford ?). Jeepday (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it needs to stay somewhere. Inductiveload and I are migrating The International Jew to scans and will soon have volume 1 done. This work is an important supplement to that work and the reference to it on the Author:Henry Ford page is a way that many might come to it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The fidelity of this text has been queried, and it has been tagged for that since Feb., 2010.
  • Delete. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't this there be the case of getting the original text rather than just discarding the old. It seems that the work and the translations are controversial, in themselves. In a circumstance like this, I am comfortable with the work sitting labelled like that until there is a definitive replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In order: I'm not suggesting that the original text be deleted, this one should be. And that is why it matters more!? I'm not, so I brought it here; the history of this page has numerous examples texts that were assemblages, were inadequate, lacked attribution and were deleted without so much as a blink of an eye. Shit like like is clearly beyond the scope of this site, it is not a web host. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, no consensus for delete. Some confusion on if this is a 1930 version with changes or a 1981 fair use version of the original 1930 PD version. There is room for both version to be hosted on WS with page scans to validate. Jeepday (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the edition of this text have been raised at Talk:Book of Mormon, the most recent is copied below. The head of that page also mentions a source protected by copyright, so perhaps this should be discussed at the forum for that. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Challenge to Claim for 1830 Palmyra Edition

I challenge the assertion on this page that this is the 1830 Palmyra edition. Having just spot-checked the following (non-exhaustive) known differences, it is clear that this text is from a later edition.

- 1 Nephi 11:18 in the 1830 edition says "mother of God." This edition says "mother of the Son of God." This change was made in 1837.

- 1 Nephi 11:21 in the 1830 edition says "the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" while this edition says "the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father." This change was made in 1837.

- 1 Nephi 11:32 in the 1830 edition says "the Everlasting God, was judged of the world" while this one says "the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world." This change was made in 1837.

- 1 Nephi 20:1 contains the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism." This was added by Joseph Smith in the 1840 edition.

- Both Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1 in the 1830 edition say "Benjamin," while this edition says "Mosiah" in both locations. Again, those changes were made starting in the 1837 edition.

- Alma 57:25 in the 1830 edition says "foes of our whole army," while this one says "joy of our whole army." This handwriting misinterpretation was not corrected by the LDS church until the 1981 edition.

There have been several LDS editions of the Book of Mormon between 1830 and 1981, including the 1837 Kirtland edition, 1840 Nauvoo edition, 1841 European edition, 1852 European edition, 1879 Deseret News edition, and the 1920 edition. The RLDS church produced an 1874 edition, an 1892 edition, and a 1908 edition.

My preliminary guess was that the text here is the 1920 edition, the most recent non-copyrighted LDS edition. However, the use of "joy" instead of "foes" at Alma 57:25 seems to indicate that the text here is actually the 1981 edition. Additional changes would have to be checked to verify it, but if that's in fact what it is, it should be cited as such.

Simply removing the chapter headings is not sufficient to restore the text to the 1830 edition, which has MANY textual and punctuation variations from the 1981 edition. MattMadden (talk) 15 July 2011

  • Delete this version. Replacing it with a PD text, effectively the same procedure as deletion, is unobjectionable. Unravelling which is which is a waste of time, especially when the process would be to find an authoritative source and copy/paste it here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I subsequently added the following text further up the discussion page, where a case had been made that the 1981 text is fair game under copyright law. My contention is not that this is incorrect, only that the "1830 Palmyra edition" claim on the front page is not justified. It's quite possible that simply correcting the citation to reflect the actual edition used will solve the problem without having to delete the whole book [ MattMadden (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)]:

PLEASE SEE the "Challenge to Claim for 1830 Palmyra Edition" section below. From the discussion above, it sounds as though there is a mistaken assumption that simply removing the newly-copyrighted metadata, such as chapter headings, from the 1981 LDS edition somehow returns the text to the original 1830 Palmyra edition form. This is grossly incorrect. The scripture text itself has gone through multiple revisions since 1830, so there are many differences between the editions besides the added headings and other metadata. The samples mentioned below are only a sample of a much larger set of differences between the two. While removing the new 1981 information might make the 1981 scripture text fair-use under copyright law, it does not justify claiming at the top of the page that it is the 1830 Palmyra edition. That is patently false. If it is the 1981 LDS text, then it should be cited as such. MattMadden (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Matt, what Cygnis insignis is suggesting is deleting the version as it stands as just taking out the 1981 stuff would be problematic on several levels, then replacing it with a single version that is in the public domain (PD). I doubt that the 1981 version is PD so the 1830 or another version would be the goal, preferablely that has DjVu scans to eliminate any question of accuracy. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete same logic and suggestion as Cygnis insignis, JeepdaySock (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and repair. A 1981 version of an 1830 work (or a 1920 work) does not become copyrightable just because a handful of words have been replaced. In this case, we should not be comparing the 1981 work to the 1830 work to determine copyrightability, but to the most recent PD version published in 1920. If we were talking about the addition of a substantial new preface or introductory essay, running commentary, or the like, that would be a different issue, but if the only difference between the most recent PD version of the work and the publication at issue is a collection of trivial word additions and substitutions like those listed above (most of which were themselves actually made to versions that would now be PD), then the work remains in the public domain for lack of any copyrightable additions. I would keep this version and change the name to reflect which version it is. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Migrate to scans - For a works of such significance, multiple editions should be hosted. Whether this edition is deleted to make way for the 1830 edition, moved to the correct name without a redirect, or kept until scans can be proofread is of little consequence. Though ultimately scans for each edition of such a work are essential and a work that is of dubious accuracy should be priority for replacement, I'm not sure that deleting a work of such significance when we don't have another one up is necessary or good. I agree with BD2412 on the copyright status; even if this work is the 1981 edition it would need to have significant enough changes to be a copyrightable derivative of the original. I haven't looked but I'm sure a full table of changes is readily available on the web. A comparison tool can be found here but I'm not sure that it's reliable and it identifies "Significant Changes" that are no consequence or are even imperceptible. BTW, good jpg scans of the 1830 edition are available here if we can remove the watermarks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Category:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology and its "Articles by" subcategories[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete; Consensus is to use Author pages not categories for tracking an auhtors work, even in the case of potentially hundreds of entries for dictionaries or encyclopedias. This is keeping with current WS approach.
Category:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a category for a single work, and it would only have a single work in it if it weren't for 15 subcategories of the form Category:Articles by Ludwig Urlichs. As far as I know we don't categorise works by author; we use author pages for that. And since these are sub-categories of the work category, they would seem to be intended to hold not just any "articles by Ludwig Urlichs" but specifically "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology articles by Ludwig Urlichs", in which case they are all misnamed.

I propose straight-out deletion of the entire category tree. The main work page Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is the only page that will need to be recategorised; the subpages can be safely stripped of their categories.

Hesperian 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No. In case, you regard the subcats as mispelled, one might rename them according to the works title like Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology articles by Ludwig Urlichs and that like. That would be ok. I'll do that, if that would be ok and you'll give me a short note. So it's very easy, to refer on the authors page to those articles. We are talking about a dictionary with several thousand articles (which aren't here for now), it would be fools work, to refer each article on the authors page. The dictionary was written by about 35 people, so you might imagine the length of the resulting author page. Some articles in the dictionary are very short, so the author page entry would consume more space and time than the dictionary article itself. A summarized entry on the authors page, referring only to the dictionary itself, will show nothing, you can't get any result from it, you can't recognize the topics and persons, this specific author wrote about. So i think, the cat. solution would be the easiest solution to handle, resulting in the most benefit with the least work to do for it. --Pflastertreter (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I imagine the author pages would look no worse than this, or, in the very worst case, require something like this. However I can see your point about the extra work in having to maintain these author pages. Could we treat these categories as temporary maintenance categories, with the understanding that once complete they would be converted into lists in the author: namespace, in the usual way? Hesperian 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Your first example could be understood by a normal reader like me, but the second one? I'm a frequent wp-user, but i'd never seen something like this. For me one needs to supply a user-manual with such a construction. Looks a little bit like a rollodex or something like that, but how to use on the screen? No buttons nor grips anywhere? Anyway, in case, if articles for DGRBM are completed, they could be transferred to something like a user page. In general i would propose to think about a different and more practical solution. There are some authors, who write a few or some more books, for those an author page might be a sufficiant and practical solution. But there are other authors, too, who write thousends of encyclopic articles. I think, for those an authors page is far away from the best possible solution. E.g. the DGRBM-editor published two more lexika of that style (e.g. roman and greek places), with some of those authors given here writing for the other publications, too. If DGRBM would be part of the cat name, those articles could be easily collected there in a different subcat under one authors name. --Pflastertreter (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of categories it is moving away from how we have been doing author's works and divides how we can display some of the corpus onsite, and hence the feature that it becomes. Plus we have see that there are means like having a specific template for a use based on something similar to {{DNB SL}} and then have a link to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:DNB SL which does the list anyway (or main ns listing). Plus that way one can run a bot through and dynamically rebuild an author subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, that you don't like it, but is somewhere a piece of documentation, that this is a solution, which is not wanted or a forbidden one? Style guide? Where? Could anyone smell, that it is not wanted? Had an alternative solution been proposed and / or documented somewhere? Was anybody else involved with this? Can't imagine that. Who is we? The DNB-Project team? Wikisource? If you propose bot's doing the work, who should be contacted for that reason? Had it been documnted somewhere? Why isn't it done automatically, if it could be done by bot's ? It's much more easier to say, i don't like it that way, than getting the job done. --Pflastertreter (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource:Style guide, Wikisource:Annotations provide the guidance on creating new content. The primary purpose of wikisource is the providing 'clean text', you might consider taking your proposal for enhancing the existing text with new content elsewhere. We put what is in the work onto the pages, and link the author's, editor's, and indexer's references. The digital text is available to search engines, the user can gather any combination of title, author, and topic with this. This proposal introduces all sorts of problems, we have to separate user created content from the original. Getting the work uploaded, and internally linked, will be very useful - your additions may be useful at one of the sisters. cygnis insignis 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adopt the DNB solution when some more content is up, as is being done to other works. This will be one click away, if someone wants it. 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting remark: If i crosscheck the style guide (as i did before) or the annotations, i can't find any remark, that such type of categories is unwanted or forbidden (proposal: do an update for the style guide, or do you expect interferences with other projects (e.g. eb1911?)...). Neither is there any hint, how to compile a bunch of articles to an authors page. It should be a different solution than the stupid and error affected typing. That is my first question. This category doesn't add any content to the plain text, it doesn't even touch it, not a part of the text. Plain text is ok, but i would expect, that a proposed procedure could be found somewhere. Is there any more link i should have read before? What is the click i should process, which button do i have to press? I think, it's a little bit late and not too cooperative, if you'll tell me here, that each en-WS-project has to be processed like your DNB-project. That could and should have been done earlier and on another way of communication, e.g. project pages, discussion pages and so on. But not on the deletion proposal with the taste, that everybody should have known that before. That's it, what i couldn't regard as a friendly welcome :-)). At least it wasn't me, who created the cat structure, i'll only find it usefull in such cases. Might that be one of the reasons for the fact, that a friendly user left today a statement on my, that en-ws is a project of only a few frequent users? I'd worked several times on de-ws in a similar project, but i never experienced such a style of communication there. --Pflastertreter (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You might look around the help pages, and the working and active examples. You could always ask how we have been approaching things before adapting the category system, Take a day or two to digest the responses you have received, then restrict your responses to discussion of content, not speculation on users. cygnis insignis 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I want add some arguments to keep the categories:
1) For normal books it will be possible to keep only plain text but I think if you build a dictionary or something like that in wikisource it would be helpfull to use a index.
2) At the end of every dictionary entry there is a abbreviation for the author of it (like L. S.) and articles by William Smith are without abbreviation. I think it will be impossible or complex to search this dictionary entries by a bot.
3) Is there a problem with wikisource with this sort of category? (I can't belief)
4) If I joint the project some categories already existed in that way, so I didn't care if it is conform to the style guide. Because I thought it is a good way to summarise the dictionary entries I adopt this. - Schuppi (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't misinterpret our argument. We are not saying don't build indices, or the ability to find parts of encyclopædia, we have quite a few currently in play. We are asking that specifically that authored-by pages are not clustered into category, instead that they are put into the Author namespace with all the other like works. Definitely categorise the individual articles, though do it logically and part of the system as a whole. They will already be subpages of the work, and able to be identified that way currently.
  • There are methodologies that work well, eg. creating a customisation of {{header}} as per {{DNB00}} and others, plus a series of others
  • For article footer abbreviations, we do know and have schemes already, and already mentioned, eg. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/List of Contributors and follow those links. Do note that in reflection there are still improvements that we can make. And if we use a template like this it becomes perfectly easy to find them and have a bot play with them.
  • By this category, only one work would be there, if put at the top level, and if we are talking clusters, then there are many tools that can do intersections of works, even sub-categories, and still keep the site as a whole. Do have a look at as one of those means.
billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue strongly in favour of all encyclopedic projects using author pages in a conventional fashion. This is certainly to the benefit of the reader, and improves navigation (the most usual comment I have had from outsiders is "Wikisource is hard to navigate"). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Schuppi's question 3: "Is there a problem with wikisource with this sort of category? (I can't belief)", I think that if we started having author categories, we would be in the same situation as commons with their eternal gallery-versus-category debates. Having a category instead of an author page would be horribly inconsistent and therefore confusing. Having a category as well as an author page would be redundant and therefore confusing. Hesperian 09:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no satisfactory documentation here on categories: in other words, these issues are up for grabs at present, and discussion has to be on the basis of versions of "common sense" and what appears to be the good of the project in the large. That being the case, I think a fairly uniform treatment across all reference material (article format) is highly desirable, rather than ad hoc moves for each reference work. And I also support the general tendency to rely on technological solutions (examples being category intersection, smart headers, and our ongoing DNB discussion on various ways of packaging articles on author pages). The business of texts driving the category system is basically an argument for lo-tech solutions, and I believe there is a much better future in thinking about that the other way round. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal:New York/Edmeston[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted along with associated templates and category. Text exists on Wikibooks; images are on Commons.
Out of our scope; appears to be a construct of excerpts of many works, old and modern images, notes and research. Definitely a lot of work put into this, I believe it is more suited for wikiversity. Must be combed for things like this too. I did not go through every page, so there may be something we can keep. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a published work (see History of Otsego County, New York) started back in 2005 on en.WS. Its been poorly managed for some time now and nicely botched/broken even further by the various changes in our policy and the resulting rush to implement them since creation. I've always thought to prove the work(s) still being in copyright and get it all removed legitimately in one shot rather going with this "piecemeal" approach but admittedly never got around to doing the leg work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to mention -- most of the same issues were raised sometime ago and apparently most if not all of the work(s) were recreated at
without really letting anybody here at en.WS know about it so this really may be already OK to delete either way we choose to approach the matter -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
John Vandenberg was shifting it, bits of it, and that halted. After no action it was moved to subpages of the portal ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If this book was written in 1878, how does it have sections many decades after that?

We apparently host a lot of images which don't appear at en.wb; I've left a message at the users page, I hope they are willing to through to keep what they can. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't hold me to it since this was before my time on en.WS but if I recall the pages in question as they once were before they were further "split" from one another in the years since, I believe it was an attempt by just one user to combine an 1878 edition with the additions found in a 2000 edition plus a handful of semi-related, unpublished or published-elsewhere tidbits all under one mainpage/heading (remember the ~2005 en.WS policy wasn't as developed) on top of without any clear distinctions drawn between any of the sources involved for the other editors to aid in its proofreading or for the potential reader simply to view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it borrows from this, but I think all of the work located in Portal: is entirely different. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. I think somebody split some of the subpages from the book part (not much) and those left over wound up as part of a Portal set-up eventually. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See prior discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-02#Edmeston and Otsego County. Hesperian 03:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep in the Portal: namespace. It is definitely a construct, and fits within the portal ns which allows for original research and compilation. That said, if any of the other wikis wishes to have it and work upon it, they can, and we will transwiki and point to it. Is it an invitation for more? No. It has been discussed before. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have really any requirements for portals, and agree that they are in fact entirely up to us in making and maintaining. That being said, I haven't seen any of portals actually include work (maybe and excerpt or something like with Author:Florence Earle Coates) but there is a lot here which I do not think meets our scope. The fact that it has information and pictures exceeding 1923 is odd and/or not allowed by our policy (see the image I linked to above). I know we could have this for mutliple reasons (unrenewed license, or Portal:Disney type construct), but this just looks like a book. Now that I know what it is and all, I think it needs to be greatly trimmed down. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"... fits within the portal ns which allows for original research and compilation." Where is that documented. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If I can speak for Billinghurst, I think he means that what is included in portal space is at our discretion, and therefore, in essence can be whatever we want it to be. Lacking any guideline, then I suppose this portal is okay, but personally I find it confusing, out of scope, and not in line with every other portal I've come across. Not to mention the copyrighted material that is peppered throughout. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I waited until Billinghurst returned before querying and quoting, so no, I don't think you can speak for him; he has said as much elsewhere, in another situation. And both of you should avoid making pronouncements that include the unqualified use of 'our' and 'we', things like that are poison to an open community with a simple and clear scope. The possibilities for experimentation, social interaction, schmoozing and political posturing ought to be extremely limited, I consider this approach, such as edit summaries that say "reply to CI", to be anathema - it is divisive, alienating, and discourages others from contributing. If you want to piss me off you are succeeding. Address the substance of the discussion, or honour the universal rule at Libraries - Be Quiet! CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hah, you got mad from that? C'mon... Anyway, I'll address each of your points, although I hate for it to be in a deletion review. "If I can speak for Billinghurst," maybe poorly chosen words, but what I meant was "What I think Billinghurst means by this is," I do not literally mean that I am opting to speak for him. My use of the word "our" is from "our community," We are here, we make choices, so by that, I mean everyone here. And finally, regarding my edit summary, I will continue to mark them as such, as it is simply used as a way to track each edit, so far in the future an editor can be like "Hmmm, what did Theornamentalist's edit contain, oh, I see, it was a reply to CI." By "re CI," I do not mean to exclude everyone else, that is just silly, why would anyone think that? I suppose something like "Re CI, but not solely to him, please add a comment if you have an opinion on this matter" a better one? Of course I'm joking, but really, when has any edit summary ever stopped anyone from of all things commenting? And mah man, we're in the back room, drinking exotic teas and such; this is where we talk. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, my entire response was only about the discussion at hand: what is allowed within Portal space. Every single sentence, you derailed us with a concise analyzation of mine and Billinghursts approach. I offered my opinion, outlook, etc., cos at this point, we cannot discuss if this should be here if we don't talk about why it should or shouldn't be. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merely for reference (both are stated WS proposals):

Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

How about on the Portal:New York page, we make a subsection under the Works section, such as [Works] by city...and let that subsection point to a subpage of Portal:New York/Cities. Then on that subpage, you could list cities in NY from which WS has hosted material. E.g.: Portal:New York/Cities/Edmeston... And on the Edmeston sub-subpage, we can list JUST WORKS HOSTED HERE ON WS related to that specific city (which we could "grab" from the myriad of chronologically-listed pages related to Edmeston spoken of above and elsewhere). That would perhaps be a better fit within the scope of current WS policy (at least I think so) ... I would even be willing to "faithfully render" the Edmeston chapter from the Oswego text myself to add to the NY Portal sub-subsection. [nvm on the last offer... excerpts are probably frowned upon? I suppose if the whole work were ever hosted here, it could be pointed to at any rate...—LJB] Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tamerlane and Other Poems[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete. Jeepday (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Material with no scans, no front or end matter, and no source... and therefore no hope of obtaining what is missing. The only way to bring this up to scratch is to locate a scan and start from scratch. Viola, it is done: a scan-backed version exists at Tamerlane and other poems (1884). My preference is to delete the whole thing, and move the "(1884)" to the undisambiguated title. Hesperian 06:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice: The only thing I can add is that it claimed to be a transcript of the original, as unlikely as that seems. I had been using the page to reconcile the multiple versions of the poems that were made into their own pages, and linked from multiple [bogus] 'TOC's for the later collections. If anyone else wants to sort them out, I have added some second-hand transcripts from an E. A. Poe society and quite a bit of scan-based transcript for Poe's works (by real and published editors). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC) expurgated 08:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • delete follow recommended processes. Though I would rather that we used the lower case not title case for "... other poems" and redirect from the "... Other Poems" — billinghurst sDrewth 08:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray’s Motion in Limine (No.9) To Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Neither public domain nor suitably licensed.
#State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray’s Motion in Limine (No.9) To Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross
  1. State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray’s Response to State’s Motion in Limine re: Witness Rick Ross

This is a legal brief submitted by one party to a lawsuit regarding a controversial living individual, Rick Ross (consultant). It is not the opinion of the court. It may be covered by copyright, but the main thing is that it's an unpublished partisan legal document. Will Beback (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about not being published. Most Court Reporters don't formally publish a finished volume for the same year the court(s) were in session (2010-2011). Nevertheless, the Document appears legit and would most certainly be available now that the case in question is over. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
One wonders whether a partisan document should actually be hosted without the remainder of the court documents, and to me it has no value on its own. To me I would rather see one in, all in with these sorts of documents. I see it as a (historical?) document rather than a published work, and to me I do not see that it meets our criteria for documents. If we were talking about the case, then that would be how I might consider "published" I tend towards delete, though I would like to see more opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I too would like to "see it all" but in this case, a particular motion was made by the prosecution followed by a rebuttal on the motion by the defense, both of which are hosted on en.WS. The court's ruling on the motion would be nice to round out this one aspect of a larger legal proceeding but 2 out of 3 seems enough to warrant hosting under the premise that this info, even at the State level and without the court's final ruling on the motion and its particulars (if any), is relevant to some section of the public at large as part of the compact to know and abide by the laws that govern them. The fact it hasn't been compiled into formal volume of some sort & published yet is not relevant to meeting that premise (imho). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the particular significance of this case? There are legal cases every day, each of which produces numerous briefs and other documents like these. Will Beback (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that which case is particularly relevant, as that could be used for any work that we reproduce. Often we will find that someone has reproduced the document here to support an article at Wikipedia. If the person is notable at that point, and the document is supportive of the encyclopaedic aspect of the article, then that is sufficient for documents to be hosted. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. When I checked the parties involved, the person the motion was filed over had a Wikipedia article and a bunch of other docs under that individual's name hosted on Commons as well. While I personally frown upon such 'reach arounds' coming in from sister sites because they rarely have any basis in "significance" (in my view) never mind meeting the basic hosting requirements, I found this instance hard to argue with given that existing Wikipedia article & those Commons files already in place. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that filings by a private party do not constitute documents in the public domain. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not public domain. Uploaded by a user BLRMoora under wrong license at Wikimedia Commons. Then text added here to Wikisource by N_Pere under false assertion of authorship as author "Superior Court Of State Of Arizona County Of Yavapai". Not "a work of the United States Federal Government". It is a state court case, the State of Arizona. And its author is wrong. The author is not "Superior Court of State of Arizona County of Yavapai". The author is listed as: "Thomas K. Kelly", who has not given his permission for this file to be public domain. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Note — Added another document added by same user N_Pere, same deletion rationale applies. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- My previous leanings were based to good part on the status of the docs given on Commons. If that status was "wrong", and in light of the nuances added since, I guess they do not cut it for hosting here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: — Both corresponding files have since been deleted at Wikimedia Commons for inappropriate licensing by original uploader, please see "Deleted." and "Deleted." Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Johnson, Samuel[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, disambig not required. Jeepday (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A disambiguation page embedded within a work. I am of the view that such pages are harmful. The subpage space of A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/ should be reserved for actual sections of the work; we should not be inserting novel navigational enhancements into it. The two sections of the work that might be construed as having the title "Johnson, Samuel" should be, and indeed already are, listed on the Johnson, Samuel disambiguation page.

Full disclosure that I believe other such pages exist, and I am using this proposal as a test case for approval to remove others as I come across them in future.

Hesperian 01:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that we should not need to create subpages that disambiguate unless the work does it itself. I do feel that we should have a disambiguation page at Samuel Johnson or Johnson, Samuel that lists the pages of all works with the title construct, though I believe that some may be more seen as a navigational aid. Whether to delete the page, or to redirect back to the central disambiguation page may be an idea. Of course, this is a discussion that we have had elsewhere with alternative solution that we both thought had merit. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need both pages to exist Samuel Johnson and Johnson, Samuel to exist? I would have thought one disambiguation/version page should be sufficient, and the other to be a redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with them being merged, seeing as Samuel Johnson only has one entry. If both pages had lots of entries, I'd favour them remaining split; for example, I would not support merging A Song into Song. I think it is a matter to be governed by common sense, rather than rules/criteria. Hesperian 03:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that subpages that disambiguate should not be created. That would be confusing—particularly if one ended up there from a mainpage disambiguation. As a reader I expect subpages to have content rather than further jumping off places. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, most not required, no one using any of them. Jeepday (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dingar (talkcontribs) has copied numerous citation templates from Wikipedia to here
  • Template:Citation not found/doc
  • Template:Citation not found
  • Template:Main/doc
  • Template:Main
  • Template:Harvid/doc
  • Template:Harvid
  • Template:Harvard citation documentation
  • Template:Harvard citation documentation
  • Template:See section/doc
  • Template:See section
  • Template:Harvard citations/core
  • Template:Fake notes and references
  • Template:Sfn/doc
  • Template:Harvard citations/doc
  • Template:Sfn/doc
  • Template:Harvard citations/doc
  • Template:Harvcoltxt/doc
  • Template:Harvcolnb/doc
  • Template:Harvcol/doc
  • Template:Harvard citation documentation
  • Template:Fake heading/doc
  • Template:Fake heading
  • Template:Sfn
  • Template:Harvs
  • Template:Harvard citations
  • Template:Harvcoltxt
  • Template:Harvcolnb
  • Template:Harvcol
  • Template:Harvtxt
  • Template:Harvard citation text/doc
  • Template:Harvard citation text
  • Template:Harvnb[vandalism]
  • Template:Harvard citation no brackets/doc
  • Template:Harvard citation no brackets
  • Template:Harv
  • Template:Harvard citation documentation
  • Template:Harvard citation/doc
  • Template:Harvard citation

I have asked on their user page the purpose of the creation of their templates and await an answer. To me, I don't see that these templates are required as we are not externally referencing works, or generally have a need to cite works beyond by the means used in the work that we are replicating. Can anyone think of a reason why we need these templates? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I'm very much in favour of using full citations on author pages, and even on disambiguation and versions pages in many cases. I tend to write them out manually but would have no objection to the use of a citation template. But if so there should be only one, giving us a consistent look and feel. We certainly don't need all these. Hesperian 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


How to Think Like a Computer Scientist[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Soft Redirect, Jeepday (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikibooks has a complete version of the second edition. Is it worth retaining this apparently abandoned project here? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't particularly have thought so if it is the same work. I would suggest that we do either a soft redirect or wikilivre type referral at the work; and point directly from any author/portal pages. If there are no author pages, then we may consider creating them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates – Sisterlinks & Sisterlinkswp[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deprecated. Jeepday (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose the deletion of

They have been subsumed by our updates to headers, and the underlying and standard use of {{plain sister}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a redirect Sisterlinks > Plain sister? Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes we could however, it would only work well if there was only going to be a single link. Template only points to Commons, so we to be exact it would need to code that directly, that then can be problematic if other links were needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I beleive the usage of Sisterlinks is wide across the WikiWorlds. My concern is Users trying to use it and not being able to find Plain sister. Any thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair call, so how about we deprecate its specific use, pointing to the preferred means, then we can convert it so that it applies "plain sister" look. Note that if someone uses plain sister then we would have to separate renditions of the template, so it probably means that we will need to have a persistent bot check for its application and amend it where it occurs. [We probably are getting to the point where we need to start having more persistent bots running to do some general maintenance anyway.] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Jeepday (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If sisterlinks is widely used it makes a suitable title, as would others, "plain sister" wont be found elsewhere, it was a working title for the forked content I was fiddling with. I suggested deleting it when it was added to the header, it just happened to be the title of the final incarnation of this code. cygnis insignis 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to move {{plain sister}} to {{sister}} and remove the existing template which is unused. Leave {{sisterlinks}} as is as it aligns with other sites, and set it to mimic what exists now for it. Converting {{plain sister}} to {{sister}} should be relatively trivial. I would also think that we could look to convert other existing templates like {{wikipedia}} to this schema. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, i actually just revamped {{sister}} as a meta-template. As you can see, the templates which are now based off it ({{wikipedia}}, etc.) are used on several hundred pages. If nothing else, that will help track down where such templates are used. --Eliyak T·C 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
One could ask why take that approach. I totally understood what they do, and you might see that there is a recent question on the author's talk page about the template. One could see that to this point we have been having a consultative and gradual migration to a more collective approach to sister links. To my point of view, we should looking to putting the links into the notes area, and to conform to a more standard approach, and look to exceptions for outstanding use. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right - I suppose I was acting without really considering the benefit of it. In the future I will focus on improving {{header}} {{author}} and {{portal header}}. --Eliyak T·C 06:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Archive several from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages, many are speed deletes.
* File:A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.pdf
Deleted - G4 - Redundant to commons file. Jeepday (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Random unused image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - G4 - Redundant to commons file. Jeepday (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Random unused image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Possible copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Possible copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image (signitures), No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused & unlicensed image, No reason to be at WS, should be a commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Marked "This is a blank page, though not a empty page, it has a history and it should retained.", Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Random unused image, No reason to be at WS, should be at commons if anyone wants to use it for anything. Jeepday (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)