Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2013-02

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 February 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Manufacturer and Builder/Volume 1/Issue 12/A New Thing in Postage[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, mixed opinions leads to keep. Jeepday (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This is the only chapter of this text that has been uploaded. Is not edited since 2007. Tagged as unlinked in 2007, nobody really cared enough to bring this on. Again, no chance of being completed. Do you think it has a value as a stand-alone chapter? Otherwise I would deleted it as well.--Mpaa (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- stale excerpt of a larger work. If contributor returns, undelete available. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support--interesting little article. Who cares if it was published as part of a larger work, since the article itself is "self-contained"..--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Point taken but the Issue should have been "framed out" at least - if not the Volume(s) and publication itself (i.e. there is no rootpage for the periodical). This is more akin to a drive-by shooting than a contribution in imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, this is an excellent contribution. I think the contributor actually created too much structure, considering that their interest was (I imagine) the article rather than the magazine--if they had simply contributed as A New Thing in Postage and noted in the comments that this was published in "Manufacturer and Builder", Volume 1, Issue 12, page XX, etc. etc. then maybe this article would not be up for deletion.--T. Mazzei (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep referenced at enWP twice. Generally incomplete works that are unsupported by scans are in trouble, however, it is in use, and that is sufficient to sway me. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

The Book of the Dead (Budge)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, there is an improved scan with OCR layer available at Internet Archive ( see last entry here), recreation from there is encouraged. Jeepday (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an abandoned incomplete work. Which is not an issue; but the source for what is there is listed as http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/index.htm which ia HTML without scans. PG has an HTML version also (probably the same) without scan. There are Google book scans available. Review of the title page of our, and the listed source title page show significant missing content that is present in the Google scan. Also the source clearly describes missing content "Because of the substantial amount of hieroglypics interspersed in the original text, I have omitted the ### 'glyph' placeholder where context permits, for readability".

Our hosted version should be deleted, with no objects to recreation from a scanned source with images available. Without scans it would be impossible to remove this work from Category:Pages with missing symbol characters, or to validate it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on this, and a hazy memory of 2007, I think source may have been the google book, scraped using User:John Vandenberg/google books scrape text.user.js . Maybe our good friends at the British Museum could supply us with scans? ;-) Archive.org has the latter edition[1]. We also have Papyrus of Ani. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - While a GoogleBook replacement is something I'm more than willing to do when time allows for it if that is what the community decides, I'd question the value of the ultimate end product by going down that route. Based on past experience, the resulting text-layer will suffer greatly from the 'glyphs' being peppered throughout the content - making a proper transcription hugely dependent on extracting each 'glyph' as its own stand-alone image, then inserting them at the proper points in the content text (blech!) in the process. I just don't see the payoff off in keeping the existing 'glyph'-less version (i.e. forever incomplete) nor the effort required to craft a worthwhile PD'd replacement (i.e. - too labor intensive to be seriously undertaken). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought there was a MediaWiki extension to do hieroglyphics? Why do I remember that? Am I just making it up? If there is, couldn't we go down that route? I imagine there is a learning curve to using it, but after a while it should come second nature to people who are transcribing hieroglyphics. I mean, I can transcribe ancient Greek text almost as fast I can type now, after doing it a lot. It shouldn't be cumbersome after a time, and that way it would allow us to have a "good" version of this book.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
      A MediaWiki extension for glyphs would be news to me. If it exists and someone wants to work this book using it, I'd of course withdraw my objections. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
      I was spurred to do some looking, and I found the mw:Extension:WikiHiero that allows for hieroglyphics to be inserted into documents. It still has a lengthy to do list, and I don't know if anyone's currently working on it, but we might be able to get some good results out of it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
      OK. I've taken the previously linked GoogleBooks 1895 edition PDF and cleaned it of all watermarks. To see if all this can be furthered to a point of workabilty, the file needs to be uploaded and processed by IA - only then will we know 1.) if their resulting PDF is better to work from thumbnail-wise than their DjVu conversion; and 2.) how workable are the respective text-layers generated by them content-text vs. content-drawing wise.

      The pdf is local and should be deleted at some point after we get somewhere onn this. ---> File:The Book of the Dead - Budge -1895.pdf. I left the GooBoo disclaimer page in place for the IA folks to digest as needed. I plan on deleting it before whatever our final upload to Commons will be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Worst case if we have scans the hieroglyphics can be cut out and pasted in as images. Jeepday (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Not so sure its all that simple - take a look at a typical page that makes up the bulk of the book. Maybe image import is possible if entire rows of glyphs are captured as one image file but to try yo do this on an individual glyph-to-image-file basis seems "unrealistic" to put it mildly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I just flipped through a couple pages, did not look to bad at the begining. That is going to be tough one. Jeepday (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Note on hieroglyphics: We've had a contributor over on Wiktionary who has successfully been including Ancient Egyptian entries with hieroglyphics that display correctly on my computer. See, for example, wikt:q3 s3. So, something is possible with the tools that are available now. However, I've no practical experience myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Update

My PDF was uploaded and broken out on Internet Archive yesterday if anybody is still interested in replacing this work. What is interesting is not only did they generate a DjVu (w/OCR) but they took the PDF and ran OCR on that too. Even though the resulting PDF-with text is somewhat larger than the DjVu, I'm guessing the PDF gave better clarity for all those small glyphs found in the bulk of the work. I don't have the time or the bandwidth to play "comparison cop" right now but, if somebody is up to it - try Indexing the PDF with text first to what, if any, benefits there are with this unusual OCR variant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Epitomae Historiarum/Chapter 24[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned without sources, excerpt. Jeepday (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I know I am getting boring. Same the others. One chapter only. My point is: why keep them? They are Orphan, no interest in them. If the whole text will be uploaded, possibly as scan, the rework needed will be minimal.--Mpaa (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC).
Well, this one is different, as it purports to be an original translation by Wikisource. If it is, then we might keep it. However, it would be good to check against other sources to verify this. If it's actually a copy of another translation, and not original, then I'd certainly agree with deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- stale excerpt of a larger work. If contributor returns, undelete available. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  • delete previous discussions have already declared that grossly incomplete translations without source material can be classified as abandoned. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tao_te_Ching_(Wikisource translation)/Footnotes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted as unable to verify how relevant it is to original Chinese.--Jusjih (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
One small and rather random page of "footnotes" I'm not sure what to do with. It was created by a user in 2006 who was at time working on this Tao Te Ching (Wikisource translation). Since then the Tao Te Ching translation has changed completely and these footnotes don't link to anything. I doubt we need a separate sub page for footnotes, and these footnotes read a bit like one user's waffle anyway. Pasicles (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - It is difficult to understand if they are really part of the work and how they fit in it or if they are just a user contribution to explain something.--Mpaa (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Author:Kedar Joshi[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete Author and works. While there are a number of keeps votes that would in the normal course result in no consensus for delete, in this case those accounts do not have a previous edit history on Wikisource. Accounts with a familiarity with Wikisource all have voted delete, and have failed to be swayed by the keep arguments. Given the obvious following of the author it is strongly suggested that should at some future time there be a belief that the author and works do meet WS:WWI a discussion should be started at Wikisource:Proposed deletions to verify that the works are then eligible to prevent immediate deletion per CSD G2 Jeepday (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for deletion Author:Kedar Joshi and all hosted works by same (currently only Consciousness: A Non-Spatial Physical Thing); per Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#Scientific_research on two points.
  1. No evidence of peer review
  2. Author does not meet Wikipedia:Notability as evidenced by w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi
JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -
  1. Consciousness: A Non-Spatial Physical Thing is cited in Gokhale, Raam (6 February 2012), Are We Three?, Philosophy Pathways, Issue 169, which is a peer-reviewed article.
  2. Author is not proved to be non-notable at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi; rather notability seems likely.
    1. 5 works about/related to the author have verifiable scholarly peer review: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
    2. There is significant coverage of the author in notable, Indic language sources.
- 116.203.37.83 17:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per proposal.--Mpaa (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
All these are the same arguments that already failed on Wikipedia and Wikiquote.--Mpaa (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – I don’t think the arguments failed at Wikipedia, and the Wikiquote deletion seems to have taken place in July 2010, since when there seem to be multiple peer-reviewed works related to the author. I think the keep vote above makes sense. Philosophy Pathways could be considered a reliable source. And the nom at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi appears pretty biased, especially when s/he says, these newspapers are Indian newspapers based on Indian soil and so are largely garbage. Noted Indian newspapers, for example The Times of India, are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Also, newspapers such as Kesari and Lokmat, which have significant coverage of the author, are reputed Marathi language sources. I don’t think the author can be deemed non-notable. – Sahityapremi (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • IP/New Editor Clarification, to clarify and avoid future confusion this is a community discussion, "votes" and support will be given the weight due to the edit history of the account. While everyone is encouraged and welcome to participate, accounts without a previous edit history will have little impact on the final decision. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete From looking at Google scholar the papers are self-published, I cannot find them loaded elsewhere that would clearly identify as scholastic peer reviewed site. I cannot find evidence that they are being cited in scholastic works. There is no evidence that the person is an expert in the field, and I don't see that it clearly meets the standard of scientific research. Personal opinion. To the claims that it is scientific research, what utter balderdash, it wouldn't pass high school standard, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable in any university setting. And yes, I have had papers published. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, for instance, these ones by the author are not entirely self-published; they do seem to have some academic editorial control: The NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) Theory at CogPrints, The UQV (Ultimate Questioner’s Vanity) Theory at SciRePrints. And there are numerous works related to the author in Philosophy Pathways, which, there are strong reasons to believe, is a scholastic peer-reviewed source. – Sahityapremi (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep ~ I believe the author is at least barely notable, and considering that the currently hosted work by the author, however short it may be, has appeared in a reliable publication and that there are several peer-reviewed works related to the author and also that Wikibooks has what seems to be a well-written book about the author’s work that is hosted here, I’m of the opinion that there would be more point in keeping the pages under consideration. ~ RogDel (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - I don't see how anyone is really peer reviewed if they are not affiliated with any institutions of note. Without the reputation of such an institution at stake behind the author, the work (and any review of it) seems more like a novelty than anything else. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Index:Sons and Lovers, Lawrence, 1913.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted—New York printing redundant to London printing in the same year. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I found this work (uploaded by an IP editor in April 2010), and started to proofread it. However, after nine pages, I came to the conclusion that the typesetting was less than ideal – see Page:Sons and Lovers, Lawrence, 1913.djvu/19 for several example. So I found a different edition without these problems, and after a couple of months, I am about a quarter of the way through it. The replacement scan is at Index:Sons and Lovers, 1913, Lawrence.djvu.

I think that this Index page, and its 25 Page-namespace pages can safely be deleted as redundant. This would be in line with WS:Versions#Why Not?. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

comment For same year, and just different country of publication, I can be swayed, if you are saying that the quality is poor, and otherwise it replicates the other 1913 version. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The text is substantially the same, although the pagination is different. The main problem (for me at least), is where the British edition has a contraction like "isn’t", the American edition inserts a space to make "is n’t". If you consider that a typo, then there are hundreds of them in the American edition. — Iain Bell (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Support deletion of the American edition, as this is originally a British work anyway. The differences appear to principally be the changes in typesetting, as noted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-Pre1978}}[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted as redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
[Copied from Scriptorium]

Hi. Isn't this a duplicate of {{PD-US-no-notice}}?--Mpaa (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It sure seems like an attempt to duplicate the premise to me (I'd replace and delete it). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am going to speedy this. We are well covered for US, and not needed until legislation is changed. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The work previously had {{PD-release}} on it. I am not certain that the work has been published, and would feel that if the work was added today that we push upon its addition. Today, I am reverting and moving away. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Empty pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted under G1 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Celt

Clarice Reis (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

speedied as no content, thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant image files[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted under G4 Redundant Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have found two files that were scanned images of Greek text, so I have replaced them with Unicode text. They are:

There are now redundant, and can be deleted. — Iain Bell (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Observance of Certain Articles of 28 Edw. 1. Artic. sup. Cart. Act 1309[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Transwiki to laWS, soft redirect here. Closing admin will be requesting help from a Latin language admin to perform the move. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Amended closure, Language home unclear. Delete here, if anyone want to move it the deleted text can be easily recovered. Jeepday (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Not english language, and others have commented that Non-english sources don't belong here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Transfer to laWS, put in a soft redirect, relink to the work at laWS. (my recommendation) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Not to be unhelpful - but Norman French on the Latin Wikisource? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some Napoleon's Addresses[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete G4, Redirect suggested but no rationale provided, so straight delete. Jeepday (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I am continuing here a discussion started at Scriptorium (Wikisource:Scriptorium#Index:Napoleon's_Addresses.djvu).

All the following pages refer to the following source , which in turn is based on Napoleon's Addresses: Selections from the Proclamations, Speeches and Correspondence of Napoleon Bonaparte. Edited by Ida M. Tarbell. (Boston: Joseph Knight, 1896.). I have now completed the proofreading of Index:Napoleon's Addresses.djvu, which is the 1987 1897 edition of the same book.

The proposal is to delete them per G4, as they overlap with the proofread index version. unsigned comment by Mpaa (talk) .

The following discussion is closed: continued - table in discussion does not like to be in closed template
* Symbol delete vote.svg Delete now that the correct two edition years are given (i.e. are not more than a century apart; really about 1896-unbacked edition vs. 1897-scan-backed edition). If recycling the current main namespace works makes more sense somehow, then I'm also for that; if not - delete/move as needed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur, Mpaa can and should delete them with G4. As the one involved in the clean up, Mpaa is most appropriate user to make the edits and tie them in with the ongoing clean up. Jeepday (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • please do not delete, just convert to redirects to the equivalent text supported works. They should not be deleted, there is no requirement to lose the edit history or the earlier versions. I am presuming that the idea is not to transclude to these pages from the Page ns:— billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Why redirect? The Scan supported text example is essentially the goal of the Wikisource project. The un-scanned text example is unverifiable as is unless you have the scan. The only incoming link of value from the un-scanned text is from Author:Napoleon Bonaparte which can and should be pointed to the scanned text, as there is no point in supporting a needless redirect. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see one point only. In a few cases (see e.g. Proclamation_after_the_Battle_of_Austerlitz) there are categories and interwiki links. Would not now how to handle them otherwise from the Author page. Then they would not be plain redirects only, but something more in the middle of nowhere. There is no requirement to lose the edit history but keeping the legacy has a cost, what is the benefit?. I wish I had never touched this Index … :-( --Mpaa (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Index:Early editions of Euclid's Elements.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, fails WS:WWI as an excerpt AND language issues, Prior to recreation of the full work it should be discussed. Jeepday (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Index:Early editions of Euclid's Elements.djvu is based on a source file that does not conform to the currently available free online OCR software. Without a text layer, this largely Latin work is just taking up space. Unless somebody has better luck with the on-the-fly OCR button for all ~38 pages, I nominate this Index (and any pages created under it) for deletion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This is one of those works that I've noted as a possible personal project to tackle. My reservations in actually tackling up to now it have been (1) the noted lack of an OCR text layer, (2) the fact that this is merely the bibilography extracted from a longer work, and hence the odd pagination. If other people generally feel this would be worth having someone complete, then I'll make an attempt sometime this year. If others agree that it's a waste of space, then let's delete it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, its only an excerpt of a larger missing work? Then amend that to my previous as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Portal:On this date in history[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, abandoned project. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposing for deletion Portal:On this date in history and all related pages, including Portal:On this date in history/list and any existing pages there. This was an admirable undertaking, that lost momentum and now appears to be dead. I have no objection to the project concept nor objections to is recreation should a new interest in the project be kindled. Proposed deletion is purely do to it’s current incomplete and abandoned state, no value is added to the project by it’s current state and completion seems unlikely. Jeepday (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The project never "lost momentum." I thought of the idea, Adam liked it and set it up and we both were told to cease by Billingsworth. Otherwise it would have been still be growing even now. Several people liked the idea of connecting the idea behind the project to our Author's pages. Adam and I barely got started before we had to quit. Chris 55 was also strongly opposed to it because he wanted to add the idea for Wikipedia which had an "On this day" but that was not the full concept Adam and I had in mind. Read back over the archives for full information. Too late now though. Still, I and other persons are planning on posting videos on YouTube.com What cannot be done on WS can be done with other ideas elsewhere with the same, or less time, used. This project, now "dead", is something that "could have been" but "never was" and never will be. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t recall Billingsworth saying to cease, I do recall him not liking the project. Either way it really does not matter. If you and Adam want to do it, go for it. The only person who has formally (as far as I am aware) moved to end/delete the project is me, everything else is just voicing of opinions. Wikisource is a community of volunteers, working towards similar goals, we don’t all have to agree for a project to occur. Jeepday (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ouch. I hope that is an argument with examples that carries its weight, not that it was my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Due to the negativity on the project Adam stopped and then I stopped. A good hint from billingsworth is like a rule, or command due to his position. A few people liked the idea and a few people disliked the idea so the idea was stopped. *Time has passed* and while I hardly see Adam posting as he once did, there are other projects for me now. To try and re-start now there would only be me and after this time having passed I have moved on and started other projects including videos I mentioned and hope to do well. I have also started on nine volumes of The History of England. That alone is going to take a very long time and it is heavily illustrated. I will be very pleased when and if I complete volume one and some smaller books (Clipper Ships) are complete. Even a river will re-route over time. Why don't you give it a try? Perhaps you can get it started again. For a large part we here on WS have all learned to do our own thing except for PotM to get an award. Napoleon was right about awards (medals). Again, I too have different projects underway to be done now. I myself am about to upload some images for "The Clipper Ship Era" now. But know on a personal level that I like you and I respect you and your works. There is nobody on WS that I dislike. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) So is that a keep or a delete vote? Jeepday (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Kill it. —Maury (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Spawn[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, excerpt per WS:WWI, Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an original contribution to me. On top of this, no source either. (I have half a mind to make a back-up before this gets taken down.) --Slgrandson (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI - Deletion does not make it gone, as is in unrecoverable. It just makes it no longer generally available. Once deleted a work can be restored (pretty easily by an admin) if sufficient cause for doing so is present. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
While we're at it, please investigate this and all other texts from 85.238.126.227 (talkcontribs). Hate to see those go, but... --Slgrandson (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added a header for the work. It's real and was first published in 1939 in Weird Tales. Not for deletion as copyright was not renewed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - partial text with no source. -- George Orwell III (talk)

  • delete unless they come back and source their work. We could keep if it was brought into line with other Weird Tales works. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This may well be the source, though on second thoughts, it doesn't explain all the other contributions. --xensyriaT 16:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC) edited: 17:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Other[edit]

Several cross wiki templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: keep (or maintain deprecation of) all except {{metapar}} {{wikibooks-inline}}{{wikimedia}} {{wikimediameta}} which are deleted. Jeepday (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Requesting formal community approval of deletion of these templates. A project at Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Sister-project link standardization initiated and has mostly completed the update to appropriate replacements and removal of the old. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Templates to be removed from all pages
Support Delete and replace with Plain sister for all above EXCEPT Sisterlinks which should stay as a redirect per Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2011-12#Templates_.E2.80.93_Sisterlinks_.26_Sisterlinkswp. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the above as and when they have been replaced. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Templates to be removed (along with the excerpts they attribute) from just the main, Author, and Portal namespaces
As Wikisource:Scriptorium#Purpose_of_author_pages supports brief author bios and the current state of the conversation at Wikisource:Scriptorium#How.3F, and the need for attribution when using Wikipedia. I think {{wikipedia excerpt}} should be kept, until such time as it can be feasibly replaced, and such replacement is part of any removal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I would prefer to keep {{wikipediaref}} in the Portal namespace as I use it for descriptions in both the header and sometimes in individual sections. It isn't absolutely necessary but copying a few sentences from Wikipedia is a quick and useful way to explain something. If I'm copying something rather than paraphrasing, I think the CC-BY-SA licence (of Wikipedia) requires attribution back to the source, and by extension, the article edit history. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the deletion of these templates is completely wrong. Both in process, prematurity of decision, and in thoughtfulness, not enough conversation of the right outcome or consequences. These templates are used across all the wikis, pretty well as a standard approach. In a previous discussion, it was determined that the templates be deprecated, and instruction be given on how we look to put xwiki links into place. I do not see that our approach should have changed, nor has it been demonstrated how it has changed. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. That is not to say that any of these templates should be used, and contents moved when they are used. This is against their deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst; these template names are pretty common across all the different projects, and there's no benefit in deleting them versus depreciating them. Would it be possible to have a bot watch their usage and report if a new editor is using them once they've been migrated? EVula // talk // // 15:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would think that we would be able to have any use of a deprecated template report to a category, and then have the category have a count through Mediawiki:recentchangestextbillinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have resurrected these templates to resume this discussion. I would think that we could put a standard and shared documentation page that alerts that the templates are deprecated and directs them to how we undertake sister links; and something that categorises to a maintenance category that is monitored and replaced when used. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I've added the documentation Template:Sisterlinks/doc to all of the above (bar {{wikipedia excerpt}} and {{wikipediaref}}) and changed the {{deprecated}} template to categorise all uses into Category:Pages containing deprecated templates. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record can you explain why you did not resurrected these 4 templates and why they should remain deleted? Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
One is a redirect, the other three weren't discussed previously by the community to be {{deprecated}} templates, especially in regard to what are considered the standard linking form. Plus if the decision is to delete, then there was no point, and my point was to highlight those that the broader WMF community has had a reliance and maybe an expectation to see/use. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)