Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2013-03

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

Kept[edit]

Category:Eddie August Schneider[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep - No consensus for delete (also no rational for having) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it OK to have Categories for Authors? Isn’t enough the Author page Author:Eddie August Schneider?--Mpaa (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Well we do have 10 such categories in Category:Works about authors, but the emphasis is on the word about. As the two authored articles don't belong in such a category, that would only leave the biography. I don't know how many were are likely to have on this author, so it could be up-merged and deleted. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We haven't taken that approach. Authors or portal namespace pages are preferred as ordering is important, and other data displays, despite it being harder work. The discussed is an approach by a user imported from elsewhere, and should be updated to local specs. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've never quite understood why we use the Author namespace here and not just use Categories instead. Perhaps someone can explain. Moondyne (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Display, format, and detail would be my guess. Also gives us the ability to readily play with its contents as a namespace. Test links to and from main ns, run reports, etc. For the original development you would need to go back to old timers like Zhaladshar, Hesperian, John Vandenberg, etc. or dig through the archives here or mulWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Deleted[edit]

Template:Portals[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This was a template used prior to our addition of {{plain sister}}, which contains a portal parameter, into the {{header}} template. It is redundant and not used (previous bot request), and can be deleted. I was tempted to speedy it as redundant, however, thought that bring it here for a discussion or for someone else to decide that it is specifically redundant to be speedied. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is unnecessary now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Google Books[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Was used on four pages, and we have been encouraging people to utilise {{ext scan link}} which is now used on 100s of Author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • delete as per above.--Mpaa (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • delete - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Volume 1 (1850).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, partially work where an complete work of another edition is present. Jeepday (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I propose to delete this per Wikisource:Versions-Why not. There is already in place series of three volumes, ed. 1870 [1]. This one is edition 1850 and one volume only. There are already 3000 pages to proofread and I do not think we will ever be able to have two versions of this work in place.--Mpaa (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redundant; would duplicate efforts. Other series has all 3 volumes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep though mark as deprecated and point all users to the more modern version. I agree with your sympathies, but it fits within scope, and if someone really wants to work on it, who are we to tell them that it is wrong. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I miss the point of Wikisource:Versions-Why not then. I am not going to make an issue if kept anyhow. But if someone is really longing to work on the 1850 edition, IMHO he’d better either search for a new scan or at least go through a new OCR process, as quality is really poor (same random page of the two here and here).--Mpaa (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well in that case, and as someone struggling to address the backlog of absolute crap uploaded by users, I guess it would be me to say better to delete it than have us do double-redundant follow-up maintenance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete – one volume only of a three-volume work (does that count an excerpt?), replaced by a better scan of all three volumes. I see no reason to keep this orphan. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Reopen after close Delete of (1850) On closure it is discovered that both works point to Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology which claims to be an 1867 version. As this was not discussed during above the possibility exists for a different outcome. Opportunity is provided to amend comments or re-discus. Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


Index:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Volume 1 (1850).djvu
Index:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 1.djvu
    • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Don't think that matters. It appears the 1867 date was there from the start back in 2007-ish for [most of?] the existing sub-pages. This was when the mainspace content was nothing more than a copy & paste of content from somewhere else.

      Around 2011, some of those pages were converted to pages, using the 1870 file as the basis for transclusions & backing scans, but the header(s) were not updated to reflect the 1870 date in the process. Regardless, less than dozen pages in the 1950 copy have been created evermind proofread. Nothing from that 1850 Index affects past or current mainspace content. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  • (e/c)The current mainspace page was the beginning of a text dump without a source. The sub-pages are being created from the 1870 scans. Just change the date on the mainspace page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Studies in the Psychology of Sex (buttocks)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, excerpts from diffing volumes does not meet WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Excerpts from a six volume work. The listed quotes are not even from the same volume. The work as a whole is in the public domain and fully eligible to be hosted here but, even if it were, this page would still not be appropriate. We have deleted pages for being excerpts in the past, so I believe this page should be deleted for the same reason. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • delete in its current form. I would suggest it would be worthwhile talking to the contributor to let them know about the proposal, and the alternate means to retain the text. The alternative may be of use. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, excerpt fail WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an excerpt which fails WS:WWI. Licensed per discussion at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2013-02#The_Gospel_of_Sri_Ramakrishna. Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete if the author is unable to come and complete the work or provide a link to work to be complete. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Discourse on dispassion[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, as an excerpt fails WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Excerpt, as per talk page. Should it stay?--Mpaa (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
We should prod the contributor, and if nothing eventuates, then we delete it. Unsourced. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
An IP from 2007 :-( --Mpaa (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — clearly condensed/excerpted from the original content. The story within seems to be but one interpretation/translation out of many - ascertaining its fidelity without sources/scans is problematic to say the least. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bookkeeping[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, abandoned transcription without scans. Jeepday (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a work that was started in 2005, and has basically been stalled for years. There is no evidence that we can readily identify and get a copy of the work that was being used, and it would need to be moved to a scanned version at that stage anyway. The community should consider whether we should host this incomplete work that is unlikely to be completed. We have already indicated that we will delete incomplete wikisource-derived translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Little hope for progress, better to restart from scan when/if identified.--Mpaa (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — Abandoned transcription. Agree w/Mpaa; & with so many editions of this series published over the years, I wouldn't trust anything added to the mainspace that is not supported by scans as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It appears to be A Treatise on Bookkeeping and Stenography Volume III, Google Books link here Prosody (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hagiopolites[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
An empty page with just a header, and a sister interwiki link. No evidence that we have something or ever will. Suggest that it is deleted, and left as a redlink. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- promoting works that don't exist in our language is always a bad idea. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete--Mpaa (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)



Other[edit]

Perceptions of the Communist threat to Southeast Asia and to basic US interests[edit]

The following discussion is closed: converted to a redirect
Only a small excerpt of this work. Should it stay as stand-alone?--Mpaa (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a premature article creation. We have made a dent in that report and that portion is a duplicate of Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part_II.djvu/53 (give or take a page or two up or down some). If we must keep the mainspace article, it should be converted to pages. The problem is the rest of the report is not even close to being done making the proper framework of mainspace base-pages and/or sub-pages near impossible to create at this point.
I lost you. Isn't it in the Main ns already?--Mpaa (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
My mistake - typed the wrong page in before and then followed it to nowhere. Technically we can make it a redir to United_States_–_Vietnam_Relations,_1945–1967:_A_Study_Prepared_by_the_Department_of_Defense/II._A._U.S.,_France_and_Vietnamese_Nationalism#46 for now. And what I meant to say before is the current main namespace "breakout" isn't the optimal base-page/sub-page relationship imho but I didn't want to tackle that until the whole thing got done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

H.R. 41 (113th)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Dated redirect. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
* reopened, clearly still on an going debate. No reason to close it until everyone has had a chance to give their thoughts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • closed 1=Made into a dated soft-redirect to an existing identical work — George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A duplicate of Public Law 113-1 I made before that was created by Navie. - Presidentman (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I made it into a soft-redirect. — George Orwell III (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If that is a usual name, shouldn't it just be a normal redirect? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(c'mon... you know this). Only enacted laws should be hosted here right? ...therefore the assigned numbering given to the proposed legislation is not a proper-enough name to warrant anything more than the courtesy of just a dated redir. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Only enacted laws tend to be hosted here, others have issues that preclude them, often centered around copyright or evolving work. But I can’t think of anything that precludes a law text that otherwise qualifies from being hosted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
OK your point is not lost on me & I agree w/you for the most part... but the nuance here is that the legislation was proposed, assigned a bill number, ultimately enacted into formal law and then [re]assigned a Public Law number whereas the instances you are alluding to deal with legislation that was proposed, assigned a bill number, but died or expired in some form -- never becoming formally enacted law.

So, historically important but failed legislation might have the need to keep the assigned bill number associated with it but in all cases of passed legislation, the formal title or assigned PL number almost always trumps the incidental & temporary bill numbering of the proposed legislation into nothing more than historical minutia primarily for completeness needed by nobody else save the academics. Its not practice commonly applied in the various authoritative sources related to this area in the U.S. so it shouldn't be practiced here on en.WS either.

Of course, non-U.S. legislation might differ -- when in doubt, a review like this on a case-by-case basis would be more than appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you are expecting me to know that it was proposed legislation, that I didn't. I am not adverse to having a redirect in the form of the proposed to the final form, especially of the proposed was a renowned and popular name. With regard to proposed legislation, that conversation belongs elsewhere, but I don't see that it is a black and white issue. I had always thought that we had a concern in evolving works, but not works that have a fixed point in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect you (or any potential reader that comes to en.WS for that matter) to know a single thing about U.S. law - that is why, as I have tried to get across for quite some time now, that the inclusion of a citation bar in the header was crucial if not mandatory for [U.S.] legal works of this vein. Before Presidentman altered then proposed a deletion here [2], only the link to the proposed legislation (H.R. 41) was valid & working all this time. Since then, and as Presidentman opted to add later in spite of this request, the assignment of a Public Law number has taken place and its (Public Law 113-1) citation bar link worked soon afterward when it was formally published by the Government Printing Office).

As far as proposed legislation goes - your POV skirts the established rational and may put dozens if not hundreds of existing works into question (i.e. Folks here in the U.S. are expected to know the laws and regulations they must abide by --> the courts here have ruled that access to these laws and regulation must be unfettered [so they are Public Domain] --> the copyright office currently uses the same rationale to justify the exclusion of foreign, state or local laws and regulations from copyright protections [unless contrary to those entities own specific copyright provisions] --> hence we have "Edict of Government" in multiple use today}.

To summarize again but with the other POV included - folks Are Not expected to know and abide by Proposed legislation --> there is no court guaranteed copyright exclusion for something you cannot possibly be expected to know or abide by --> such legal meanderings still in flux cannot co-exist with solid, enacted & formally published laws & regulations and would invalidate the previous rationale if they somehow were --> so "Edict of Government" cannot be extended to such works (never mind any state of flux & copyright issues raised earlier). Personally, I don't want invalidate all that stuff based on the idea that a few historical legislative curiosities that never did get passed into formal law need to be included at some point in time still yet to materialize... Do You? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, your extrapolation was not my point, and way from it. I was being general on "possible deletions" not talking copyright, you are prosecuting a line of argument that relates to "Edict of Government" which may be legally correct, but was neither an argument addressed nor professed by me, so cannot put anything in doubt with my few words. There is much in the way of old legislation in forms of Bills, rather than Acts; and similarly there is contemporary proposed legislation that is being released under creative commons licence. Apart from that we are just a library of some legislation, we do not show repealed or extended legislation, etc., so let us not start the abidance argument To the original question that I had, it was simple, and there has been a whole lot presumed or misrepresented about what I did ask or say. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to debate over this particular file anymore. I recommend we [re] close this and if the type and manner of temporary assignments given to proposed legislation is still an issue for anyone in any way -- raise it fresh in a forum where that expanded scope beyond this particular file would be appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)