Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2013-10

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


Various Poe collections[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus for deletion, some clean up and re-organization underway, falls in general housekeeping. Jeepday (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe, Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, The Raven and Other Poems, Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque, The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe.

Together, these collections act to list works already appearing in Edgar Allan Poe's author page. They are of varying levels of completion and sourcing. None have scanned sources, though some give minor information on publication. Most "contents" link to either unsourced, unrelated sourced publications, disambiguation pages, or scanned transcriptions of other publications. Personally I see no value in keeping them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe has scans. The Raven and Other Poems has a preface, and EAP is one of those authors where even such minor stuff is noteworthy enough to keep. Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque has both preface and testimonials.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems and The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe are merely a list of links to poem titles. I would be comfortable with these being deleted. But the others represent genuine transcription attempts; and The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe could be paged out against Index:The works of the late Edgar Allan Poe volumes 1-2.djvu. Therefore I think they should be kept. Hesperian 01:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe, would it be fair to leave it in a "transcription project" state, like I've seen on various page, where we simply list it in the author page, and link to the index? As it stands (I think) all of the links direct to poems not transcribed or referenced to the work. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
RE: "Works of...", I think we could move all of the works to be subpages (as would be normal for sections in a book) and possibly either split the text to the DjVu or at least add maintenance tags (splitting would take longer as it would have to be proofread at the same time to avoid mismatches). Personally, I would be happy as long as it were left in a state where someone who wanted to proofread could just pick it up and do so; it wouldn't need to be completed at this stage. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pr-typos feature[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep; No consensus for delete, some clean-up and modification work has been done. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, the above proposal in itself is meaningless - delete {{Corr}} all you like and we still enjoy being left with the coding behind the output ( pr-typos ) still being called from our local .js as well as all the related HTML tag-ids, .css-classes and MediaWiki messages currently in place to facilitate the feature within the Christmas-tree making up the ProofreadPage extension in general.

The choices are simple...

the pr-typos feature's related scripts and coding from being called from our local .js as well as all the instances of related HTML tag-ids, .css-classes and MediaWiki-messages currently peppered throughout our own local settings & files.
[Modify &] Keep
the pr-typos feature so that the output behaves basically like SIC currently does. This would need someone to localize the Corrections.js file and change the output messages from my One typo has been marked theme to something more appropriate (if any messages at all). The indicator in the side menu & the jump-to list of affected words is really more useful than messages stating the obvious imo anyway.

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - I know where some of the bits & pieces for this feature reside & have already made those changes for the most part, but somebody far more familiar with scripting than I needs to address the MediaWiki:Corrections.js modification/localization part(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Nice to have as most pieces are in place. If implementation is a headache, though, I do not see it as a key feature. A long list is improbable to have and in the main ns (where most users are supposed to be) is invisible.--Mpaa (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    Not sure about that "invisible" claim. Maybe it was a cache thing for you, but, at least for me, when I open the related mainspace transclusion of my Page: namespace (see Page:A Kentucky Cardinal.djvu/64), {{|SIC/sandbox}} applied, 'proof-of-concept' test (A Kentucky Cardinal/Chapter VI), I get a new "Typos marked" entry in the right-side Display options menu-section that toggles a pop-up banner that a blind man could not miss (check that: folks might need to apply Layout2 first to see the toggled pop-up banner) which contains a link-list taking me directly to the 'marked' entry in the body of the transcluded text. Is anyone else "seeing" that? -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Now I can see it and behaves as you say. More than a cache issue, I was probably looking for it elsewhere in the page.--Mpaa (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And fwiw... it just dawned on me that this feature is probably why Layout 3 was kept as part of Dynamic Layout's development. The pr-typos popup fits perfectly in that right-margin under Layout 3. I'm guessing other never-finished "features" similar to to the pr-typos display were meant to be made available in the same manner. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


More Krantmlverma works[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
In December 2012 we deleted additions of this gentleman's poetry on the grounds of being used as a vanity press. In the last few weeks he re-posted some of them, which have been deleted under G2 Reposted content. However, there are two works that weren't discussed: Rhymes of Emergency and Tears of Lalita.

The first of these has his blog as the only source. The second has the blog, but the notes suggest it was published separately, but the only link offered is once again to his blog. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - As I recall, the User was asked to at least provide sources, OTRS, etc. for some (if not all) of those works once or twice already to no avail. This would be the third or fourth time the User has ignored (or gone against?) previous determinations. I see no point in further entertaining someone if they are not willing to listen. Delete. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- As far as I've seen, this user has added works which, while added in perfectly good faith, are not suitable for WS. A pity. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If I may, there's another work here on WS by the same author: Pt. Ram Prasad 'Bismil'-A warrior of Pen & Pistol. Should this be deleted or not? It's a speech, doesn't provide a source. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: User has added a series of {{PD-self}} templates to most (if not all) of the works in question here. The lack of proper OTRS remains however, so I don't see that anything has been resolved by his recent "tweaking" of tagged works. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Deleted on similar grounds as the last batch of works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

SCAPIN and related documents[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, Fails Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. Jeepday (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The page is a compilation of excerpts from documents, none seem complete, and thus outside Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. In the documents were there in full, they could have their own pages, but not in the current rendition. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur Delete Out of scope in current format. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - agree with the comments above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 02:26, 11 September 2013 Kathleen.wright5 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted page Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co
An incomplete work that is unsourced. If someone could be encouraged to sdo some work it may be salvageable, but in its current state it does not seem work retaining. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - it's not even the actual text of the decision, but rather of headnotes/casenotes from, apparently, Bloomberg Law, (see [1]) which means it's probably a copyvio as well. - Htonl (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per the above as well as only being an excerpt of a larger opinion or court proceeding to boot. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per billinghurst. —Maury (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

114 Songs[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Kathleen.wright5. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This page isn't a published work, it's an incomplete list of sections within a published work. It even states that the list is incomplete and not verified. If anything, in its current state, this is a Wikipedia list article and out of the scope of Wikisource. 114 Songs could be added in full later at any time, but I think the current page should be deleted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Adam. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Adam & George. —Maury (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete IMSLP already have the full score of this here. This bare list is not particularly useful. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A life or death situation... Life in L.A. By: Soulthief77[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Kathleen.wright5. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Self-published work by contributor. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteRochefoucauld (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — Profanities of any kind tarnishes en.Wikisource in the eyes of some people who read areas on en.wikisource. Profanities are not needed. They make no man more of a man. —Maury (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) (former USN)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteClockery Fairfeld (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Delete; as is, conflicts with Wikisource:Annotations. Any modification would make it redundant to SIC. Related discussion for Pr-typos remains open in a sub-section. Jeepday (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I propose this page to be deleted for the following reasons:

Note: Before deleting existing usages of Corr template will nee to be converted to the SIC template, which won't be to annoying. Or we could making it a redirect, but this can cause confusion.

Rochefoucauld (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Looks like a duplicate, unless I missed something. Replacing is better, it is little effort.--Mpaa (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Not so fast... it seems Template:Corr (specifically it's class setting) is somehow coded to notify readers that a correction has been made in the content of a page in the Page: namespace. See the color-coded proofreading status bar on Page:Fraud_of_Feminism.djvu/77 for example (note:might need to clear/refresh the various caches to get the message to display).

I say better not to delete it without incorporating this feature into SIC first.Just clicked on One typo... and got a pop-up banner detailing the correction made so there is a lot more going on there than meets the eye. Lets see if somebody can figure it out 'cause I've never even seen that before today never mind know where it's coming from. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Is having this function even necessary though? I Did a little bit of research and it seems like it's part of a very elaborate equivalent form of our Template:SIC over at the french wikisource. — Rochefoucauld (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course its not necessary (death to ThomasV btw) but the issue then becomes removing it from the "coding" driving the entire proofreading scheme - the Corr template itself is just a small part of that larger process. We can convert the 50-some-odd current instances of Corr to the SIC variant but that won't remove the coding driving the feature/function.

That said, I'm leaning towards incorporating the functionality (if possible) into SIC before supporting the deletion/elimination of Corr (never liked the fact that {{SIC}} was so easy to confuse with {{Sic}} for newbies either). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's from oldwikisource:MediaWiki:Corrections.js, which is pulled in from load.php from...whatever the hell determines what that loads (grumble grumble back in my day everything was simple Javascript grumble grumble). Prosody (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I lost you ... My point is that we are not supposed to fix typos, just to highlight them at most.
  • {{SIC}}: SIC is used to indicate that the spelling of word matches the original text.
  • {{Corr}}: Use this template to correct typos in the text. Usage: {{Corr|misspelled_word|corrected_word}} -> which should not be done. Or?
Can't we just convert {{Corr|misspelled_word|corrected_word}} in {{SIC|misspelled_word|corrected_word}}? --Mpaa (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If "we" can't retain the template label Corr while modifying it so that it faithfully acts like SIC currently does, then the entire scripting/coding behind the Corr feature must also be removed. Deleting the Corr template by itself solves nothing; converting existing Corr usage to SIC solves nothing - doing so still would not remove the scripting/coding driving the feature. This is no longer just a matter of semi-redundant, stand-alone templates.

Either we

  • kill/trim the entire scripting/coding behind the currently flawed feature and the required Corr template itself, both at once; or
  • keep the script/coding largely in place but modify it (&/or the Corr template) so that the new output mimics SIC's current functionality.
Those are the only real solutions to pick from at this point, imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Heavens no, this is an enabler of unfaithful transcription. Hesperian 13:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • delete/replace with SIC in some variation. Hark back to discussion about annotations. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • On review for closure, Corr is clearly out of scope and any usages would fall under Wikisource:Annotations which Corr would not meet. Simple deletion is not practical as the usages need to either be removed from the text or replaced with SIC. As I understand there is some programing link through Corr that other templates are dependent on? If this is the case can someone address what need to happen before the Template deletion? I will begin removing the Corr, as long as Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Corr is not empty, everyone is encouraged to help in the housekeeping task. I am deferring actual closure of the discussion pending completion of the housekeeping tasks. Jeepday (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Be aware - On clean up, I am finding some case where Corr is used to modify formatting. Unless a spelling issue is present, a direct conversion to SIC is not indicated. Jeepday (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Clean up is done, (much quicker then I thought it would be), at that is left is addressing any program/linking issues that need to be addressed before deletion. Silence = No Known remaining issues. Jeepday (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
<sigh> I'm really starting to grow a complex over participating in these discussions. Now [anybody's/everybody's] "silence" is suppose to mean a satisfactory resolution has been achieved? W/ all due respect - screw that; I contribute when I have the free-time.

I had some free time today to modify the {{Corr}} template to behave just like {{SIC}} does (which, btw, is a 3 layered POS in itself, but I digress). I've even proved the template - any template - can invoke the pr-typos feature (see Page:A Kentucky Cardinal.djvu/64 using {{SIC/sandbox}} instead of {{Corr}}; the pr-typos feature is still there folks) when coded for it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I am confused, why did you fix Corr? I believe that you fixed #Pr-typos_feature so that SIC would function correctly (with or without the continued existence of Corr). I am not sure if there is (or how it might work) an interdependency between SIC and Corr. Corr would be counter to Wikisource:Annotations, I don’t recall if we talked about it specifically but because SIC leaves the original text in place and only offers it on mouse over, it would seem to be allowed by Wikisource:Annotations.
So from a purely community perspective, Corr no longer has community support to exist. As such it should be deleted.
From a purely technical perspective, there is something going on that I don’t understand. Jeepday (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
First-- we can close this discussion & delete the {{Corr}} template as it stands. You've already ported it's previous usage over to {{SIC}} or similar; & the only reason I "fixed" it was to insure if the need ever arose to undelete it, a working version that did not contradict our practices or policies would be the top-most candidate available for re-use is all (Before my tweaking, we all accepted the fact it did not comply with Wikisource:Annotations right?).

Second -- it seems you are overly hung-up on the template itself & it's given name or something. Its the mw.extension that is the driver here; not the template. Since Pr-typos was made, & still is, part of the existing ProofReading scheme (Hint: Pr-«anything» literally means 'MediaWiki:ProofReading extension' related/reliant by design [apparently]), we could add the class to any span found in any template and produce an output (an undesired one most likely) with it's every use. This is why opened the 2nd proposal - one that address the root of a [possible] problem and not just the redundant, housekeeping issue between templates.

Third -- {{SIC}} itself is a peculiar thing irregardless of any of this - why it had to go through {{popup note}} to just get to {{tooltip}}, I'm not sure. But I'm guessing at some point similar templates were "merged" into a single template (or a single template was "forked" into two?) and nobody bothered to reconcile the un-named parameters ({{{1}}}, {{{2}}}) with the named parameters ({{{target}}}, {{{tooltip}}}), so we wound up using three templates to achieve one simple thing (adding the ' title= ' attribute to a span tag). Not much else to say about that until the pr-typos discussion develops a bit more one way or the other. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. I will take care of the delete next time I am on as my Admin-self. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Daya kar daan vidya ka (दया कर दान विद्या का)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedied G7 after nomination
A prayer in Hindi (with English translation) for which the only source given is a blog. The year is unknown as is the author. My instincts suggest that this is outside our scope, but am happy to be proven wrong. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a link for the file? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had linked. I see though, that Billinghurst has since speedied it as G7. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


WS:CSD Proposed Changes[edit]

The following discussion is closed: This discusion appears to have concluded Jeepday (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I was just reviewing WS:CSD I was looking in response to a recent comment about speedy delete of an un-sourced version that was redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. I find two suggested changes. I have started a discussion at Wikisource talk:Deletion policy. Jeepday (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)