Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2018

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Chapters of The Man Who Knew Too Much[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu[edit]

Hi there,

I uploaded this on Commons a few months ago. It was tagged as incomplete. I found a newer version that I uploaded on Commons and I'm working on the match and split phase here : Index:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu. So Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu is now redundant. Assassas77 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done BD2412 T 22:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous revision of File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu[edit]

Contains copyright-renewed story from Isaac Asimov. Replaced scan has the pages removed. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, so a Commons admin needs to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, within scope —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I own a copy of the Constitution of Sealand, it is not what I saw in that article. I can't find precedent for deletion of articles that are inaccurate (weird), so I think we could debate that now. If someone was to prove they had copyright permissions, and possibly sourced it, they should start a new article rather than edit this one. Thank you all! MattLongCT (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
What is different about it? I haven't looked very closely, but it looks similar to the 1975 constitution on the Sealand website.—The copyright issue is an interesting one though. The Sealand website says "This documentation is free for personal use", which is insufficient for hosting on Wikisource, and I would be surprised if {{PD-EdictGov}} covered works from states not recognized by the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Beleg Tâl, that makes a bit of sense. Piecing it together, this is a copy of the constitution of the rebel government. This would be an accurate copy of the Sealand Constitution availble for 10$ (You buy them.). Generally, when people are referring to the "Principality of Sealand" it isn't this rather obscure group (who have been sort of inactive for years and are only known about if you look up Sealand's history). As the Micronation of Sealand is run by the owners of the [] website, having this hosted here as a portrayal of Sealand would just lead to confusion. Thanks! MattLongCT (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NIST Koblitz Curves Parameters[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, migrated to full work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this isn't even an excerpt from FIPS document but restated information. Prosody (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved it to Digital Signature Standard (DSS) and added Index:Fips186-2-change1.pdf to back it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated links that previously pointed to the deleted page [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Short_Titles_Act_1896 and subpages...[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn by submitter —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deletion proposed as the approach used to generate this is for some reason a layout generation method that is apparently incompatible with the new parser. I'd rather focus on getting stuff that actually DOES work, then trying to maintain or update something that was largely experimental when originally transcluded.

That is unless someone is prepared to fully document how to do the layout for a document like this in a manner that works consistently in both Page namespace and when transcluded in sections, which are needed due to the size of the table(s) when transcluded.

It's a shame that a technical update will sadly mean the loss of something considerable effort was put into.

The actual underlying pages are probably okay to retain, and I had already simplified down the generation template with a view to having it subst en masse.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with it? It appears to work for me with normal transclusion: <pages index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu" from=34 fromsection="59_Vict_14_Sch1_PreUnion" to=232 />. The problem I see is that the table is so long that it exceeds the Mediawiki software's configured limits, which is just how it is - 200 pages of dense tabulation is simply too long to be a single page. Why not just break it up artificially into sections? You could use the sessions by monarch, perhaps combining shorter ones to give manageable chunks. Say, "Edward III—Anne", "George I–George II", etc? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is the approach currently used... However the layout generation breaks because of how the new parser handles the {{nop}} in body needed to force a table row starting markup to a newline when rendering.. One the current parser this works. On the new parser because of changes in how HTML is cleaned up, the nop may be be moved outside of the generated table ( 'fostered content' error) which means the code it generates appears in the wrong place, causing incorrect rendering of some table rows regardless of them being templated or not. However, it is my understanding that a patch is being written for Mediwiki to address this situation. 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "next" link on that page, I thought that was it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you see it with a different parser? It doesn't look broken to me: which row are you concerned about? Linter errors are annoying but they're not breakage in my book. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, you are welcome to try to get a consistent layout out of this then... and the other work noted below... However so far it seems impossible to have a version that renders both Page: s and the transclusion on a clean manner than matches up with the scans consistently. Rather than continuing to thrash back and forth with "clever-fixes" that only partially adress the issue, it's better to start again with an approach that is KNOWN to work consistently in the first place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But what is the inconsistency between Page and Main namespaces? If its just the linter error with {{nop}}, that affects every multi-page table at WS, it doesn't affect the work's presentation visually, and there's a software fix on the way. Why not wait for that fix to land and then worry about fixing any linter errors if there are any and/or bot out the nops if no longer needed? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This photo has been hosted on Wikisource since 2006, and is used only on the uploader's userpage. The uploader has only ever made two edits on all Wikimedia projects - one to upload the photo and one to create the userpage. Even Commons accepts a small number of personal images for use by users who contribute in some way - is there any reason to keep this photo? It could have been moved to Commons but there is no license. Note: the file was unsuccessfully tagged for speedy deletion a few years ago. Green Giant (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Everything mitigates against keeping it for me. Not from someone who has edited outside their userspace, and it doesn't have a license, so let's delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Merged and moved to Author:Charles Baudelaire/The Flowers of EvilBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not actually versions or translations of The Flowers of Evil, but rather just a list of what poems were contained in each original French edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lists could be merged and moved to a subpage of Author:Charles Baudelaire since they are lists of individual poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, or to a section of the author page itself Author:Charles BaudelaireBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too long to place on the Author page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Musical score[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Template designed to generate variable category names for musical scores. It generated categorization "by alphabet", which we do in all categories anyway; and also categorizes by author, which we do not do on Wikisource.

It is far easier to simply add the categories directly without the burden of the template than it would be to maintain a template like this with every possible variant category set to an ifeq check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be used in File namespace with scores stored as images? Or is it meant to be used with LilyPond/ABC digitised ones? Some template might be useful for both of the cases, but the current implementation does not look too useful indeed. --Base (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the template is intended for use in the Main namespace to automatically generate structured category names, which makes it very limiting. The person who created the template comes from working on Wikipedia, and does not understand about backing scans on Commons or multiple namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I created this template for LilyPond/ABC digitised scores. Preambulist (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I see benefit to having an auto-categorization of music-by-year, music-by-country, and music-by-instrument. Is there any further reason to delete this template if the author-categories are removed and the template does not display any output in mainspace?—Or perhaps could some of these features be added to the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh? It's only function right now is to generate category links according to a limited set and restricted category name structure. If the template displays no output, then it serves no function at all, and why would we keep it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's not something I would use with LilyPond scores (and I do the vast majority of them here), because in most cases the score is contained within a work that we are hosting. The articles in DMM that contain a score are already categorised, as are the hymns in The Army and Navy Hymnal. "By year" is already available from the header template in the mainspace. "By country" is covered by the work containing the score. "By instrument" would be useful if we were intending to be a major score repository but, with only a few people doing any score work at all, this is somewhat moot. We are not going to be competing with IMSLP as a repository—who do the categorisation stuff well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as redundant. We would normally have author pages for composer and for lyricist, and for that we do not categorise by name, the year would be recorded in the header template per all works. Then we can just use the category parameter for header for the remainder. It sounds as the template is not suitably acquainted with existing templates and configuration. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-paragraph and family[edit]

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn by nominator —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion on the grounds that whilst entirely well intentioned, this set of templates is a mess, and as some recent editing has shown there seem to be some obscure whitespace interactions that limit the effectiveness of the template.

Having seen this family of templates described as "fantasy" templates elsewhere has convinced me this template family can't be salvaged in it's current form. It's time to delete (breaking a few works sadly) and ask someone else to write a properly specified and maintainable version of this that renders consistently, can be used across Page: boundaries, and can cope with block level elements, and is not dependent on precise whitespace handling...

Simmilar issues arise with {{Numbered div}} and it's related templates.

It's unfortunate that an issue like this has had to be forced in this way (Sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Naturally any deletion as such can be stalled until there is a viable replacement. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The template {{Cl-act-paragraph}} seems to work ok in the works it's already used in, so I'd be hesitant to remove it unless you have already created a better alternative that can be easily swapped in. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The other concern is that some of it's functionality is 'broken' at present. Compare the output from vs User:ShakespeareFan00/Cl-act-paragraph/testcases&oldid=7220832. The output should be identical, there are also some unresolved issues with how it wraps some content. That's also partly why I have said at least twice it needed to be rewritten. Quite how the two different versions differ, is currently beyond me, indicating that my versions are simply too complex to maintain.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Having now attempted at least 4 TIMES to get this template's logic as intended, I'm having to throw in the towel on this because when I even attempt to change or repair the logic, somehow a comment or a bracket or some other bit of pedantically convoluted syntax breaks, continuing it at this point is pointless. It can't be salvaged in it's current from, and my patience with it has run out. Repair, Delete or Replace, but I've had enough of dealing with *&^%ing pedantic template markup and parser functions, needed, when even this was an attempt to get simplified down from the DIV based version used previously. That it even works currently is something of a miracle.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fellows, I have(as was asked of me by the proposing for deletion user) re-written this family of templates inside my user space. Only the section number formatting handler, {{cl-act-heading/1}}, and {{cl-act-heading/2}} I have not rewritten(unless I've miss'd something).

current template
rewritten template

Any feedback will be appreciated. JustinCB (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn - The current version has been stabilised sufficiently, until the new templates can be swaped in. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Index:Chapter 4, pp. 48-57 (1890 ed.).pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per previous discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been tagged for deletion though not brought here for discussion. Closing the loop, not fully knowing the work. Presumably the underlying file and other pages are impacted.

First guess is that it is a chapter of a work, so incomplete. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I forget why I didn't delete it when we discussed it last time, but I've deleted it now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Turpie Dog[edit]

The following discussion is closed: moved to userspace, possibly can import to Wikibooks from there —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Originally added with no header, no source, and no license. The text now appears to be an "original" work of the contributor with no published source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a folktale that(as far as I know) has not been published. Does it belong somewhere else? JustinCB (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's never been published, it doesn't belong here. It sounds like you'll want to look up self-publishing sites, since Wikimedia doesn't really cater to that market. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it, it's a folktale. I might've put it to paper(or bits, as the case may be), but I reckon it's been told since the Skags(the family of the first two white men in Tennesee[they were brothers, long hunters]) were still in Scotland. JustinCB (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But the words you used are your own; you wrote this edition. On Wikisource, we don't create original editions. If the folktale is an oral tradition, that's great, but we need a published edition (in PD) in order to host a copy here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There was some earlier talk about oral tradition at a wiki, and the Wikisources, nor the sister wikis chose to not expand their scopes. I personally see that it is aligned with Wikibooks, though I am not sure that they do. At this point it is a hole in the market, though not one filled by Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you see if the wikibooks people want it, and if it can be sent there? JustinCB (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: feel free to ask them yourself, at b:Wikibooks:Reading room/GeneralBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked at b:Wikibooks:Requests for import.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: Imho it is in something of a grey area, relative to Wikibooks. You might be able to help with either of two questions I have asked, to help clarify the situation, at b:Wikibooks:RFI#Import from Wikisource (indeed, I see some hints above toward the first question). --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Searching Turpie Dog on the web gets too few results, so I cannot help save the work. Maybe move to user's subpage?--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If that were needed as a temporary measure, perhaps it could be done — if there were a long-term exit strategy to get it out of userspace. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete it until there's a place found for it(you can move it to my userspace, though) JustinCB (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving it to User:JustinCB/Turpie Dog. It can stay there until you are able to find a way to set it up at Wikibooks or elsewhere. In the meantime I will redirect Turpie Dog to More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We actually have a sourced version of this story, though the telling is rather different, at More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)