Wikisource talk:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Math, source code, misc. data[edit]

I think it should be pointed out that, historically, Wikisource planned from the beginning to contain stuff like this. Nor is it entirely language neutral: Math formulas contain titles and explanations, source code contains documentation.

Part of the idea of "sources" was not just previously published texts, but also known data like these that that could be used as "sources."

The person who contributed computer source code at was very active, and contributed regularly for at least a year or so.

In my opinion we should think a bit before throwing this stuff away, especially if there is no other place for it. Not to say that it can't eventually be deleted, but let's at least think it through slowly.Dovi 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The following moved here from the project page.

    • And aside from that, Wikisource shouldn't be a repository for a billion math tables, either. Although, there will probably be another nasty debate about this. We need to also change Wikisource:What is Wikisource? to state a revised What we include and What we exclude (remove mathematical data and source code).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am from german wikipedia and from wikisource. Most of the content is not gone. It is allready on I don't understand you. I change to german language, i could better expression. Zahlentabellen gehören nicht in das Wikipedia, weil wikipedie ein Lexikon ist. Zahlentabellen gehören nicht in die Wikisource, weil sie keine Quellen sind. Zahlentabellen gehören nicht in die Common, weil sie weder Bild- noch Ton-Material sind. For every wikish... there is a reason why tables of numbers should not be part of it. Normaly there should exist only one wiki (including wikipedia, wiktionary, wikisource, common, ...) If you want tables like Carmichael numbers and Zeisel numbers, i would bring it from www.wikisource here. If not, ok. But don't do, as they don't exist anymore. --Arbol01 19:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • What I meant about most of the content being gone is that a number of the pages listed there were deleted after we agreed that they did not belong here. Look over at I think I understand your point about tables not belonging anywhere but that isn't a good reason to have them here. I take a purist view of wikisource as a repository for published public domain texts and not for tables and mathematical formulas (and unpublished source code). If the rest of the contributors here agree then I think we should move/delete that stuff.
        • I completely agree with you.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be pointed out that, historically, Wikisource planned from the beginning to contain stuff like this. Nor is it entirely language neutral: Math formulas contain titles and explanations, source code contains documentation.
Part of the idea of "sources" was not just previously published texts, but also known data like these that that could be used as "sources."
The person who contributed computer source code at was very active, and contributed regularly for at least a year or so.
In my opinion we should think a bit before throwing this stuff away, especially if there is no other place for it. Not to say that it can't eventually be deleted, but let's at least think it through slowly.Dovi 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC) (moved from talk page)
I guess the real question is whether we want Wikisource to continue as a repository for the above stuff or not. I would say no mainly because:
  1. None of thse pages contains an original publication. This is user written stuff. How is it any different than if I wrote some recipes and posted them here?
  2. I would guess that the majority of the stuff on Wikisource:Source code is available on the web in other places.
  3. There are numerous (like this and this) wikibooks pages that deal with programming, math, etc.
CSN 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
To answer to CSN: I've written about 40 wiki* pages in total, 30 of them for wikisource, I am responsable for 90% of the Wikisource:Cryptography pages. The Wikisource:Crypto pages contain(ed) two kind of things: 1) math formulas and their explanations and 2) "test vectors" (tables with data that looks more or less random to non-insiders, but actually are of high value for the cryptographer). Let me answer to your points:
  1. You are right, my pages contain no "original material". But just have a look at the "What do we include?" section in : "We (wikisource) include Mathematical data, formulas, and tables". What kind of mathematical data, formula or table is "original material" in a more legitimate way than my tables are?
  2. No, IT DEFINITIVELY IS NOT. It took me weeks to collect the data I put together on my wikisource pages. The info was pulled out from a dozen different books on crypto or maths, books I got from the local university library. I decided to write wikisource-pages because I felt that it was a good idea to have this info accessible more easily. If the pages are deleted, people won't find the information any more (in the internet, at least).
  3. Not everything fits in a book, and math tables are a good example. If you had looked into the mentioned wikibooks, you would have noticed, that they don't contain "math tables" at all. Just because books aren't the right medium to publish these tables. Wikisource seems to be (by definition at least, see the definition I cited above).
You shouldn't underestimate the value of the information that is scheduled for deletion in wikisource:crypto. I refer here to the Wikisource:Math pages as well. Of course I understand why some of you think that wikisource may be the wrong place for publishing math tables and stuff, but instead of just deleting the pages, perhaps you should move stuff to the right place, perhaps another wiki of the wikipedia family. And if the corresponding wiki doesn't exist, it should be created. --dm
I think the value of these pages is mainly for learning programming, and so I woul propose to put them on Wikibooks, which the place for learning materials, IMO. And I am willing to move them there if that is the decision taken. Yann 18:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer in the first! "I think the value of these pages is mainly for learning programming" I don't think so. This argument is like saying "A table with roman numbers is mainly for learning arithmetic". People who want to learn about arithmetic don't want to read about roman numbers in the first; people interested in roman numbers never would look for such a table in an arithmetic learning book. Don't get me wrong: I don't fight for having the cryptography-pages kept in wikisource; I fight for having them at the right place (which was wikisource until now, read the definition), and might be another one from now on. But it seems to me that there is no "right place" by now. Perhaps a new project "WikiReference" to host reference material should be created, I don't know. I put it clearly: to me it seems that wikibooks is as bad for hosting crypto tables and formulas as wikisource (after the new (unwritten) definition) is. I can imagine the wikibook maintainers of deleting the pages from there as well, or moving them back here. I don't know where to put the pages (but I even don't know the wiki* projects well, anyway). Just think carefully before mass deleting others' pages! This also applies to the wikisource:math pages. --dm
ps: I suggest three things: 1) update the definition of "What does Wikisource include" to the modern point of view 2) discuss the problem with the "higher wikipedia instances". A place for this type of data should be found. 3) Restore the Wikisource:Math pages until 2) is done. --dm
dm: First of all, I was refering mainly to the math formulas and source code references when I said they can be found other places on the internet. That is certainly true. I can't really comment about the cryptography pages. As far as "What is Wikisource", that is the whole point of this discussion. Everytime someone adds a list or table or forumla to wikisource they quote that link. We need to decide right now whether or not we want to change that statement. I don't believe we ever delete something without adequate discussion. Most of the time, even if there is some mild dissent, we leave pages as is. However, this issue has come up numerous times and we should definately discuss the future shape of wikisource. --CSN 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, CSN, you've nailed my first point. For about the last half year or so, there has been an implicit definition different from anything on Wikisource documentation: namely, that math, source code, and cryptography do not seem to belong here much anymore. And, I think we need to state by the end of this discussion, whether to allow or disallow these three sections (this means we should probably move this discussion to the Scriptorium and add a site-wide notice about what's going on).
Now, my beef with the source code is copyright-related. Truthfully, I do not like having anything released under the GFDL here (because it's not as "copyright-free" as the PD), so sourcecode makes me wary. Math tables I think are pointless, because these things can be found all over the internet, but can be easily vandalized here (it's a wiki, and not many people are going to check pi to the 30,000th place against an authorized version). That leaves cryptography. I know nothing about the subject, and to me, it's gibberish, but cryptographers do understand it. However, I still think Wikisource is the wrong place for it, since it seems like this data was taken from numerous sources and compiled here. A new WikiMedia project should be started for this sort of thing.
I propose, until this new wiki (if it ever is) is started, we at least keep the cryptography sections here at Wikisource and move them after time. The rest, I don't mind getting rid of at all. That way it can still be improved upon by those who know the subject, and good data isn't getting lost.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not like having anything released under the GFDL here (because it's not as "copyright-free" as the PD) — I recommend reading the copyright notice at the bottom of every Wikisource page. GFDL content is perfectly acceptable here. Uncle G 15:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't; I just said I didn't like it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That notice is a holdover from wikipedia and is incorrect. Regardless of what it says, Zhaladshar is right. The vast majority of the content here is PD and therefore is not bound by any license whatsoever. It is in our interest to keep the wiki as open and free as possible and that means PD content is better than GFDL content for our purposes. --CSN 16:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Just food for thought, I think that not all documents available on the Internet should obligatory find a place in some Wikimedia projects. Among them, I think that is specially true for math tables and numbers. This may be considered as "source", but it doesn't mean they should be hosted here. As for others, despite what dm says, there are mainly for learning programming, cryptography and related subjects. So just try adding them to Wikibooks. Yann 09:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I read from your statement "within others especially math tables and numbers should not obligatory find a place in some Wikimedia projects". This directly leads to the point that we should work out a sound definition of what wikimedia projects *should* serve (read "Wikimedia relies on public donations to meet its goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world." on the wikimedia homepage; for me, free knowledge includes math tables, etc. The demand for freely available math tables (and similar material) *is there*, believe me; I *am* very experienced in getting unsatisfying results when googling for some math data; I *know* how relaxing it is to find information hosted here).
Your statement again makes implicitly clear why our two positions are that different: I look at wikimedia projects as a user (a scientist in this case) with a certain demand concerning its quality and completeness (its the quality of the articles that makes me *love* wikipedia, not the contents' license). You look at wikisource as an administrator, the consistency of your article base is your first aim, it seems. This is a perferctly reasonable aim, of course.
"despite what dm says, they are mainly for learning programming" No, it is not about learning anything. It is about looking up things. Read my arguments some contributions above.
"So just try adding them to Wikibooks" Is this meant sarcastic?
I started moving some documents to Wikibooks. See b:Talk:Cryptography#Moving_documents_from_Wikisource.
On issue itself, and seeing the computing power available to the average scientist (or even a student), IMO, there is little use for a table of numbers. What is useful is learning how to produce these tables, but if you are a scientist, you should already know how to do that. Yann 09:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Dovi is correct and Zhaladshar is wrong. Source code has always belonged here (It has been listed as one of the things that Wikisource explicitly includes since 2004.), and Wikisource and Wikipedia have for a long time been operating in concert in this regard. There are a number of Wikipedia articles on computer algorithms that link to Wikisource for the source code for those algorithms in various languages. Deleting this would be pointless destruction of the good work using both projects for what they do best that has been built up so far over a number of years, and would be throwing a huge spanner in the works. Uncle G 15:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The excuse we have always done things this way is not valid. If we figure out a better place for this stuff, like books, there is no reason to keep it here. Links can be changed, pages can be moved, that is the nature of wikis. If we let things stay the way they are right now, it will be even harder to make the change two more years down the road. There are a relatively small number of pages to move, and we can always use [1] to check if they are linked from other wikis. --CSN 16:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I moved all the discussion back here, because the talk page is where it belongs. It was messing up the deletion page. Maybe it even deserves its own project page, with an announcement on Scriptorium.

I do not have time for a full response to so much discussion right now. I will quickly say that comments like "so-and-so is right/wrong" on this issue bother me, because this whole issue is really a value judgement about what exactly Wikisource is and where we want it to go. No objective truth here.

What I think we need is an open discussion about goals. I think it should take history into account, because a lot of the comments reveal some lack of knowledge of how things got to be the way the are, but even the history should only give a recommendation, not mandate a decision. As someone wrote, we don't have to keep doing things the way they were once done.

My one request: Patience and respect. Let's make this a good discussion. I apologize that because of holidays I won't be able to contribute very much until the end of the week.Dovi 04:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this! You got to it before I did.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
"Proposed deletions" isn't a great place for this, even on the talk page. What do people think of a page to be called Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, which would be about what materials our Free Library will hold, and what materials it will leave for other projects? If OK, let's start with its [[Talk:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes|talk page]].Dovi 04:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I've got no problem with taking this to a different page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the entire conversation to the scriptorium. It is a pretty major structural change to source and a rather contentious issue. --CSN 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

King James Version Bible[edit]

Several links from a Wikiversity which used to point to an online Bible here from wikibooks are now nonfunctional. It appears the documents have either been moved or deleted. If WikiSource intends to be a serious reference source it needs a little stability. I intend to point out to instructors at Wikiversity that constantly broken links at Wikisource or Wikibooks can be easily fixed by duplicating the material in local class namespace and assuming local responsibility for maintaining a current version. Obviously this may only be a useful strategy for classes with sufficient foot traffic. Obviously it would be better for all that Wikisource and Wikibooks functioned as intends as a reliable online reference and source. Later. lazyquasar p.s. This comment is here because I could not find a help desk or faq, anybody feel free to relocate it as appropriate.

Which Wikiversity? I'm more than happy to change the links, but please don't think that we're solely reference sources for the other Wikimedia projects. We are "stable," but we do find ways to improve this project and since we can't tell what other projects link to any given page, it's not as easy to keep everything up-to-date. I've changed a few links on Wikibooks, but I couldn't find anything that appears to be a whole slew of broken links.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that Zhaladshar... I fixed it perhaps between when this comment was made and when you looked. Some individuals were actually doing a poor transwiki of content from Wikisource to Wikibooks and then blanking pages on Wikisource to complete the transfer. I moved most of that content back, but there may still be a random item that was left behind. The Wikiversity was en.wikiversity. This particular user is still trying to understand the relationships between each of the sister projects. --Robert Horning 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That's understandable.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mass template deletion?[edit]

User:Shanel recently purged a bunch of templates which for the most part were apparently unused, but at least one (Template:Tl) is extensively used. I'm a bit surprised that they were all deleted without any discussion (I would have expected that the list be posted here and then commented on for a few days), but it's probably not a big deal. However, I can't tell (deleted revisions are hidden to non-admins), so could an admin perhaps take a look at some of these (if one hasn't already) to confirm that they all should have been deleted? And feel free to redelete Template:Tl if it's deemed useless (though hundreds pages would disagree); I recreated it without checking the delete log. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Template:tl. I'm subst:ing it now and then and it's quite convenient. As for the other stuff in [2], some seems OK to delete ("and the only content was: <some inappropriate blurp>"), and for the rest, I can't tell.--GrafZahl 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The templates in question were all created by Fabartus in an effort to—if I understand it correctly—standardise a very complex interwiki template linking scheme (such that template:tl would link to the template named "tl" on every project). The templates were entirely unused, and they have been deleted on at least one other project (see Fabartus' Wikipedia talk page). Although I myself would have gone through discussion, the decision would most likely be a unanimity for deletion anyway.
{{tl}} was apparently deleted by accident. Such things happen. :) —[admin] Pathoschild 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the deletion of Template:Indent was also a mistake. It is still used on many pages and should not be deleted until it is replaced. / 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored that one. —[admin] Pathoschild 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Animal Farm[edit]

Does anyone have copyright information about the original text of Animal Farm? I saw it's WikiSource page had been deleted. It says it's under copyright until 2021?

The book was published in 1945, and the author died in 1950. Under US copyright law, the book will enter the public domain 70 years after the first January after the author's death, or in 2021. For more information on public domain criteria, see User:Pathoschild/Help:Public domain. —[admin] Pathoschild 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that is the situation in the UK. In the US, copyright in a work first published before January 1, 1978, lasts for 95 years after publication (17 U.S.C. 304): until December 31, 2040 in this case. Physchim62 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Animal Farm had its US copyright renewed in 1973 under the references R554145 and R561475: original U.S. registration was on August 17, 1945. The renewed U.S. copyright was claimed by the author's widow, Sonia Orwell. Physchim62 09:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've corrected the date on Animal Farm. —[admin] Pathoschild 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Created template[edit]

I've created {{Oldpd}} for tagging talk pages of works that go through Proposed deletions. Might be useful in at least some cases. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speed of closure[edit]

Hi, I know we can be loose on the one week notion in a tight-knit community like this, but I've not seen a Proposed Deletion request last longer than 2 days for quite some time now. Why the rush to close? We have procedures like this for a reason. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to these in the last few months; there was just too much argument. But when I was, I was always strict with myself about waiting a full week before taking action, and another full week before archiving. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice I was once an offender, and I agree, I should have waited the full week. It is policy for a reason, and unless we're talking about Harry Potter, then it's unlikely that a week is going to make much difference legality-wise since we blank the work anyways. (Well, technically only for CopyVios). Will try to be more attentive in the future, and thank you for pointing this out. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Add new items to top of page rather than bottom[edit]

Doesn't it make more sense to add newer discussions to the top of the page? Outlier59 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

They're pretty much the same, with adding newer discussions at the bottom having the advantage that reading top to bottom has (roughly) the same order between discussions and in discussions, and that adding newer discussions at the bottom is relatively consistent across Wikimedia projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Mediawiki's ADD SECTION functionality adds to the bottom. Such when you use the {{delate}} tag when nominating on a work the template offers the ability to add the discussion and by the system it appends. Not sure that we want one page or the corpus to have a different process., — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)