Jump to content

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-02

Add links
From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Proposed deletions | Archives
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Jeffq in topic Deleted

Kept

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Templates copied from Wikipedia

Quotation

These templates format quotations. Since quotations should match the formatting of the original document, they serve no purpose on Wikisource. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Recent application shows some usefulness in editorial notes and project pages, as long as we emphasize that this should not be used where original formatting exists. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:46:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago129 comments22 people in discussion

Copy from Wikipedia

John Morrissey and William Poole are just quotes from their respective wikipedia pages. Either they should be deleted or the material should be removed from Wikipedia. I propose that The Newspaper articles be made into unique pages filed nder The New York Times/ and removed from wikipedia page. they are simple too long for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The wikisource pages as they are now should be then deleted. Does that work? --Metal.lunchbox 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Some of those are clearly articles and so should have their own page for it. I think your plan is a good one (although, most people here would just rather go delete happy on these pages, we probably should try to salvage what we can ;-) ).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, each article should have its own page, but otherwise I can see no reason why these shouldn't be here. What do people feel about titles and catalog questions (obviously no copyright problems from these mid 19th centuray works!)? Physchim62 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pages like these have been added before, but caused many editors much difficulty because some were clear copyvios and others didn't seem to fit anywhere. I was a bit exaggerating, though, as I don't think anyone would really delete them if they did fit on WS. :-) It's just a matter of finding where they belong.
I'm not clear about your question, though. Could you explain a bit more? Thanks.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I already did everything I described. 1The articles were cut out of John Morrissey and William Poole and put onto seperate pages for each article and properly formatted. 2Articles were organized and indexed on The New York Times page. 3 the corresponding wikipedia pages (Poole, Morrissey) were edited down to include only citations of the articles and links to full texts on Wikisource. There is no unique info on the pages. all the remains is to delete them.--Metal.lunchbox 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thats ME!.jpg

Vanity image, the contributor has no other contributions other than their user page. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Was speedy deleted. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Legislation-UKGov

This is not GFDL-compactible. Do we need it for reference? It is reported at Wikisource:Requested texts as copyrighted for 50 years since publication.--Jusjih 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:Authors-

(actually misnamed; should be Author:Michio Kaku) We host no works by this author and are not likely to do so anytime soon.--GrafZahl 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Various author pages with their articles deleted

For the following, all article of them have been deleted per WS:COPYVIO#British Crown Copyright:

I suggest deleting these author pages to discourage adding copyrighted speeches again.--Jusjih 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the current author pages with an explanation as to why Wikisource cannot host their works. Physchim62 14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how to do this. Template?--Jusjih 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
We already have {{deletedpage}} for texts. I agree that author pages should not have redlinks to texts still under copyright without a notice indicating this fact. But I don't believe it's necessary to have a lot of protected deleted author pages because people usually will create the text page before the author page.--GrafZahl 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If the authors have no uncopyrighted texts, the author pages can be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6 ("...or author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted"). I'll watch these pages in case someone recreates them. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Miranda v. Arizona/Concurrence-dissent Clark/Dissent Harlan

This page was a mistake and was quickly replaced by Miranda v. Arizona/Dissent Harlan--Metal.lunchbox 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Europa website

The criteria described by this license template does not conform to the Copyright policy because it does not allow commercial use or derivative works. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Help:Copyright and Wikisource

I propose that this page be merged into the more comprehensive Help:Public domain and redirected. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship of the family of Des Isles with Joan of Arc

Original edition published on-line circa 2001, previously had localized distribution Source retyped on-line from hardcopy (circa 1960's edition, with further generations added)

This does not appear to satisfy our inclusion policy. I question if it was ever published in a manner with review and it is currently being treated a work in progress by adding further genertions.--BirgitteSB 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- BirgitteSB seemed to have made no attempt to even inquire about the document. It is not a work in progress. It is stated on the discussion page the original can be shown for its proof. Further generations are not being added, as I did actually remove that part of the document that showed recent generations, and I returned it back to its original state where the lineage stopped at Des Isles. I wonder where BirgitteSB got the idea that further generations were being added? What this document needs is more people to verify it. It does not need people to deny its inclusion based on one's attempt to deny due diligence in verification. It is verifiable. Only work in progress here is for someone to look at the original and confirm what I typed in is exactly what appears on the original document, as it is stated on the discussion page a proofreader is needed. 71.129.204.122 08:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Is this an original contribution? It certainly seems like it. A quick Google search reveals nothing, apart from this page, to link the family to the Maid of Orleans. Physchim62 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No. I by no means have "originally" created the document. It documents the events of a court order to trace lineage. Around 1998, several copies were sent out for review by many societies that studied Joan of Arc. Most responded with acceptance in the collection of historical documents. A few responded with saying their data is more correct. Either way, I'm not saying who is more correct, and I'm also not using that as justification to wipe out the existence of historical documents based on one's personal beliefs. The document exists. It is not my original research. It is verifiable. I've done my due diligence off-line (not with just google alone) to verify it, and I know you will find other DesIsles (or "Des Isles", "DesIsle", etc) alive today that have similar genealogy or other artifacts from the lineage. We can't expect every document to be easily verifiable by a google search, but google is actually good for showing popularity. The documentary source needs proofreaders... not deleters. 71.129.204.122 07:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This still seems to be an in-progress work which are not included here. Also the work is not documentary but does involve the research of and analysis of someone. If this research and analysis is not published it would be outside the scope of this project. If it is published we need the copy on Wikisource to match the published version without further additions.--BirgitteSB 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as failing the publication requirement of the inclusion policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Works in Category:PD-Iraq et alia

See the discussion in the Scriptorium. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - they all look like works of the Iraqi federal government, so presumably no different than hosting any number of other non-US Federal works...not public domain, but a grey area of Wikisource. They are speeches given by Hussein, and translated into English by the Iraqi government. shrugs. I'll abstain from voting - but figured I should point this out. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per "States without copyright relations with the United States" (Scriptorium, December 2006). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:26:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Appeal deletions

User:Newmanbe has recently gone on a "deletion-prone mission", wherein the bulk of his contributions to Wikisource have been deleting texts - some valid, some not. Notably, over the past week he has deleted numerous texts, including...

These deletions were all discussed: you yourself were notified that they were under discussion on November 2. Once again you are personally attacking editors whose views you do not agree with: for that reason alone, I oppose your appeals. If you feel that an unusually high proportion of your contributions are being nominated for deletion, then maybe you should question whether you are really contributing the right sort of material to Wikisource. Physchim62 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how a talk page notification means that there was any consensus or evidence of copyright provided. Go look at say, the discussion, I see Psychim and newmanbe supporting blanket deletion of all texts penned by Bin Laden, Sherurcij and Birgitte arguing that PD translations of open letters, declarations of war and manifestos are well within WS's scope...yet quelle surprise, Newmanbe simply ended the discussed by deleting everything, including the author page (which wasn't even discussed), saying "Deleted" and quickly removing the discussion from the page, moving it back into the archives. Not a very good precedent for development of Wikisource.
I'm tickled by the fact you don't actually provide any logic for opposing a re-instatement of these texts, other than "For this reason alone (not liking Sherurcij), I oppose" - way to let your personal views and vendettas continue to degrade the Wikisource project!
I especially like the way you asked the administrators to "deal with me" for even daring to appeal deletions, despite following clear Wikisource protocol by the way, very cute :) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. This discussion seems to be more of a request for comment into Newmanbe's behaviour than an appeal for the undeletion of the texts. If so, I'd suggest first discussing with Newmanbe privately or, failing that, begin a discussion on the Scriptorium. For the sake of discussion, though, I'll assume your main concern is the deletion of the texts.
The works by Osama bin Laden were hosted under the assumption that, being translated by United States government employees, they were automatically in the public domain. However, Physchim62 pointed out that translation is a 'derivative work', and that it does not negate the original copyright. The copyright on these works is not enforceable due to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but this does not place them in the public domain. Physchim62 further pointed out that manifestos are not always in the public domain; no argument being put forth to counter that valid observation, the texts were eventually deleted.
The works from the September 11th attacks where deleted because they were uploaded under the demonstrably false assumption that they were in the public domain as works of US government employees. As Newmanbe pointed out, this is not the case "unless the pilots, the hijackers, the 911 operators, the people who called 911 et cetera, were all employees of the U.S. gov.". You then stated that discovering and noting the relevant license conditions was not something you "spend a lot of time fretting over", implying that you just tag works with any template to protect works from deletion, rather than to accurately portray the copyright status of the work. When that implication was challenged, you declared that you "Don't give a shit if they're PD outside the United States or not". You failed to respond to further arguments for their deletion; your previous responses failed to address the previous arguments. The texts were eventually deleted.
You stated that the contributor need only assert compatible copyright status, and not "spend hours" defending that assertion. Although this is technically correct, such an attitude is likely to lead to deletion when the assertion is challenged and not defended.
I oppose undeletion. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not undeleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:35:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporary undeletions of Help:Author pages and Help:Text editors for Wikisource

As these have considerable edit history (with many incoming links that should be updated), I consider it inappropriate to leave them deleted without merging these edits to original redirect targets. I'd like to propose temporarily undeleting them, merging the edits to Wikisource:Style guide and Wikisource:Tools and scripts respectively, then delete them again.--Jusjih 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Has the requested history merge been done yet?--BirgitteSB 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Done for Help:Author pages. However, Help:Text editors for Wikisource has a talk page, so I need advices on how to merge.--Jusjih 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the talk page, since the discussion is not relevant to the new page. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:37:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Poems by Charles Baudelaire and Category:Poems by poets

All works by Charles Baudelaire should be listed at Author:Charles Baudelaire; these categories are unnecessary. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Drama or Category:Plays

These seem redundant to me, but perhaps I'm missing something. Personally, I say keep Category:Drama, and delete Category:Plays. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford/Campbell

This page predates the SCOTUS wikiproject and in updating it to comply with all the new style conventions I replaced the whole page instead of moving it. So now the page is redundant. Dred Scott v. Sandford/Concurrence Campbell is the new page. --Metal.lunchbox 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Object In an ideal world, the page should have been moved out of politeness before replacing it: not that I want to criticise, I have made the same mistake myself here, but the best way forward is to merge the page histories so as to credit the editors who also felt that this text was worthy of their attention. Physchim62 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I would have just moved the page but I didn't notice until after I created the new page. --Metal.lunchbox 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone fixed this with a history merger? Does anyone wish me to go back and do so?--BirgitteSB 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:46:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

State of Linux Graphics

State of Linux Graphics seems to be self-published. Also only allows for redistribution and translation. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as NoMod (especially in this field!). Physchim62 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Original works?

Hero and The midnight beginning both claim to be written by "Andro Niero", were posted by an anonymous IP address, and the terms "B.C.E." appearing in the poetry suggest to me that this is somebody posting their own work here. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like a self-pub. Google returns nothing on "Andro Niero". Delete all.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Iwas going to close this as "delete", but the articles were never tagged with {{delete}}. Lets give it some more time to see if we get clarification.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:48:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Coollogo.com images

These are not being used at Wikisource.--BirgitteSB 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

These userboxes serve no useful purpose. They should be substituted onto any user pages using them and deleted from the template namespace. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted--BirgitteSB 17:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Works by Craig Murray

Craig Murray is still alive, but a work is hosted on Wikisource with the explanation that "Publication of these documents has been requested by Mr. Murray. [1]". Searching the site, the only such invitation states: "Net posting is not breaching [British crown] copyright because there is no charge to access the documents. This site may, of course, be subject to technical attack, so I would be grateful if those who can mirror these documents on their own sites, do so."

However, Wikisource does not allow British Crown copyright precisely because our license does violate the noncommercial clause. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemical name of titin

This is reference data, not a source text. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as an original work which, incidentally, serves no useful purpose. Physchim62 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Delte as reference material. Samael775 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Jusjih 18:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unicode fonts

Merged into Template:Unicode. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Author:Robert Anson Heinlein

This author died in 1988, so works are probably copyrighted through 2058 or 2083 depending on the date of publication. No licensing information is provided. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • the only reason I could see for keeping this around (instead of recreating it in 2058, would be because people came here to look up information on this author. But the en:wp article is comprehensive. So.. delete. Maybe find a home for the list of works there if it's not tucked away somewhere already (I only skimmed, I bet it actually is)... but Delete ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete since no works are public domain, and wikisource is not for lists or articles. Samael775 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:54:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Play by mail games list

This is not a previously published work. The editor working on this has asked that it not be speedy deleted so I am opening it for discussion--BirgitteSB 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am the author of the referenced article. I appreciate your responses. Please note that I do feel that articles such as these do have somewhat of a legitimate place at wikisource. I have put it in the category Category:Informational, to indicate that it is mainly of informational value, not of any literary or historical significance. However, could anyone please tell me, or suggest, a place on the web where documents can be compiled which are mainly of informational value? In other words, not of any literary or historical import, but containing valuable data, information, etc? I appreciate any thoughts or ideas along this topic. Thanks. --Sm8900 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:52:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Author:Anonymous and Author:Disputed

These two are not actual author pages in any sense of the word. It merely adds common-sense explanations to the two terms. Any work which is anonymous or disputed should be using the "override_author=" parameter instead.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:57:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Log4perl

Looks like source code to me.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, criterion for speedy deletion G5 ("...clearly lies outside the scope of Wikisource..."). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:59:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates copied from Wikipedia

Wikisource:WikiProject template sharing

The source. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • since this itself is listed here... (not sure that is intentional... but if it is) Keep this page. The idea of coordinating among projects is sound, and a project to organise such coordination is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sharing improvements to mutually useful templates is indeed a sound idea. However, this project seeks to share templates with little or no regard to whether they are useful on Wikisource, redundant with local templates that already existed, or even poorer versions of a more advanced template system on Wikisource (like the {{categories by date}} system on Wikisource versus the various dated category templates on Wikipedia). Interproject coordination requires that users be familiar with the projects involved and collaborate with local users, not impose one project's tools on another project with little or no awareness of that project's existing tools or needs.

    The WikiProject explains that it exists to help projects that "have not attracted the fairly large and talented population of computer science and engineering trained editors that frequent the hallowed digital halls of Wikipedia and Meta-wiki". Although Wikisource has fewer such users, we do have sufficient technical users to fulfill our needs. This WikiProject is not only unneeded, it requires that Wikisource editors spend time correcting categorization and sorting out which are needed or unneeded. It might be useful if the users involved were experienced on both projects, but this is not the case. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, you can delete it, since I certainly didn't add it!!! I guess 130.237.205.228's a fan or well wisher.
         But I have picked up the odd helper along the way, even though the project you are criticizing isn't quite onto the takeoff ramp, much less up in the air, though the wording is mine--in draft form, sans outside critique--but that applies more to a young site like wikispecies and wikiversity where I've seen people begging for template know how on their village pump, not to mention many of the international wiki's of all stripes.

    OTOH, it is a sound fact that Wikipedia in both relative and absolute terms has template coder capability to burn because the normal demographic there is youngsters not much older than my teens, and they teach HTML in high school these days. At lot of them are computer science wiz kids with more skills than common sense, and one effect I hope this project will have is to cut down the work load at W:WP:TFD, where we see up to dozens of new nominations a day!

    More to the point though, I think you all need to see the latest draft of W:WP:TSP before you take that little paragraph out of context. The project is far more about good documentation and empowering users by minimizing uncertainties and providing good documentation with absolutely reliable utilities well coded and debugged, and it is certain NOT about pushing unwanted or unsuitable templates on a sister that may not need them. The plan is to occasionally advertise using an analog to {{catlst}} below there your village pump that a new batch of templates is available. Such tools are even now being adapted to allow not only cross-sister peeking or editing, but cross-language as well--so long as the foundation's servers are able to convert the links.

    The importing to a particular site, we can undertake as I did the toolset we use in the project here, but the idea is to set things up so anyone can do it when circumstance catches them at need. Ideally, we could add the '/doc' (documentation) pages here, and anyone can browse those from the category template documentation—which if you look at the wikipedia W:Category:Template documentation will tell you quickly just how far the doc page pattern technique has been implimented. For related templates, we're setting up modified doc page pattern 'usage' pages--sort of one stop shopping, since a lot of older tools had see also references to similar tools.

    As such, even the documentation we had up, is now being overhauled to be site independent, so when a documentation page says See also this, well, you'll get no redlinks, but can navigate direct to the template page on Meta or Wikipedia, as we consolidate the best of those to Meta which should be the project's home base, so to speak since that also goes to the interligual needs. The other plan is to put together a compendium of utility templates, similar to some of the sub-pages of W:Wikipedia:Templates, but which acts as a reference catalog of tried and true tools--hopefully that will stop people from reinventing the wheel.

    The project also involves a category structure but really devolves down to three main groups— two links categories and miscellaneous. There is actually a parent proto-project which uses another, but that involves linking common category nodal pages, and that would add two more categories.

    Anything tagged with interwikitmp-grp that isn't a part of the system, get listed in interwiki utility templates, which being a name inflicted by WP:CFD isn't half bad! <g>

    Those templates and the categories that are listed here below are pretty much the whole shooting match, save for a few project tagging things like {{WPTSP loose end}}... the name certainly should speak for itself as to what's that one is all about. There are two more main templates that I know of at this writing: Ltsany and Template list that have a set of front-end mnemonic based templates as front end for the former, and the latter is just like catlst below, but for templates... that will enable us to drop links on your community talk page at need.

    I would hope you'd be able to find the space to give the project a category or two and typing-aids is a sub-category of Miscellaneous... though the guys working the template re-categorization side are discussing eliminating Miscellaneous as well in favor of some other name. Got that by email, so apologies for not being better up to speed--since Miscellaneous templates is used on at least half the sisters, I don't think that one will go away myself, but we'll have to see.
    Here's the most needed categories: Wikproject template sharing, Wikiproject template sharing loose ends, interwiki link templates, internal link templates, Miscellaneous templates, Typing-aid templates, and interwiki utility templates
    . There are a handful of others that I can live with or without. Those mainly involve tracking categories involving listing redirects. Because of naming collisions, sometimes we do a name workaround. The next version of {{interwikitmp-grp}} will handle that from both sides. That will allow a user to write something on a non-home site, find a template redlink or have a name collision, and have a one link check back to a known page to see what work-around name substitutes on the current site. If there isn't one, that too will be obvious and it'll be time to punt! So while That text above is awfully brief, you might want to just update it and keep the page and the project. One outcome of which is most high impact templates can be protected, and so thereby also protect the page where they're used... stability has a lot to commend it. Best regards //     FrankB 08:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (And yes, if you're interested, we'd be glad for the help. I'm going bug eyed from writing up decent documentation. )

    Hello Fabartus. I agree that the project, properly handled, would be a great asset to Wikisource and other projects. However, it is not being properly handled: Wikisource is not simply an extension of Wikipedia for source texts (or, as the project page puts it, "each sister has it's own unique and sometimes quirky culture"). Perfectly matching templates across projects is not realistic; Wikipedia has a vast array of clumsy, inflexible, and often useless templates and metatemplates and meta-metatemplates that do not match well with Wikisource's standardized and flexible templates.

    Template macros like {{i0}} for {{i|0}} for {{indent|0}} are pointless and add ambiguity to the edit box that will confuse new users (and often even experienced users). There is no need to categorize documentation when the templates themselves are categorized, and there is no reason to transclude documentation from a subpage if it's only used on one page. In some infrequent cases where one documentation page would be useful to several templates, that can be transcluded and categorized to a category like [[shared template documentation pages]] under [[template tracking categories]].

    Despite regularly editing seven English Wikimedia projects, I have never had much trouble finding the local templates— what every project needs is efficient help pages and documentation, not Wikipedia templates on every project. Templates that are useful on Wiktionary may be pointless on Wikipedia, and templates that are useful on Wikipedia may be pointless on Wikisource. It seems to me that you're not sharing technical expertise, but simply imposing Wikipedia's templates; have you considered mass-importing Wiktionary and Wikisource templates to Wikipedia, for example? To simplify editing Wikipedia for Wiktionarians and Wikisourcers, perhaps?

    Some Wikipedia templates are more advanced and flexible than their Wikisource templates, and in some cases the inverse is true. Both projects can benefit from coordinating technical users across projects. However, neither project benefits from having templates from the other unilaterally imposed with little awareness or regard to local needs. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted in accordance with the above, as well as the following discussions and precedents on multiple projects which reinforce the above:

—{admin} Pathoschild 02:44:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indenting

These templates serve no purpose on Wikisource, and are redundant with MediaWiki indentation syntax, {{indent}}, and the <poem> tag in varying circumstances. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Template:I0. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I prefer more descriptive names for templates. The letter I could stand for almost any word beginning with I. So I think Template:Indent is a much better template name. But is not Template:Indent broken? See sandbox test. 81.229.40.172 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    For the sake of simplicity, the indent template uses both non-breaking spaces (" ") and em-spaces (" "). The sizes of the spaces vary depending on the font they're viewed in, but there's normally no need for them to line up perfectly. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all -- W:template talk:indent shows the power of the tool. In the final analysis, we haven't been able to make columns line up perfectly in any proportional font face...
       (i-indent)--Courier and a small handfuls of others is all that will do that. HTML forces the issue with table elements. Shrug. The price of progress an WYSIWYG editing--outside of mediawiki software until someday coming.


(I0 indent) I, I0, I2, and I5 are in widespread usage on other wiki's, and if the names are unliked here, then redirect to them.

They are used frequently in template documentation, as will soon be exported your way--the technological advantages of the Doc page pattern technique are very important, and the good news is the technique allows a human to save time because not longer must one wade through talk discussions to glean left over glimmers of information--the documentation is being prepared to be beginner friendly, in other words. Non-technical.

(I2-indent)I2 does a good old fashioned line-feed, so called double spacing. At the end of a paragraph, or the beginning, it forces wikimarkup to respect the desired whitespace.

Moreover, all of them will allow font effects (Font type, italics, bold, etc.) to be inherited across to the next lower paragraph following--that allows one to stay focused on the prose, and content, not formatting.
     (I5-indent)I5 is the runt of the litter in usefulness. Like {{i}} it defaults to a fixed indent size -- 5 spaces to I's three, but 'I' is far more useful in wikitables and navigation templates.

  1. One property they all share is if placed at the end of a
       
  2. Numbered paragraph, not only do font effects carry over, but the numbered para's can enjoy similar double-spaced clarity in presentation. When a second para is called for in a numbered

    One just adds an I2, and continues typing.


  1. But perhaps clarity in talk page discussions is unneeded here? In any event, if you don't need the effects, Wikiproject Template Sharing would appreciate it if you kept them around! (you may find examination of this point instructive when viewed in edit mode! <g>) // FrankB 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These shortcuts are not needed on Wikisource, which maintains very simple usage and standardized templates that make complex documentation unneeded. The most complex documentation on Wikisource is on Template talk:Author, and even then it is very simple— copy the source, and add any information you know to the intuitively named parameters. Further, the shortcuts increase confusion by substituting ambiguous markup like {{i2}} for the more-or-less intuitive hypertext and wiki markup (ie, <br /> for breaks) which is used everywhere else.
    If the Wikisource community eventually finds a need for such templates, we have several users who are quite capable of creating them from scratch (or just finding them on Wikipedia). There's no need to batch-create templates that are unneeded and non-standard, and often inflexible, redundant, and poorly documented. Wikipedia's templates are often clumsy because the community prevents any changes to usage; Wikisource currently ensures great simplicity through planning and constant streamlining of existing templates.
    The WikiProject on template sharing would be the ideal place to coordinate local users and users from other projects on maintaining and creating templates to match local needs. It is not useful if users from another project simply dump copies of templates from their project with little awareness or regard for local needs or existing tools. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Fabartus-spawned templates, except where specifically found to be useful to the project and comptable with existing practices. Like Fabartus, I am not a regular contributor to Wikisource (although I've actually contributed content), so take my position with a grain of salt. But please note that Fabartus (aka FrankB) has been propagating these large sets of inadequately tested, insufficiently documented, and occasionally improperly used templates on other projects like en:Wikiquote, where we have twice deleted his efforts and are still cleaning up after the last one. (See "Ute", "WikiPtmp", "Interwiki", and "R and others" for details.) I believe he has good intentions, but he won't accept that other projects (on which he makes no meaningful contributions by which he could understand their needs) neither need nor want his concept of standardization. Last time I checked, most of his templates weren't in use by anyone but himself even on Wikipedia, making this a largely one-man attempt to impose cross-project order that virtually no regular editor is adopting. Also, in the past, he hasn't even checked to see that there were already existing templates that combined several of his functions, were in better operating order, and were much better documented. On the specific subject of indentation templates, while there is an arguable need for better control of indenting, most projects and their editors (based on lack of usage of these things) are probably content to use existing wiki practices and avoid adding incredible complexity for the sake of a little better spacing. In short, these templates are a solution in search of a problem, and Fabartus is a problem-solver who's manufacturing more problems than he is solving. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per the above, as well as the following discussions and precedents on multiple projects which reinforce the above:

—{admin} Pathoschild 03:22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template documentation

These templates serve no purpose on Wikisource. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Template:Template doc page transcluded/doc. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This doc page pattern looks like a good idea if you want to include documentation of templates on the template pages. The idea is to put the documentation of a template on a subpage of the template "Template:X/doc" and include it on the template page with "<noinclude>{{/doc}}</noinclude>". Then it might be useful to mark the doc pages with a template. But I think you have most of your documentation on the template talk pages. And if you prefer that, I can not see any purpose for these templates on Wikisource. /81.229.40.172 18:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is some controversy about whether this is actually a good idea for high volume/high use templates, some allege this adds a lot to the job queue whenever any change is made. I don't have all the details and could be misremembering, but this approach might be out of favour on WP as well. note that in general I do support the idea of sharing templates across projects so that similar names do similar things, where it makes sense to do that. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No Brainer keep --
         Clarification—The changes which load the server are when a transcluded template PAGE itself is changed. This method ensures only rare changes are needed to templates pages-- since it's rare to change their working code--if it's not broken don't fix it, in other words. OTOH, you an update the transcluded 'X/doc' sytle pages all day long twenty times a minute, and since it's walled off inside a noinclude block on the main template(s), it's referenced (see the differences in what links here), but not actually transcluded except when the page is viewed directly and the two cached pages are assembled togther for the viewer's browser... and therefore the database sees no reason to update when one of those 'X/doc' pages is changed. It only needs to update it's cache for that page, in other words. With respect to other pages, the link dependency is exactly the same, so for that multitude of pages the system ignores the change... It's just a reference, much as an external link is to a Yahoo homepage somewhere.

    It's been further noted, that MOST changes are to documentation or to interwiki's. By fencing the /doc page inside an noinclude block, changes to the '/doc' pages never ripple through the server page loadings or swell the que for page updates... saving many an unneeded server surge. This is of course a much bigger problem on Wikipedia's million plus pages, but wide use templates there have been known to lock the servers up and lock editors out until the change page que catches up. That's a high price to pay for a phrasing change, or an interwiki add.

    Then there is the factor of convenience to the users -- the editors looking at a talk page frequently had no clear documentation section to see how a template was used, or it's parameters. Most of the time what was there was obscured by computer Jargon, poor organization and lack of examples and alternatives (see also lists). All of it was quite often interspersed with questions and dialog and technical talk. Because overall page length was always a factor in code assembledge (the gathering of all the included material before actually parsing and pre-processing it), documentation on the face of templates was long held in 'high discouragement'—but thankfully, no more need that time waste be tolerated, as the page behind the noinclude wall is also now available to be seen when the template is viewed directly... which makes it a whole lot easier to browse and see what a template does. It's also a great aid to those of us with poorer memories, I must slap tlx or lts down 20-30 times a day inside a preview screen to talk a peek at something. <G> (Getting old is contra-indicated... I don't recommend it!) Hope that clears that up. The W:WP:DPP page has a link to the technical background from developer Tim about the matter, or I'll be glad to take a question, or ask CBDunkerson or Ligulem over at WP, better yet, just see the contents of Wikipedia's W:Category:Template documentation. This Template doc page pattern will also be moving or added to Meta within the week--it should have been there months ago. (I can personally guarantee the Wikimedia commons communications committee will be hearing about it to spread the word multilingually, before the week is much older!) Cheers! // FrankB 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Edits to a template's <noinclude> section don't purge transcluding pages. The include size might be an issue, but that's not a problem with the Wikisource practice of linking to the clearly labeled 'Documentation' section right at the top of the talk page. Transcluding from a subpage and categorizing it have no effect on how well it is documented, and it is easier to edit a section than a subpage. Feel free to improve documentation, but there's no particular reason to use a subpage. Even if we do use a subpage, there's no reason to use templates that tell us we're using or transcluding a subpage— that's fairly obvious. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per the above. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:32:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

These templates serve to categorize redirects on Wikipedia for a local project to produce a DVD version. They serve no purpose on Wikisource. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The tracking category is also useful for knowing whether something is a real template, or a redirect from a name case alternative. The small recommended category structure suggested by W:WP:TSP is three sub-categories feed by this kind of template and the parent category 'Redirects', and as with other categories in the system, they can be tied in through a single 'Root category' for administration matters pertaining to your friendly neighborhood TSP project. That was devised so as to be minimally disruptive the host sister project, but as always, we believe standardization is a Good thing!!!. as it gives those of us who travel and work wiki's on off site wiki's another sure thing we can count on hitting with one navigation try. Once in the category tree, most of us can follow links until we find what we're looking for. Finding it in the first place becomes far easier if we know certain categories will be 'There' when we go looking during 'that days' hectic wiki-work in foreign wiki-waters. A few extra categories are a small cost considering all the free time all of us give the foundation... and if it saves some one of us time because we use the categories to navigate, then that's ample reason to allow the commonality with most sisters. [{{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from other capitalisation}}, etcetera.
    I still don't see what purpose they serve on Wikisource. If someone uses a redirect, they're looking for the page targeted by the redirect; they won't click the &redirect=no link, click the category, and browse around for a while to see other redirects. Since Wikisource is not attempting to produce a DVD with encyclopedic articles and useful 'see also' redirects, there's no need to template-categorize them. If you only want to find the category tree, Category:Categories is standard on most English projects and redirects to the root in others. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per the above. See also "Template:R from other capitalisation and six others" (Wikiquote votes for deletion, February 2007). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:39:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Template:Tlx

{{tlx|parameter}}
This template is unneeded and duplicates the functionality of {{tl}} with minor changes that could be merged into that template. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I think you need to look at the revised version more carefully. The next version will also have a parameter for interligual access, and if Wikiproject template sharing is writing usage, and someone here imports it, you'll need this one. It's the back end for Tlxm, Tlxc, Tlxw... which is how the documentation is referencing templates across sister boundaries... that way Sister A can take template 1, 3, and 5, while sister B takes 1, 2, and 4 and C takes just 2 of some see also list, which list can also reference templates on multiple sisters, and not miss a beat--or be noticed, save by hovering over said links.

    But the documentation is to allow people to make adult informed choices, so it dutifully says See also..., which I think we can all agree is a pretty good idea. [Some of this is pretty recent, but Tlx has a long history and is much preferred on some browsers. As a humorous aside, see w:User_talk:Audacity#Tlx_vs_Tl, maybe he's using the same browser as Pathoschild?!! {{tl|interwikitmp-grp}} versus {{Tlx|interwikitmp-grp}} --> {{interwikitmp-grp}} vs. {{interwikitmp-grp}}. Hmmmm, now how did that link to meta sneak in there? // FrankB 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    No doubt by adding the 'm:' prefix, which I'm sure no editor could manage without using an 'x' affix and 'SISTER=M:' parameter to a template instead. I fail to see why this can't be done with simple wiki markup; is [[m:Template:Foo]] so much more confusing than {{tlx|SISTER=M:|Foo}}? —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per the above and discussion below. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:45:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lts

Template:Lts (edit talk links history)
This template links to a template with various related links; unneeded and unused on Wikisource. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well personally, I think it kind of rude and backwards to not be using the Lts/Lc/La templates for this particular kind of page. Having the history, the code, the what links here with one click is far easier on the people you are asking to make a determination about a matter which is in all probability brand new to them. For any of those, or to recheck something whilst writing, they have to make multiple navigations which is disrespectful of their volunteered time. Such tools as these are what wikiprojects template sharing is all about. Frankly, this little bugger is so useful, I have trouble relating whatever to your rationale. How is having those various links not useful when one needs to check something on the fly? How are they less useful in letting people explore easily the decision factors upon which they need to make a fair and balanced determination.

    And it's hardly unused, unless you are counting chickens before they hatch. Not counting this page, it's used in ten pages... and it's barely been here all of ten days... and not even a full day before the nominator put it up... which has to be some kind of record. Or is it a bias against letting people have a time-saving tool? Put it another way, how do you know it's unneeded by anyone and everyone here? And since I'm sure since we've rubbed elbows on Meta, you know it's in widespread use elsewhere, never mind it's variants! What harm is it doing you to let me or anyone have a common tool? I can't figure out how or why you'd waste your time. It's certain to help someone in a talk page here if left around, and this smacks of pushing your mode of operating down everyone's throat. Maybe you type faster than the wind and leap tall buildings with a single bound, but some of us like our lazy click-backspace, click-backspace ways of checking things out. You must have too much idle time to nominate something like this workhorse[2]. {{lts}} I own I was astonished it wasn't already here, now I'm almost certain I don't want to know the real reason it hasn't come here before. Yikes! // FrankB 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    If the links are useful, we should have an all-purpose {{info|template:foo}} which also works for {{info|mainspace foo}} and {{info|category:foo}}. That would indeed be useful. There's no reason to have {{lts}} (templates), {{lcs}} (categories), and {{lps}} (mainspace pages), ignoring the author and other namespaces. This is an example of you "pushing your mode of operating down everyone's throat", imposing Wikipedia's inflexible and clumsy templates on other projects with no innovation or regard for local needs. If you'd like to carry out a civil and respectful discussion, please avoid your baseless accusations of bad faith. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    There already is a single Wikipedia template in use for these kinds of links for multiple namespaces: w:Template:Links. As I told Fabartus (aka "FrankB") on my Wikipedia talk page last year, it was no particular challenge to find this tested, documented, pre-existing template. This is one of many reasons I'm against using anything Fabartus does until he takes some time to understand the actual needs of the projects he's foisting these things on, discusses the needs with actual potential users (instead of the handful of fellow template-coders who appear to be his sole WP audience), and solves the problems identified by those discussions after ample regression testing and documentation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:50:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Interwikitmp-grp

This template links to equivalent templates on other projects. This is unneeded except where templates are deliberately synchronized; there are very few of those on Wikisource, and this is much better maintained by linking to a central list like m:Template talk:Proxyip#See_also. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:01:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Time

This template is redundant with ~~~~~ and {{#time:H:m, F d, Y}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template documentation templates

These templates contain template documentation that should be placed on the template talk pages or on the templates themselves inside <noinclude> containers. Edits to noincluded containers do not purge transcluding pages from the cache. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:08:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

These templates (except {{tlx}}) create an interwiki link to a template on Wikipedia, which can be done with simple wiki syntax and is unneeded template functionality on Wikisource. template:tlx could be merged into template:tl. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep -- These are covered in length above... part of making sure that doc pages get built so people don't see redlinks. And Simple wiki-syntax is something MORE to type and get straight-- Macros let the computers do the work, not humans, and are less error prone to boot. It's hard enough to get two parens on one end of a link without requiring long hand from people who are donating LEISURE TIME!. Try reading up on Macro's... which is all templates are per M:Help:template, see the first two paragraphs.

    Macros were a big advance we all greeted with cheers in the later sixties... MACRO assemblers were all the rage... then C and C++ which have whole libraries of standardized macros... and YOU, Pathoschild, want people to spend MORE of their free time, when the damn processor is waiting for the data stream half the time? The bottle neck in computing is the data buss speed, a stream of a template take a few microseconds to process--it's efficient stuff. Join the 21st century-- or unlearn something you misunderstand. If you're going to talk long hand, throw your computer in the nearest dumpster and check into an insane asylum. Computers are supposed to free people from unnecessary loads, you, you, oh, so out of touch person!!!

    You're hurting people with this sort of rationale... we all need to maximize our time.

    In a whining tone, with nose in the air... everyone repeat: "'With simple wikisyntax'" FORSOOTH! Unneeded, another decision you want to make for mature consenting adults?!! Now you're doing everyone else's work, thinking their thoughts in (your) way, and deciding you have the crystal ball so you can judge needs???

    Please peddle such hogwash someplace else. And now that I'm tninking about it. Ring the damn phone... you've asked all these people here to judge YOUR ignorance??? I've asked you questions on your Meta talk in months past, you could have got me there. My page here says reach me at wikipedia... where's your inquiries? Just one? PATHETIC and worse, unprofessional. // FrankB 11:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Erm...what?--Shanel 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

    At no point have I challenged your integrity or disrespected you, Fabartus, and it's rather surprising to see it from you. For the sake of continuing a civil discussion, I won't respond to your blatant bad faith attacks nor block you out of hand for them.

    Yes indeed, simple wiki syntax. The wiki markup is itself a highly-efficiant macro; [[m:Foo]] outputs <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foo" class="extiw" title="m:Foo">m:Foo</a>. {{tlw|foo}} is a macro for a macro that saves precisely one character while introducing a new level of meta-markup which makes editing less intuitive. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Apologies for letting my pique out, but I stayed up late enough answering all the above that I was up to greet the dawn. But the fact remains you chose to not make a single inquiry and in effect, are attacking the very tools used to document any other template which the template sharing project might be recommending to this site in the future. Stabilizing the names, the output effects and documenting the uses so anyone can employ the tools templates, regardless of whether a template is currently in the local spaces is a sound idea, as is putting together a utility template manual of sorts as we hit stride. At the same time so is gathering the best of those at Meta for all and sundry to rely upon. These are things which empower any editor to maximize their time on the project, and what Wikproject template sharing is all about.

    The goal is uniformity. What the local project uses, is up to the local needs of the sister project, as you say, and as it should be. But the attitude that something is not currently used much here is unnecessary make-work. Things get used if an application exists for them, if they are understood, and if they are available, or at least made available by listing in a document which displays both their existence and their utility.

    If a tool exists and isn't harming you or the project, whether intuitive to you or not, the product is the displayed output and the links enhancing the understanding and increasing the options of all who read that.

    Those involved in writing the clear documentation pages or actually otherwise put such templates into use are the only ones needing 'intuitive understanding' of what they do. As such documentation stabilizes and matures, and even now upon composition, many of these will be subst'd to eliminate back links. In the meantime, they are useful tools to make another tool--a communication tool--perhaps the best kind of all. Best regards // FrankB 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. The wiki markup is already uniform on all Wikimedia projects. Wikisource practice has been to encourage simplicity and standardization; complex, poorly documented experimental templates that compete with existing simple and flexible tools are harmful to this practice. See the above discussion, others in this section, and others relevant as linked above. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:15:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned2

This template is redundant with {{unsigned}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • On en:wp these are different as unsigned2, conveniently, takes the parameters 1 and 2 in the order that a history page has them, no need to flip their order. Same here, I checked. Keep... However I know you're pretty good with magic words, Pathy... if you can get {{unsigned}} to determine whether the first parm is a timestamp or not, and then flip them around, I would certainly support deletion with a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I like the reversed order of the arguments. Could we have a bot subst: all the unsigneds?, otherwise Delete. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    That would break all the non subst'd uses of unsigned... there are less than 50, I think, so not a huge deal, a quick AWB run would sort that out. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    If there's no objection to this method, I'll substitute {{unsigned}} and switch around the parameters. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Works for me. I just wish the original unsigned way back when had been done the right way round. Thanks for offering to fix them all. Yes please do subst them too while you're at it? ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to template:unsigned, which was adjusted accordingly. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-02&oldid=14528795"