Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-02
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Kept
The following discussion is closed:
Kept. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless somebody can verify its authenticity, this seems very suspiciously like a modern work lampooning old plays. The language is not even remotely 17th century. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- If the language was modernized, does it create a new copyright? Yann 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- This appears to be legitimate. See here, an extract in a book by John Adlard. There's a review of Adlard's book in an academic journal here.--Pharos 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hrm, it appears to be vaguely legitimate, you're right. But ABAA offers a "first edition" of 1980, and the NLA suggests it was written by] w:Donald Friend in 1981. So it's a copyVio at the very least, no? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Rabindranath Tagore 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- He published an edition of the play[1], with modern sets and costumes described. This is a Restoration play (though certainly not a mainstream one; I'm sure it was never performed in a theatre). Four-letter words were not invented in the 20th century; they are some of the oldest words in the English language.--Pharos 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the eytmology, however the context they are being used in is *not* 17th century, as I said. Are there any sources suggesting this is legitimately a Restoration-period play? Or that what appears to be a "modernization" is not copyrighted? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Rabindranath Tagore 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've just made a mistake on this. How can you say it's "*not* 17th century"? Are you a scholar of 17th century English? I'm not, but I found a scholarly book by John Adlard containing an extract of the play, and this book (originally published 1974, several years before Donald Friend's edition) is confirmed as being scholarly by its reviewal in the academic journal.--Pharos 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, (Vol. 2, p. 276) says this: "Sodom, or The Quintessence of Debauchery, [BM. Harleian MS 7312. Inferior MSS of this play exist at the Hague, at Hamburg, and in the Dyce Collection. No copy of the pbd edn (1684?) is known, but the Hamburg MS has been rptd (ed. L. S. A. M. von Römer, Paris, 1904). For information relating to this piece, which has been persistently attrib. to Rochester, see 'Pisanus Fraxi' (H. S. Ashbee), Centuria Librorum Absconditorum, 1879 (priv. ptd).]"
- The original work itself is certainly in the public domain, and I would presume that to also be the case for the 1904 edition. A modernization of the play would be a derivative work, and in some countries subject to new copyrights. If your Adlard version is only an extract, what is the provenance for the rest of the play.
- Whether someone is a scholar of 17th century English is not relevant. That's an ad hominem argument. The facts can speak for themselves. Eclecticology 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly meant no personal slight; the instinct of someone reading this text thinking that "[t]he language is not even remotely 17th century" (meaning that the text must either be a hoax or extremely modernized) is a very understandable reaction, and was indeed my own first reaction on looking at this text. You can see that the extract in Adlard's book is virtually identical to what we have here, so Sherurcij's and my own first impressions were wrong on this point. I can't say which manuscript Adlard's book is quoting from, but I see no particular reason to believe that the extract published there would be legitimate and the remainder of the play we have here would not be (the extract is written in the same style as the rest of the work).--Pharos 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at your link but couldn't find the extract in that preview, though it is all marked as copyrighted material. There is nothing there that I could see that would explain what permissions Adlard received or whether he was applying fair use, so no inferences can be drawn drom any extracts there. What's in the bibliography for Adlard's book. Is it really too much to ask who modernized the play? Eclecticology 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm sorry Google Books makes things difficult, but you're going to have to go to this page and search for "7312", which will take you to the last page of the extract, which includes the source info. It is indeed from the British Museum manuscript you've mentioned.--Pharos 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at your link but couldn't find the extract in that preview, though it is all marked as copyrighted material. There is nothing there that I could see that would explain what permissions Adlard received or whether he was applying fair use, so no inferences can be drawn drom any extracts there. What's in the bibliography for Adlard's book. Is it really too much to ask who modernized the play? Eclecticology 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly meant no personal slight; the instinct of someone reading this text thinking that "[t]he language is not even remotely 17th century" (meaning that the text must either be a hoax or extremely modernized) is a very understandable reaction, and was indeed my own first reaction on looking at this text. You can see that the extract in Adlard's book is virtually identical to what we have here, so Sherurcij's and my own first impressions were wrong on this point. I can't say which manuscript Adlard's book is quoting from, but I see no particular reason to believe that the extract published there would be legitimate and the remainder of the play we have here would not be (the extract is written in the same style as the rest of the work).--Pharos 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've just made a mistake on this. How can you say it's "*not* 17th century"? Are you a scholar of 17th century English? I'm not, but I found a scholarly book by John Adlard containing an extract of the play, and this book (originally published 1974, several years before Donald Friend's edition) is confirmed as being scholarly by its reviewal in the academic journal.--Pharos 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the eytmology, however the context they are being used in is *not* 17th century, as I said. Are there any sources suggesting this is legitimately a Restoration-period play? Or that what appears to be a "modernization" is not copyrighted? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Rabindranath Tagore 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- He published an edition of the play[1], with modern sets and costumes described. This is a Restoration play (though certainly not a mainstream one; I'm sure it was never performed in a theatre). Four-letter words were not invented in the 20th century; they are some of the oldest words in the English language.--Pharos 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hrm, it appears to be vaguely legitimate, you're right. But ABAA offers a "first edition" of 1980, and the NLA suggests it was written by] w:Donald Friend in 1981. So it's a copyVio at the very least, no? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Rabindranath Tagore 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, is there any remaining objection to this text?--Pharos 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was decided to be a 1904 modernization, right? Assuming that's the case, just toss a note in the Header and it's PD-1923 :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Essay by an American author who, according to this page, is still alive. Nothing to indicate that the original author has released the text into the public domain. Tarmstro99 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have left a message on User talk:81.208.83.247 in the hope that they are able to help. John Vandenberg 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have emailed info@williamparker.net, and received an automated reply "Thank you for emailing the official William Parker website at www.williamparker.net, someone will get back to you shortly." John Vandenberg 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have been emailed a copyright release for this, authorising it to be in the public domain. We also need to consider if it is suitable within our inclusion policy. Here is some context:
| “ | This essay was first presented as a speech in August 1984, later it was entered into Sandro Dernini's Plexus project.
the event in '84 was also organized by Sandro. Someone working with Sandro is the person who put this on your site. I am not sure if part or all of this is included in other of William's writing or not. |
” |
- Do we need more info? John Vandenberg 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Has the copyright release you received been recorded via OTRS? Assuming the text is considered to be within the scope of WS:WWI, we just need to make sure we have a clear release on file to host it here (and the appropriate license template should be added to the page). Tarmstro99 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am waiting for confirmation by other project members that is acceptable under WS:WWI before filing it into OTRS. John Vandenberg 09:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should we move this discussion over to WS:DEL, then? The original copyright issue would appear to have been resolved. I guess I am indifferent on the issue whether this is within WS:WWI or not; speeches in general seem to require a fairly relaxed interpretation of the “publication” requirement for hosting here. Tarmstro99 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am waiting for confirmation by other project members that is acceptable under WS:WWI before filing it into OTRS. John Vandenberg 09:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Has the copyright release you received been recorded via OTRS? Assuming the text is considered to be within the scope of WS:WWI, we just need to make sure we have a clear release on file to host it here (and the appropriate license template should be added to the page). Tarmstro99 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please move to WS:DEL. Copyright concerns have been resolved. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted
The following discussion is closed:
Speedy Delete
Brathwaite was born in 1930, and is still alive, and there's no evidence that I'm aware of that he released the poem under a free licence or into the public domain. I left a note for the person who added it, but he doesn't seem to have been here since. I'll leave a note at his Wikipedia page as well. Cowardly Lion 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I contacted him on Wikipedia, and he said he was unaware of the copyright policy and has no objection to deletion.[2] Cowardly Lion 22:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a clear copyright violation--BirgitteSB 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Appears to have been self-published; a Google search for lines from the text turns up only this page. Tarmstro99 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, he's a current-day Hungarian University professor, and even if it were properly-licensed, it doesn't seem to have been published (and he doesn't offer us a link to let us know the original Hungarian, so I can't even google to see if it was published in Hungary) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 00:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- The history says it was moved from http://wikisource.org/ , and the logs there say:
- 14:52, 30 April 2006 ThomasV (Talk | contribs) deleted "Take up the cudgels in defence of hungarian]" (moved to en)
- Could someone provide the deleted history from there? John Vandenberg 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have temporarily undeleted oldwikisource:Take up the cudgels in defence of hungarian to facilitate this discussion.--Jusjih 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have notified Gubbubu by email. John Vandenberg 07:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have temporarily undeleted oldwikisource:Take up the cudgels in defence of hungarian to facilitate this discussion.--Jusjih 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't vote I think, but I must remark:
- this is not a self-published work. It was published in Végvári's book "És mégis mozog ..." ("And even She Moves ..."). If you haven't found it with google search it is not a miracle. A lots of hungarian resources are offline-only. And why do you think everything what ever have been born in the world, is available in the WWW? You should visit some libraries, netguys :-)).
- Végvári gave me permission (in fact, asked me for) to publish this and some other works here. If it is necessary, I can quote the permission from his e-mails. Gubbubu 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for alarm, we are just cleaning up works without clear attribution/licenses. We hope that no useful works are lost in this process. We are rightfully very wary of modern works, so if you have permission, that is great.
I'm curious, which library is this held in? A Worldcat title search shows a few books with a similar title, but the author search doesnt show up this book. Worldcat searching is typically difficult for non-ASCII based names, but the records should be in there if this held in libraries. Could you try digging around on that site? John Vandenberg 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- What is the copyright? Permission to publish here doesn't necessarily mean this is released under a free license.--BirgitteSB 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've emailed Gubbubu again, asking for more input. John Vandenberg 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand you at all. If permission to publish here doesn't necessarily mean that this is released under a free license, then what would necessarily mean that? Please answer here: [3]. 89.133.9.138 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I cant find any evidence that this is published, and the contributor Taljonnie (talk • contribs) hasn't responded to tags or my query on their talk page. Just now, I have emailed the user as well. John Vandenberg 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted
I think Category:Destructive cults is hopelessly POV for a category and should be deleted. Sure, the term has a Wikipedia article, but it's way too subjective of a term to be used. Wikipedia says "'Destructive cult' is a term used to refer to religious groups which have caused harm to their own members or to others." Shouldn't that include every major religion, from Roman Catholicism (the Crusades), Judaism (the Roman wars), etc? "Branch Davidians" is included, for example, but most Branch Davidians reject affiliation with David Koresh. I don't think we should have this as a category. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ew. I agree, listing these cats at "Cults" borders on POV itself, labelling them as "Destructive" is simply hopeless. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Argreed. Delete. Cowardly Lion 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete! John Vandenberg (chat) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted, all relevant pages and subcats were already listed at Category:New religious movements anyways Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Old missing headers lists
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The pages
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/A-D
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/E-O
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/New/1
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/New/2
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/P-Z
- User:Xenophon (bot)/Tasks/Headers/T
are superseded by User:TalBot/Missing headers (see also task description). Their continued presence may confuse users into thinking they are current. I therefore suggest to delete them.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, delete. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ill at Ease
Not published, and I cant find record of this author on worldcat. more info at Talk:Ill at Ease . John Vandenberg (chat) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiBooks. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki per Sherurcij.--Poetlister 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This is not in Wikibooks project scope. See b:Help:Starting_a_new_page_or_book#Starting_a_new_page_or_book Bastique 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which suggests Fiction Wikicity as a likely host, if the author is willing to have others fiddle with his creation. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay guys, I will remove my work. thanks for the 'help'. —unsigned comment by 165.124.124.155 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008.
- Are you requesting that an admin removes this work?
- I am very sorry that your effort has been wasted. We would love to see more works by Zimbabwean authors, but it is primarily old published works which we collect. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Contributor requested speedy; I have deleted. Hesperian 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Undeleted
Undeletion request on various transcripts
The following discussion is closed:
Undeleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- 9/11 Dispatcher transcript
- September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts
- Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC
- Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript
These works were deleted per Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2006-11#Transcripts from Template:911 as they were not works of the US govt as originally supposed and no other convincing argument established that they were in the Public Domain. New information provides a convincing argument that such works are ineligable for copyright as copyright protection only begins at "fixation" by the creator. Since these transcripts are purely extemporaneous remarks they should be considered ineligable for copyright protection. Therefore, I propose they be undeleted.--BirgitteSB 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I obviously feel the public domain nature of these works was well-argued from the beginning (including my statements "They are solely transcriptive works and do not have any copyright to violate.", "These texts are public domain, there is no doubt about that", and "the fact that a transcription of an audio-recording of non-scripted conversation can't be copyrighted"), only to be deleted by the same person who nominated them, stating that "Deleted. No user has provided sufficient argument placing these works into the public domain". I think the deletion of these texts for the past 15 months has done WS a disservice, and it is high time that they were restored. At least five other texts I contributed (to have deleted by the same administrator, announcing his armchair hypothesis that I was "wrong" about their PD nature) have similarly been undeleted, as thus I feel obliged to shout loudly at Newmanbe and Psychim "HISTORY WILL VINDICATE ME". :-) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete Agreed with BirgitteSB. Yann 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete in light of our knew knowledge.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete John Vandenberg (chat) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete, without prejudice against the former good-faith deletions. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete but WITH
prejudicesnickers at Newmanbe because it will get him spun up and I like spinning him up. :) (just as he likes spinning ME up) ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Undeleting more transcripts
The following discussion is closed:
undeleted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to propose undeleting Albert Fish letter, Which Newmanbe deleted with the note that the letter didn't grant us "permission" to host it. Whatever, leaving aside my awe at the thoughts that chased through people's heads in not accepting the work as PD due to being published without copyright notice, I don't imagine any of you can really argue with the law which says that even if the letter is believed to be "unpublished", the copyright has since expired through PMA70. So tag it with {{PD-US-no-notice}}, {{PD-old-70 }} or whatever other license you want - but restore yet another of my "deleted works". I promise not to gloat. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete Eclecticology 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete, clearly PD. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete Do we need a new either/or tag? We cannont say definatively which reason has this be in the public domain.--BirgitteSB 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading USC 101, Ithink we should just tag it with the unpublished tag.--BirgitteSB 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- If we were to go that route, I'd suggest something similar to the translation "double-template", rather than a single either/or template. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am actually solidly convinced this qualifies as "unpublished" as defined by Title 17, regardless of where/when it was printed at this point and would supoort simply using {{PD-old-70}}.--BirgitteSB 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Undeleted Yann 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Gadsby, written by Author:Vincent Ernest Wright, and uploaded in 2004 by Calmypal (talk • contribs) was deleted due to COPYVIO(2006-04) by Zhaladshar (talk • contribs) with reason "copyright status could not be determined; published after 1923 but no other information given; copyvio" . The author died the year it was published, and it's copyright was not renewed. Calmypal did note its copyright had expired in 1967.(that diff can only be seen by admins) John Vandenberg (chat) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete: The Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database gives a complete, searchable interface to see all copyright renewals for books renewed between 1950 and 1992 (for books first published in the US between 1923 and 1963.) It shows that no book named "Gadsby" had its copyright renewed before 1992. Therefore the book is in the public domain. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Other
The following discussion is closed:
No consensus
This contemporary work has been tagged {{no license}} for nearly 6 months. No license information has been provided. Tarmstro99 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I think this is a manifesto of w:Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and provided we do a bit of research, will turn up to be a reasonable use of {{PD-manifesto}}. I've left a comment on the WP talk page. John Vandenberg 09:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No consensus as to what to do with this. Hopefully future research will find out more.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
No consensus
Whether something is written for children, youth or adolescents is difficult enough to tell objectively, with poetry it would be next to impossible. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, Category:Poems by genre and Category:Poems by form have been merged into Category:Poems by type for now. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- While we're at it, Category:Patriotic poetry is way too subjective, do war poems count? anti-war? poems about kings? Too difficult to use, bound to be over/underpopulated. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to be subjective, it could have poems which have been described as patriotic by a [independent, reliable etc.] source. Nikola Smolenski 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete John Vandenberg 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- ...or you could just read the author's foreword. Keep. This category is useful for people who want to find poetry for their children[4]. Furthermore, libraries do classify literature in this way: for example, American juvenile literature is class PS490 in LOC classification. See also classification of the Stanford University Library[5], where they specifically address your concern.
Regarding renaming of the category to "Children poetry", I really don't have an opinion, seeing that it's more used, it probably should be renamed. Nikola Smolenski 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)- Actually "Children's" not "Children". -Ec
- Keep and rename (For now I withhold comment on "patriotic poetry" since this is a different issue.) The 1998 edition of Library of Congress Subject Headings, vol.1, p. 1026, says this for the broader term, "Children's literature":
- "Here are entered collections of works published for children, including literary works, nonliterary works, or both. Works on books for children considered as physical objects are entered under Children's books. Works on the reading interests of children, and/or lists of books read by or recommended for children, are entered under Children—Books and reading. Collections of literary works or individual literary works written by children under 15 years of age are entered under Children's writings. Works on child authors and/or discussionsof their works are entered under Child authors." (emphases mine)
- Children's poetry is probably easier to distinguish from other poetry than would be the case with prose. When you read something as popular as Alligator Pie it's quite clear that it's intended for children. The fact that there is a Wikijunior project at all attaches a great deal of importance to children's literature. Eclecticology 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "there is no such thing as a good poem for children, only a good poem that children can understand" (Walter de la Mare).--Poetlister 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with grouping all good poems that children can understand in a category? Nikola Smolenski 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Does "child" mean a 7 year old? a 15 year old? a homeschooled 7 year old? The term is too subjective Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie 10:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- If real libraries can do it objectively, so can we. In any case, there are works that are undoubtedly for children, such as those that are currently in the category. Nikola Smolenski 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does "child" mean a 7 year old? a 15 year old? a homeschooled 7 year old? The term is too subjective Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie 10:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- What is wrong with grouping all good poems that children can understand in a category? Nikola Smolenski 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No consensus This probably should go forward as Scriptorium discussion as far as subject categories in general. Do we want a use general subject related categories at all (i.e. "Child poetry". "Love poetry", "Religious poetry", etc.) and if so do they need to be supported by some objective source or can we just go hog-wild with it? Also is there a limit to the number categories we want to put on works for pure legibilty? Please don't archive this till a Scriptorium disscussion is started. I will do this within the week unless someone else beats me to it--BirgitteSB 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Undeleting Thurber's Greatest Man
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn.
Stanford shows no copyright renewal on Thurber's 1940 work, thus meaning it is in the public domain. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Portal:Branch Davidians 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- withdrawn to Quadell's research.
Keep deleted. Unfortunately, Project Gutenberg shows the following for 1958:
- The greatest man in the world (In
- The New Yorker. Feb. 21, 1931)
- © 20Feb31; B104946. James
- Thurber (A); 24Apr58; R213371.
(Stanford only shows book renewals, and this was first published in a periodical.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)