Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-04
 | 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
Hello, I proposed to delete these templates, and to keep only PD-old-70 and PD-old-50. It seems meaningless to me to have general templates which only concerne one or a few countries. This doesn't concern templates dealing with US law (PD-1923, etc.), and templates specific to one country (PD-India, etc.). Yann 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, Author-PD-old (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Author-PD-old) and PD-old-100 (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-old-100) should be moved to PD-old. Yann 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Even though only a few countries copyright for life + 75 or 80 years, not all of them have accepted the rule of the shorter term. As deceased authors have died for longer time, these templates may better identify how long authors have died. Since I first proposed adding these to the Scriptorium, you are the only one proposing their deletions while no one on Chinese Wikisource has done the same thing. Even PD-old-70 is not necessarily PD in the USA. Please respect users from different places.--Jusjih 05:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which countries are concerned by these templates? I suggest to rename them {{PD-China}} (for example). Yann 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep, these indeed help place a bit more focus on foreign copyright issues, and thus work into my overall
plotplan to bring Wikisource to a position of accepting PD-status in home countries as acceptable for inclusion ;) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Aeschylus 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) - I'd say renaming to something along the lines of {{PD-China}} would be more user-friendly. That's what's done on Commons, I believe, and it wouldn't detract from the purpose of these templates (from what I see). Giggy\talk 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not support renaming them to country names as how long authors have died will get longer but national copyright lengths might change.--Jusjih 01:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept. To better comply with the Foundation Mission Statement with global provision, I am closing this vote while there is no consensus to delete.--Jusjih 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Other
Deleted
The following discussion is closed:
deleted
Slaughterhouse-Five is copyright to Author:Kurt Vonnegut. Nineteen Eighty-Four is copyright in the US to Author:George Orwell.
We can use page protection for these titles if necessary, however I think that provided the author page tells people that these works are copyright, it will be rare that people will add them. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and protect. I think I am less confident than you that people will check the author pages first. Tarmstro99 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Yann 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted
This "email" is an orphan page here on Wikisource, and the contributor Best Friend with Benefits (talk • contribs) doesnt have email enabled. It appears that this text only turn up in a Google search as hosted on Wikisource[1], but the text is also found on Yahoo Groups. Strange that it doesnt appear in Google searches ? This text is "unpublished", making its inclusion on Wikisource very questionable. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, outside scope of WS:WWI. Tarmstro99 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I'd be hesitant to include emails full stop, and without apparent publication in another source/source information, I think this should be deleted ASAP for privacy reasons as well. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Yann 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
"Fiction" deleted and pages recategorised to "fiction". Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
These two categories should be merged, since they cover the same type of works. Wild Wolf 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, and I agree. I think Category:Science fiction is the more appropriate capitalization. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is. Once my bot goes through the complete database and updates all interwiki links, I'm going to start it on standardizing categories (i.e., convert all categories to sentence notation). It'll just be a few more days before I get around to it (unless anyone wants to have their bot do it earlier).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've begun moving many categories to sentence case titling. This should all be cleared up within the next few days. I'll be going through the entire category structure, as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- All done by the looks of things. Closed. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've begun moving many categories to sentence case titling. This should all be cleared up within the next few days. I'll be going through the entire category structure, as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
There doesn't seem to be much differance between the two categories, so only one should be kept. Wild Wolf 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd favour the first; it seems a more logical capitalisation.--Poetlister 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am recategorising the pages in "Military" to "military", suggest deleting "Military". Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Finished recategorising. Daniel (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am recategorising the pages in "Military" to "military", suggest deleting "Military". Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)