Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-02

Deleted

Some templates for consideration

The following discussion is closed:

Various

Here are some more dodgy templates that we can do without:

• {{MultiCol}}: seems to be an functionally exact copy of {{Multicol}}. Unused.
• {{ASIN}}: link to an Amazon product page. Only used on one page. I'm not convinced that we should be using such a proprietary way to identify products. Surely ISBN or OCLC would be better identifiers of such materials?
• {{span}}: creates a plain <span> (no style options, etc). Unused.

And some unused redirects that we can tidy up:

• {{Tdeprecated}}: unused redirect to {{deprecated}}
• {{⁂}}: unused redirect to {{asterism}}. We also have {{*}}, so this seems a little redundant.
• {{wp}}: unused redirect to {{w}} (Wikipedia link).

(Unsigned comment by User:Inductiveload)

I agree with all this except that possibly ASIN should be kept; a link to Amazon can be useful.--Longfellow (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the unsigned comment. I have two more along with {{multiCol}}, both unused:

• {{EndMultiCol}}
• {{ColBreak}}

If you think {{ASIN}} is useful, that's fine by me. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I just deleted the aptly named ASIN, then noticed someone wanted it kept. I would like to see a reason stated, anything can potentially be 'thought useful'. The target page of the single example was empty, and not much use if it wasn't. If the rationale is that someone will purchase and transcribe the work, I think that is a hopeful and out-moded approach - it is much more likely that a library will produce a scan. A commercial link with no value is speedy deleted without hesitation, there is strong precedent for that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The Amazon "Look inside" feature can provide an online copy of a reliable printed source for a text.--Longfellow (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that we should favouring any commercial source of a work that we have generated, and especially not in the main namespace, too exploitable; possible case for its use on talk page, but I am not convinced. One unique identifier for a book should be sufficient, and I would much prefer OCLC or similar, and then let someone use those references elsewhere be it Amazon, or wherever, off their own back. We identify our originating source (direct or defacto through the image). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The symbol ⁂ is an asterism, which is, I suppose, similar to the output of the template. The title and purpose should be defined before deleting redirects, I asked about this at Template talk:Asterism. I have used the character a couple of times, and noticed it may not appear in some circumstances; I imagine it was intended to be a substitute for the character. Is making {{*}} an escape from a wiki bullet a foolish notion? Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are right in that ⁂ is an asterism, but the template {{asterism}} produces a line of asterisks, which is what the template is actually used for. The template has only ever produced a line of asterisks, and I upgraded the capabilities myself to include variable numbers of characters, custom characters, spacing or images. This use of the template is moderately common, but I have never needed the ⁂ character. Perhaps the template should be renamed.

⁂

*********

• {{⁂}}, {{*}}}, and {{***}} are all redirects. Just having {{***}} seems best to me, as it is the only one which correctly reflects the output of the template. {{*}} as bullet-escape seems like a good idea to me—I don't see why we need it for an "asterism".
• As for ASIN, I think it is pretty useless, and I don't see it used usefully here. If there is a good use, then keep it, otherwise my template-cleaning-up preferences say "delete". Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I came very close to deleting {{⁂}} myself a while back, simply because the effort involved in invoking the template via such an obscure redirect is at least as great as the effort encapsulated by the template. People are not going to spend five minutes trawling through a unicode table in search of this obscure glyph, just so they can invoke a template that they could have invoked via {{***}} in five seconds. Hesperian 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've used asterism since it was repurposed, as a section break element, but it needs a better name. When I needed an asterism it appeared inline, this creates a new line. Rename Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to what? Ideas, anyone? {{asterisk break}}, {{asterisk line}} (although the character can be changed so maybe a more "general" name would be better). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was considering something like {{sectionbreak}} and {{section mark}}, and I had been using it as a '{{section end}}' - does the latter best describe its usage or confuse matters. If I couldn't be bothered with the dingbats, eg. this recent indulgence with two different uses, I would use a {{rule}} as a substitute. The element in print is often distinguished by a full width aster ＊, the character * is usually a footnote - perhaps this nit-picking observation is relevant. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I used a full-width star before, but it was reverted because not everyone can see this glyph. If you absolutely postiviely mush have this glyph, you can alter the "char" field, or use an image.
• Name-wise something like {{rule}}? Maybe {{Character rule}} or something? I think better to not emphasize the "section-ending" property, as this will make things like your recent indulgence seem like template abuse, when it is actually a valid use of the template. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, allow me to add {{Sectionbreak}} to the deletion request, as it was only used on two pages (since changed to {{asterism}}). If people need a semantically distinct variant of {{asterism}}, we can redirect, but I'd rather just delete and be done with it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how we are going to be able to determine which have been agreed to and which have not. It may be useful to separate and have individually listed as subparts of the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth

Reboot

To keep it clear, let's comment on each template separately. I propose deletion of the following templates:

The following discussion is closed:

{{MultiCol}}, {{EndMultiCol}}, {{ColBreak}}

Seems to be an functionally exact copy of {{Multicol}}. Unused.

{{ASIN}}

Link to an Amazon product page. Unused. I'm not convinced that we should be using such a proprietary way to identify products. Surely ISBN or OCLC would be better identifiers of such materials?

{{span}}

Creates a plain <span> (no style options, etc). Unused.

{{Tdeprecated}}

Unused redirect to {{deprecated}}

{{wp}}

Unused redirect to {{w}} (Wikipedia link)

{{Sectionbreak}}

Unused, less featuresome variant of {{asterism}}

{{⁂}}

Unused redirect to {{asterism}}.

The following discussion is closed:

Re-appropriated

{{*}}

Unused redirect to {{asterism}}. We have {{***}}, so this seems a little redundant. This template could also be more useful as an escape for a start-of-line asterisk, which currently gives a bullet point.

Now an escape, fwiw, cygnis insignis 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted those with stale discussion, no objection to resurrection. Asterism should re-named/purposed/documented, others suggestions for that are workable. cygnis insignis 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Church Committee plausible denial

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

An excerpt from a work which does not comply with WS:WWI. We either need to find the whole work, or structure the excerpt so the whole work can be built around it, or delete the excerpt. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• delete — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable source of the text if found.--Jusjih (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've deleted it. It has remained fallow since 2005, and a reliable source has not been provided in all of this time. Likewise, it is merely an excerpt and thus lies outside of our inclusion policy. Jude (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Plutarch

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This editor is basically creating a new work by selecting and compiling quotes from various sources, some of which may or may not be in the public domain—note especially the post-1922 Loeb editions. I think this cutting-and-splicing of works has no place on Wikisource. This kind of thing is probably the mainstay of Wikibooks, but Wikisource is not Wikibooks, and we should not blur the boundaries of the two projects. If a user wants to append selections from public domain material, for personal use, on his or her user page, I think it could—perhaps—be allowed, or at least ignored. But Wikisource should be about the inclusion of the full texts of the 17 sources listed (those in the public domain at least) not just snippets from those works. Is this a road we want to go down? It is hard enough to verify the copyright status of full works, imagine verifying the copyright status of snippets? Or pages full of snippets? Anecdotes about Voldemort preserved by Harry Potter would be obvious, but others wouldn't be so obvious. Ingram (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• delete not an enWS work as not within WS:WWI — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• delete I agree with billinghurst. Wabbit98, talk 8:20am (PST), 26 November 2010
• Delete It is an original work not a previously published one.--Longfellow (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Out of our scope, as a collection of snippets. Maybe it could go to Wikibooks, but we'd be looking to host the original books in their entirety here. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could potentially go to Wikiquotes too, if anyone wants it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have deleted it. As noted, it is a selection of, at best, public domain quotations rather than an individual work; at worst, some of these quotations are outside of the copyright scope allowable on Wikisource. Jude (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:,

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

{{,}} is unused, and superseded by pretty much every template in Category:Diacritic templates (which do not involve any logic) --Eliyak T·C 14:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Longfellow (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• It was actually created because title normalisation means Template:A~==Template:a~ so one cannot use that simple schema to provide diacritic templates for both cases. So it actually isn't superseded. It has always been my view, though, that a more complicated, less intuitive template would not be used, because it wouldn't actually simplify the task of adding diacritics. Delete Hesperian 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• As noted, superseded and unused. Deleted. Jude (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ligature Latin st lowercase

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

The ligature doesn't work, and seems pointless in that case. Unused. Also the shortcut {{st}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems easily fixable, i.e. replace its contents with st. I don't know how useful it is, though. --Eliyak T·C 00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say anti-useful; it can break searching and using the text as part of a corpus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with what Prosfilaes said: it's not helpful to break searching like that. This kind of ligature is properly implemented by a suitably intelligent font/browser and Unicode, which spots "st" combos and substitutes the ligature. The same can probably be said about {{ct}}. Replace with "st" and delete. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The template, even through its redirect {{st}}, is actually unused. As such, deleted. Jude (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan's notebook

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

I appreciate its documentary value, but I have two problems with this notebook. First, while we could easily make a fair use claim on it, I see no evidence that it was ever published with permission of the author, which makes it life+70, and Sirhan Sirhan is still alive. It's also not a complete text; we have one complete page, and fragments of other pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As noted, it's an easy fair-use play. The only reason to delete it would be to perpetuate ignorance.

• Delete per nom. The key quote may well belong on WQ.--Longfellow (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  Left a note atW:Sirhan Sirhan parts of this may be appropriate for Wikipedia. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, even fair use wouldn't be allowed here. Life + 70 it is, so, presumably we can have it some time after 2080 (or longer if the US extends copyright again). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete It has been a couple weeks and no response or activity atW:Sirhan Sirhan or any rational here to keep. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that document is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted due to copyright concerns. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Horizontal Property Law (2003)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Either this is part of Puerto Rican statute or part of the work El Condominio: El Regimers de Propiedad Horizontal en Puerto Rico by P.R. Law Professor Michel J. Godreau. My Spanish is limited so any help nailing down what exactly this [1] is before deciding what to do with it next (move to CopyVio most likely) would be much appreciated. George Orwell III (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a PD-release claim [2] without evidence, so I just reverted it and asked that user to provide licensing evidence. If still no licensing evidence, I propose deleting it.--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - it doesn't need further research as the work purports to be Godreau which would be a copyvio and even if it's really P.R. Law is likely still a copyvio as P.R. law isn't P.D. unless there is a special provision for their jurisdiction's law.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • All law is PD in the US, and thus by the standards we use. And Puerto Rico is part of the US, so it would be hard for them to claim copyright anywhere. Provided it is PR law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I misspoke in this regard, the PD status of laws of States is not a matter covered by the Copyright Acts but has been discussed in a number of cases. However, P.R. law is officially in Spanish and I'm not at all confident that a translation would not be copyrightable. But I still hold that this purports to be Godreau's work and should simply be deleted as a "on its face" copyvio.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A translation by a private party would be copyrightable; an official translation would not be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, if the official translation was outsourced to a third party company, the copyright would not necessarily be transferred to the government. Which is what you said, sorry. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete. If it is Godreau, then it is clearly a copyright violation. If it is a translation of the law, then we still have no license or source information for the translation into English. - Htonl (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberta Student Vote 2004 Election Results and subpages

The following discussion is closed.

To my way of viewing this work with its subpages does not conform to Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. Solely a listing of tables. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. While it is just within WWI in my opinion (it is a published work in some respects) and potentially useful information if the 2004 Student Vote had particular significance, I don't think it valuable content, especially without context, verifiable source, or prospects of improvement. Additionally, while the data itself is probably not copyrightable (w:Feist v. Rural), the formatting, layout, choice and division of data might be. There is no licence on the page, so I'd suggest it could be a CV too. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Protected title

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an obsolete way of protecting deleted pages against recreation. --Eliyak T·C 05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, I remember. Once upon a time the only way to prevent creation of a non-existent page was to create it yourself with a dirty great big template on it, and then protect it. Then they invented cascading protection as a weapon against a certain troll who would vandalise the main page by vandalising some deeply embedded template; and someone figured out that cascading protection had a bugfeature that meant protection cascaded down to non-existent pages if you 'transcluded' said non-existent pages into a page with cascading protection applied. Shortly afterwards the ability to protect non-existent pages in a straightforward manner was introduced, and the cascading protection trick went the way of the dodo. Delete. Hesperian 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete unused template that now seems unneeded. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Other

Wikisource:Outing

This new policy page should be merged if appropriate into Wikisource:Blocking policy, and deleted as redundant or unneeded. —Pathoschild 01:17:19, 03 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete we don't need a specific policy for the matter, overarching principle and blocking policy seem more appropriate. Move text to talk page of policy indicated by Pathoschild. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete all ready covered by Wikisource:Blocking policy#Personal attacks. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect→Wikisource:Blocking policy; no need to delete the history of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Happy with this proposal too. It that was the process, I would suggest a link to an anchor point. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Ya, Jeepday's target and have a discussion about a specific merged text on the talk. Or #Outing per the discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  No object to merge and redirect, Will leave the wordsmithing of the merge to you all. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "Freemasonry"

The page "Freemasonry" did direct to "Humanum genus".[3] "Freemasonry" should not direct to "Humanum genus", because there are 226 pages about freemasonry. The page "Freemasonry" should be deleted, so when people write "freemasonry" in the search box, they get the page with search results[4] and not the page Humanum genus. --ANCJensen (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Redirected to the "Formless Void", cygnis insignis 19:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)