Wikisource

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-06

< Wikisource:Proposed deletions‎ | Archives
Warning 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

Deleted

Plain text pages

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


While looking through Special:Deadendpages, I have found a few "plain text" copies. According to Google, these are the only two named "plain text":

I can see us wanting to have duplicates for printing purposes, like wikibooks does, but that can be achieved with transclusion. John Vandenberg 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Among the deadendpages, I have found a duplicate for printing purposes: Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions/Complete Edition. We should tag/categorise these. John Vandenberg 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankenstein/Full Text is another print edition that uses transclusion. The automatic footer has inadvertently buggered this up. John Vandenberg 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
here is another: Ecclesiastical History of the English People/Full text (uses transclusion, if I understand correctly). Tarmstro99 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thus Spake Zarathustra has a print edition. John Vandenberg 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm confused here as to what specifically is being proposed here. I created Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions/Complete Edition in a fashion similar to what is being done on Wikibooks as a transcluded compilation of the whole book. Is the proposal here to remove the "full text" versions of any books here on Wikisource, or that the transcluded version like I created here would be considered more acceptable? Compiling books via transclusion doesn't have any technical problems, until you exceed the 2 MB limitation of MediaWiki software on transclusions. For purely text transclusion (rather than heavily nested templates with multiple options) this is a very difficult amount of material to hit and will work with nearly any book-length document. I agree that having redundant text on multiple pages is not worth maintaining other than as a temporary holding place while breaking up a text into something a bit more readable under a typical web page interface. IMHO a full version like I did for Interesting Account is something that should be done when appropriate for the text, as it does help the reader/end user of the content and doesn't really hurt the Wikisource database. From an administrative viewpoint, this is also incredibly easy to maintain as well via transclusion. --Robert Horning 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another one that uses transclusion: The Art of War (Sun)/Full Text. I dont have a problem with the transcluded ones, but we do need to fix the others, and we do need to collate them all so that they can be administered together. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all (whether transcluded or not). I'm glad someone else nominated this, because I was too lazy to do it myself.  :)—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I still support deletion, but is there any way in which the "Printable version" might be modified so that a full-text version could be generated on demand for any work without the need to have these save on-wiki. When "Printable version" is called it could be as simple as checking a box to include sub-pages. Eclecticology 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think in order to do what you propose (which I think is a fantastic idea) would require getting a dev to change the print preview code. And we all know how difficult it really is to get these sorts of changes made.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    This would be pretty trivial to do using JavaScript; I'll code a mockup tonight or this weekend. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, that just shows how much I know about any of this coding stuff. ;) That sounds great, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing as delete, no opinions in nearly four months and consensus exists to delete the pages. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one: Medusa's Coil/full . If someone does close as delete, I suggest that {{dated soft redirect}} is used to point to the main page for the work, so that people who have linked to the full page know are given a chance to update their links. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Main Page/archive 1

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, one version undeleted


At present, Main Page/archive 1 says it is a Russian text that looks similar to this, which is about a 1990 event. I doubt it is public domain. Prior to this change, it was an discussion archive, but it looks very similar to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-04. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayvdb, This is an account of tragic political events in 1990 in Baku, Azerbaijan. I think it has historical reasons to be published here or there. The authors, I presume, wanted to be anonimous for security reasons, or this is more or less official text that doesn't need to be copyrighted. I would not worry about this leaving the responsibilities to those who published this text. Yours, Dmitrismirnov 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless evidence of (1) prior publication elsewhere and (2) a free content release by the original author(s) comes to light within a reasonable period. Tarmstro99 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the burden of proving the text is public domain or an acceptable license falls onto the shoulders of those wishing to keep the text. I believe Dmitrismirnov's comments fail to do so. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Deleted. However, the first version is an archive that I am unsure if it was moved in from Multilingual Wikisource, so I also undeleted it. If it was, I can export it and apply my importing right on the multilingual portal.--Jusjih 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Accidental OUP article

The following discussion is closed:

speedily deleted


Please delete the article "Oxford University Press" -- I had intended to make a Category:Oxford University Press instead, which I have now done. (See Sacred Books of the East for an example.) — Objectivesea 05:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portal:Scheme

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


Does not seem to be in use at all. Contains only a red link to "Portal:Box-header" .

John Cross 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete; no use.--Poetlister 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see this page; is the link incorrect ? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:57, 17 February 2008

This is one of Birgitte's from 2005; she likely has forgotten that it exists. Eclecticology 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see some related discussion at User_talk:AllanHainey#Portals and Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-12-31#Portals. If this was ever in use in production, it should be kept in order to allow viewing old versions of pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HideIfEmpty and IfEmptyDo

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted


These templates are programming hacks that were used before the implementation of ParserFunctions, and are now redundant with {{#if:}} programming. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:03:54, 06 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-06&oldid=11008642"