Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-12

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 December 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



The following discussion is closed:
Keep, no consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. {{KSA}} is used only once, referring to a deleted page on de:wikisource. IMHO, it is not popular, widespread or useful. I think it could be deleted without harm.--Mpaa (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose deletion of this template. The KSA template refers to a standard means of citing from Nietzsche by referring to an "authoritative" collection of his published and unpublished material. It's similar to the way the Stephanus numbers are used to cite Plato (although, it's less used than the Stephanus numbers). I think if we get a good collection of Nietzsche's material on WS (both English and other languages), the template could be a good way to link the different passages together. It'll likely only be of use to philosophy students/scholars, but as a student of philosophy I like the idea of being able to tie these things together.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Keep both, redirect Category:Fish to Category:Fishes. Jeepday (talk)

This is an archaic naming form for a category just created, but which duplicates a pre-existing category that was then "speedied" over objections. That is, Category:Fish was the original category name, and it was fully populated. User:Ineuw then created a new Category:Fishes, and moved all the contents over, and tagged the original category for speedy deletion. I posted an ojection to the change, but the category was then speedily deleted anyway. So, it looks like we need to have a discussion that establishes the correct category name, so that this doesn't happen again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There are ENGVAR issues here with UK vs US English. Wiktionary gives both forms as a valid plural, but prefers "fishes" for multiple kinds of fish and "fish" for the general collective noun. I see that enWP has chosen to only use w:Category:Fish, but does have subcategories that use "fishes" when this is appropriate. My own preference is for Category:Fish with Category:Fishes as a redirect. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, your reference to the Wiktionary page does not cover the collective overall use we're considering here. That is, we want the collective noun, not the plural. In English, "grass" is a collective noun, but "grasses" is a plural form used to refer to multiple species. The same is true for "rubber" / "rubbers" and "sand" / "sands". However, we would not label a category about the substance rubber as "Cat:Rubbers" because it's the collective rather than the plural that is wanted here. Now, there are other English nouns for which the plural and collective are identical "animals", for example. Try this objective test: "Botany is the study of plants"; "Herpetology is the study of reptiles"; "Ichthyology is the study of _____". Does "fish" or "fishes" come up significantly more often in an internet search? I haven't done the search myself, so I'm not certain which it will be. However, I would personally expect to hear "fish" in that context rather than "fishes". --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The Library of Congress uses 'Fishes' (QL614-639.8) so I'd prefer to leave it the way it is. It would be easier to match/marry the Portal if one is ever created this way too. 'Fish' can redirect to 'Fishes' if need be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Commons prefers "Fish", which was the original category name here as well. I failed to specify a preference with my initial posting, and my preference is for the original "Cat:Fish", which (as noted) matches the category name used on other Mediawiki projects. The LoC nomenclature would normally sway me, but their biological classifcatory nomenclature is very dated, even using outdated botanical terminology such as "phanerogams".

GO3, could you please clarify your opinion? Did you mean you want the category name to be the way it originally was, or that you prefer to keep the newly changed name? I think I know what you meant, but would rather have it clarified by yourself directly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


(Personally I could care less but...) dated or not, the LoC is an authority - a long established, world recognized & highly regarded one. All of us here in sourcerspace - especially myself - are basically NOT any of those things. So if anything ever comes down so clear cut as to what I think vs. as what the LoC actually states, please feel free to tell me to go to blazes.

As far as what other MW's do or how they go about it - that is their problem; I couldn't possible care any less about them than I alread did. en.WS is the center of the univerise as far as I'm concerned. Again, while they are many very, very, very smart people participating everywhere across the Wikiworld, I doubt any of them are as sound as an authority on this subject as the LoC is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I respect the LoC system enormously. If it has a shortcoming, it's that it was designed specifically to catalog one-dimensionally (linearly), and with the advent of the digital age, I expect we'll see a radical shift begin to happen in cataloging.
In this particular instance, however, I only meant that the terminology used for labelling within the subclasses on botany and zoology in the LoC system look very dated. The term "phanerogams", for example, was already dated 20 years ago when I studied botany in college. In most basic college biology classes nowadays, the term isn't used at all. I wouldn't label any category here (or anywhere) "phanerogams" because only the crustiest experts would be likely to know what that word means without looking it up somewhere. Given that some of the terminology in that subject area is so dated, I don't feel swayed to follow the LoC system terminology for this situation. I feel the same way about "Great Britain", which is the LoC label for Subclass DA; I'd instead use "United Kingdom", as that is the current name for the country. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You're making a modern encyclopedic nuanced argument for stuff that is ~90 years old or more. What biology class of today would be using material first published so long ago exactly? What are the chances materials published only 20 years ago will ever be possible to host here? And I'd say a "dated" classification system serves a fairly static repository of "old" reference material like our's far better than trying to cross pollinate what once was way back when against to what it may or may not be in today's terms based on what amounts to (no offense) on just one person's say so. I don't doubt that you are absolutely correct in what you're saying here, I just don't think it serves our current situation nor our overall mission very well at the end of the day. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few classes of today would make use of old treatises, floras, faunal descriptions, and original publications of species. I'm working on Günther's classic textbook of Ichthyology, and his Catalogue of Fishes (which we don't have yet) is a standard work of reference as well. And you don't have to rely on just my word for it. I can produce widely-accepted authoritative reference classifications to support modern terminology as needed, since it is my field of specialization. I've enough experience with both modern and antiquated systems to have a good idea which names and groups are reasonably stable in classification, and which aren't. That's one reason that some plant groups I work with don't yet have an "up-to-date" coverage on Wikispecies—there isn't a stable classification system for them, so there's no point in doing the work yet. Whereas there are other groups of plants that now have a stable and widely accepted modern classification, and so those pages have been done in detail. But there are some terms and ideas in clasification that are dead and abandoned, and some terms that serve no purpose. Do you know why "phanerogams" isn't used anymore? It's because sane people call them "seed plants" (spermatophytes), and the old term "phanerogams" has been abandoned. My arguments aren't encyclopedic; they're classificatory and that's not the same thing. I've worked in several herbaria and museums, where the curated materials are often hundreds of years old (from time of collection). Even for these old specimens, the classificatory system changes from time to time, and collections get moved as the filing system changes. Or should we continue to call it "Great Britain"? The LoC is great, but some of its content is more the result of its history. Austria and Hungary are filed in the same subclass not because they have a common language, common culture, or common origin, but because they were part of a single heterogeneous kingdom when the LoC system was first set up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, you already convinced Ineuw to back off on his approach elsewhere so this is pretty much a moot debate at this point. I'm not going to waste anymore time entertaining this - I stand behind what I said (and the rationale behind it) nevertheless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to explain my view, being the creator of Category:Fishes as well as not being a native born English speaker, but knowing that the word is a valid English word, my intent was simply to eliminate any possible doubt. That's been my lifelong aim in communications. Although this is an English language website, the regional differences amongst us English speakers is sufficient to drive non-native English contributors unnecessarily crazy. Myself, I use a mix of Canadian and US English spelling, even though I am keenly aware of the contextual differences of all regional variations. The commons is not a standard and neither are we, and we don't have to be purists, but we have to be clear and make life easier for all contributors. Why don't we keep both and use "Fish" as a redirect? — Ineuw talk 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
RE:"the regional differences amongst us English speakers is sufficient to drive non-native English contributors unnecessarily crazy"; same impact to native speakers, we are just more numbed by the longer exposure. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


Babel templatesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted, and the remaining User-space transclusions replaced. - Htonl (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting only. At an earlier time the community made the decision to migrate to the {{#babel:...}} (mw:Extension:Babel), the templates

are now redundant. I will be converting the numerically appended templates to redirects to the base template, which I will mark as deprecated and direct to the new methodology. There are also a number of user language templates at Category:User categorisation templates that can now be removed as part of the migration. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe that I have done all the conversions, removed all the redundant language templates, and fixed all user pages. Won't have done any loose redlinks, or any where people have made special creations, or weird, unpredictable names. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support if it makes any difference.

    I would note that there are still far too many calls if not the continued outdated usage itself of related "user" type templates ( those following the Template:User foo bar format) that we would do better being without. Its when folks re-appear to find these broken or altered after being away from en.WS for some time that still having the adjoining bits & pieces floating around might become a problem -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC).

    Well, that can be another task. On that note, it would be good if someone could have a look at {{Userboxtop}} or the output of {{#babel:}} or userboxes, as they format differently. The former seem to have a right format or a left padding, and the latter left format, with a right padding, or something. All quirky. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Too much to nail down at once there for me right now. The recent HTML changes only complicate the matter as old parameters don't exactly behave as their css replacements do in every instance ( align=right becomes float:right for div tags but becomes text-align:right for tables & table-cells so clearing left/right might also be needed now when it use to happen on its own without specifying it before ) -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Index:Message of President George Washington transmitting the vote of the legislature of New Hampshire on the Bill of Rights, page 1.tifEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. - Htonl (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As redundant. It is already included here: Index:Message of President George Washington transmitting the vote of the legislature of New Hampshire on the Bill of Rights.djvu--Mpaa (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource:Peer review verificationEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete, consensus for delete. Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion for this proposed project is found at: Wikisource:Scriptorium#A_peer_review_verification_process. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Speedy close WS:CSD G7 Authors request, discussion leads to better choices for WS. Jeepday (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. These pages are not in English and orphan, probably lost left-overs:

  1. Gita (Original)/Chapter 1 -> orphan
  2. Gita (Original)/Chapter 5 -> orphan

My proposal is to delete them.

Also Bhagavad Gita (Original) and related sub-pages are not in english, with no translations. Should they be hosted here?--Mpaa (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If they're not in English, and have no translations, then no, they shouldn't be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Orphans or not; if they are non-English without translations they do not belong here. If Bhagavad Gita (Original) is complete, there is the chance we can move it to Oldwikisource instead of deleting it. Someone would need to champion that cause from there however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC).
It isn't even remotely complete. Two small sections only. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like all the listed works are related, some name changes and moves create the appearance of two different works. Posted {{delete}} to main page. Jeepday (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is like New Testament, you have multiple pages on it in every Wikisource and Wikiprojects. The problem is these are not "complete". to clarify it:
    • The English translation is incomplete without the main Sanskrit Slokas (Sloka means "verse") (which are actually recited everywhere, not the translated sentences). But, for international readers, (also as today only few people speak/understand Sanskrit), Sanskrit verses without English translation is also incomplete, since they don’t understand it.
      In Sanskrit Wikisource we have original Sanskrit verses, but not translation! Here we have two translated books on The Bhagavad Gita. But no original slokas. Frankly, it has been a terrible experience for me too to read 1 sentence here and 1 sentence in Sanskrit Wikisource, Hindi or Bengali Wikisource. :)
    • There was another problem, both the books we have in En Wikisource those are just translations and not "source", to clarify this see an example chapter of Edwin Arnold’s translation (a very notable and good one, I must say), but where are number of verses (1, 2, 3.. ) etc? The Telang Translation is a prose translation, that is also not the "source". Here is an example on how the pages should exactly look like.

Therefore the attempt was to make a single and complete source incorporating both Sanskrit, IPA transliteration and English translation! Ha, I know it was abandoned and became an "ideal incomplete work"! :) Now? If you want I can do 2000 less edits in Wikipedia (en) in next 30 days and will try to complete at least few few chapters with translations! Tell me what do you think! I have email notification on for every watchlist change, I’ll come back here shortly! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A Sanskrit, IPA transliteration (romanized Sanskrit), and English translation, of the Bhagavad Gita would be great. As far as I know there is not a PD version with properly formatted verses. The source listed on Bhagavad Gita (Original) is to a deleted page. Is there a published PD version of the Sanskrit, IPA transliteration; that could used for page images of the original? A Wikisource Translation would be in scope and expected to include the original Sanskrit. Two issues the current work has, 1. No source images avaialble. 2. No translations begun. Combine with a work that appears abandoned and you get this proposed deletion. Jeepday (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have found few copies. I better give you the search result page link. Few are under PD and few are under CC SA license! See if these help anyhow! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 14:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If you pick what you think are the best 2 or 3 I will help you figure out which one is the best from a Wikisource point of view. The first one "The Bhagavad Gita in Sanskrit with transliteration" Author: Arranged by Philippe L. De Coster, B.Th., D.D. has a DJVU file which is very good, but the title page has a copyright notice (which may apply to the whole work, or just the title page and introduction). Jeepday (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Index Link Read online My opinion
Public domain Sanskrit (Devanaagri) script Engslish translation Other comments
The Bhagavad Gita, or, The sacred lay : a Sanskrit philosophical poem (1893) Read online
High standard translation and commentaries
Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita with 8 Sanskrit Commentaries by Advaita Teachers - Edited By Wasudev Laxman Shastri Pansikar (1936) Read online
Seems to be a copyvio. The title says the book was published in 1936, the book shows this was 1980 edition. And most probably we can not upload 1936 books too, WMF follows Federal law! Strikethough, though very high standard but copyvio! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 21:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bhagavad-Gita, or, : The Lord's song : with the text in Devanagari and an English translation (1922) Read online
The author Annie Besant was a notable British socialist, Theosophist, women's rights activist, writer and orator and supporter of Irish and Indian self-rule
CC SA attribution: descriptor above is copied from Wikipedia
Note: * You may need to disable Adobe Acrobat plugin or PDF reader plugin in browser to read books online without downloading.

--Tito Dutta (Talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:
Continued Tables don’t like to be in closed template

Seems like The Bhagavad-Gita, or, : The Lord's song : with the text in Devanagari and an English translation (1922), is closest to what you want, though it does hot have a romanized Sanskrit. As a PD translation with both the Sanskrit and English, published in 1922 it meets WS:WWI, with a DJVU version that can be imported to Commons, it has a foundation so the work can be completed and validated by anyone with access to WS. The 1893 version is all in Sanskrit (Your marked your table wrong) I am not able to speak to its content. It would clearly be PD and would require significant work to translate. 3 Questions for Titodutta. Jeepday (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
1. Do you have any objections to deleting the incomplete works that started this discussion?
2. Do you want to import it one of these, and begin work on making a Wikisource version?
3. Do you want to create, a romanized Sanskrit? If yes we would need to have separate discussion with the community at Wikisource:Scriptorium, I am not aware of a similar undertaking so there is no precedent.
Romanized Sanskrit (I better call IPA Sanskrit).. IPA was started in 1895−1896, had two major revisions in 1900 and 1932 and then only languages like French, German used to be IPA transliterated. I don’t think we’ll get any book with IPA Sanskrit script before 1960. It will be a highly time taking work if I need to create IPA Sanskrit scripts manually! These can be deleted for now! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There is not a requirement to create the IPA Sanskrit. I have deleted the existing works, to avoid an confusion when you start the other. If you have any questions or if I can be of any help leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Henry McCarthy: The Wild West’s “Billy the Kid”/Chapter 1Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Note that the parent page was deleted in 2008 as a copyvio. - Htonl (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is the only chapter of this text that has been uploaded. Is not edited since 2008 and to me it has no chance of being completed. Do you think it has a value as a stand-alone chapter? Otherwise I would deleted it.--Mpaa (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  Delete -- stale excerpt of a larger work. If contributor returns, undelete available. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Speedy WS:CSD G5, out of scope. Jeepday (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Look more a contribution for en:wiki. Out of scope for me.--Mpaa (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lausiac History/Chapter LXIIIEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. Orphaned fragment; source unknown. - Htonl (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Only chapter of this text uploaded. Is not edited since 2008. No chance of being completed, IMHO. Do you think it has a value as a stand-alone chapter? Otherwise I would deleted it as well.--Mpaa (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  Delete -- stale excerpt of a larger work. If contributor returns, undelete available. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant templatesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete, no reason to keep them found. Undelete if needed. Jeepday (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While trying to clean up a mixed up category, I've come across the following templates. They all appear to do little or nothing, and may have applied to old, abandoned (or superseded) practices.

  • {{tl|blank djvu page}} just adds a redundant message about blank pages
  • {{tl|OCR}} just adds a category that was deleted in 2009
  • {{tl|OCR en cours}} as above (same category)
  • {{tl|stable text}} another message template that isn't used and describes a process that is not used either.
  • {{tl|protected text}} is a redirect to the above template

I'm not sure if anyone is using these or plans to use them in the future. As it stands, however, they look like candidates for deletion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  •   Delete No point in keeping them if useless.--Mpaa (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delete Ditto. undelete always available. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Works by Author:Dr.'Krant' M.L.VermaEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Delete the three works as implied by the author page deletion, these works fail WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Having deleted the Author page in August we need to decide what to do with the works that were linked there.

I've marked them all as {{no license}} for the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

HAY! I have this day removed the Honorific Word "Dr" from my auther's name. Kindly read it now as Author:Krant M.L.Verma and not Author:Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma.
Further I have added licensing templetes to all the above article. One thing more to understand; where the original Author is Ram Prasad Bismil the Licensing Terms are given as:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

as the year of the death of Author Ram Prasad Bismil is 1927. And where I myself am the Author I have added the Licensing terms as:

This work is in the public domain worldwide because it has been so released by the copyright holder.

You are requsted to please check these templates and remove the "Deletion tag of NO LICENSE" from these above articles.
Thanks.--Krantmlverma (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so the original Hindi text for the Bismil works is in the Public Domain because the copyright expired in 1987. However, this does not cover the translations on which the Indian copyright will not expire until 60 years after your death and the US copyright until 70 years after your death. The only way we can host these on the English Wikisource is if you release them into the Public Domain through the OTRS process (as you requested to do on 31 July, 2011). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone please comment on keeping or deleting these 3 works. There was a previous discussion archived here, where the author page was deleted, implying that these 3 works fail WS:WWI.
I believe we're being used as a vanity press and therefore I think they need to go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that author has just added a source to The Alternative—his blog, which doesn't fit with WS:WWI. Delete all three in short-order. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Faulty uploadsEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Bugzilla: 42466 resolved. Users are urged to Purge the main File: page on Commons for all files uploaded during the affected period. The two files given below have been done already. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Something has recently gone a bit wrong with my DjVu converter, and as a result both Index:Cole, Henry - A hand-book to Hampton Court.djvu and Index:Hutton, William Holden - Hampton Court (1897).djvu have been created with no OCR layer. There's no content in them beyond the index and no real likelihood of them being done this way; could they be deleted as contributor request? Many thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a known problem (see discussion in the Scriptorium). Do you know for a fact that there is no OCR text layer, or is the edit window not displaying/converting the OCR? There is a software glitch that's affecting all new uploads, and we're waiting to see what the cause is, and how it will be resolved. Until then, just hold off; the OCR problem may be rectified without doing any deletions. We'll just have to wait and see. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, great! It may not actually be me; as far as I can tell, it's just not displaying the OCR :-) I had skimmed the Scriptorium but somehow missed that discussion - thanks for letting me know. I'll keep converting them as normal but hold fire on creating any new indexes for the time being. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)