Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2016

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.
The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new version of H. P. Lovecraft's tale Beyond the Wall of Sleep was uploaded and proofread by User:AdamBMorgan in August/September 2012. This was scanned and transcribed from the 1938 edition of Weird Tales and is a well-sourced text. Unfortunately, instead of simply transcluding over the previous version of the story on Wikisource (sourced from the "Dagon Bytes" website [1]) he moved the old page to Beyond the Wall of Sleep (Dagon Bytes). This "Dagon Bytes" sourced text seems redundant now: it comes from a poor source (internet-sourced Lovecraft texts are never in great shape), and is surely superseded by the scanned version. Pasicles (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete. There does not seem to be any point in keeping the unscanned version in this and similar cases. On the other hand it doesn't really matter. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original Old English translations under Biblioþēce

The following discussion is closed:
deleted "Forme Bōc Petrus"; kept the rest

These texts:

are apparently original translations by User:Gott wisst. We already have an original translation of the Bible at Translation:Bible. Also I don't know if we're suited for hosting original translations into Old English. Prosody (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a conversation with a determination years ago (2008/9???) that works in Old English belonged at English Wikisource, as there was no other site and they are a variant of English. These are such works and fall within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, the policy that states that "there should only be a single translation to English per original language work" also states that "works existing & accepted prior to July 2013 (or after significant policy updates) which somehow no longer meet the new/current criteria for inclusion in moving forward - some degree of reasonable accommodation to keep & grandfather-in such works should be sought after first and foremost whenever possible."
Unless there is already a system in place for OE works that I am not aware of, I would bring this project into conformity with usual practice as follows: I would move all of these from Biblioþēce/Olde Englishe Booke to Translation:Olde Englishe Booke and redirect Biblioþēce to Bible, leaving the individual books as separate works (which is what they are). Perhaps it would be useful to have an index of Old English Judeo-Christian scriptural works at Translation:Biblioþēce the way we have for Modern English at Translation:BibleBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works in Old English do belong here, but I don't see how modern translations into Old English are really in scope; they're not peer-reviewed and do nothing to make the writings of the world more available. There is probably no one fluent in Old English who is not fluent in English, and certainly no one fluent in Old English who does not have a translation of the Bible available to them in a language they're fluent in. These are most akin to the personal writings that we don't accept on Wikisource.
I'm willing to write a formal proposal and put it up for vote if you think that's necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may not be "really in scope", but they're not really out of scope either. I agree that it's not really useful, and if you want to modify WS:T (or create a separate proposal) I'd probably support it, but note that the "grandfather rule" as it currently stands would suggest to keep the above listed translations regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even under the "grandfather rule", we don't keep incomplete works. Biblioþēce/Forme Bōc Petrus is incomplete, though none of the others show obvious signs of being incomplete. We could argue they are only part of a larger work, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case,   Delete Biblioþēce/Forme Bōc Petrus and   Keep the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: the works in question are now located at:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have deleted Translation:Forme Bōc Petrus which has consensus; the rest do not have consensus so I'm keeping them for now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
most deleted; some kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found some more templates that are no longer needed. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it suggested to delete all 33 templates in this category? Is there any reason we wouldn't want to do that? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, they can go. One comment about {{edition}} when it points to a Talk Page of the Page where it is used. E.g. see National Geographic Magazine/Volume 31/Number 6/Our State Flowers/The Apple Blossom. Shall we don't care and generate all the talk pages?— Mpaa (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would generate all the talk pages... or just assume that information is inherited from parent page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will start preparing deletion of the following pages:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot say that I noticed this discussion, or paid much heed to it as just a title without the listing of the templates specifically. Can I recommend for the future that we should be explicit about templates being deleted. @Beleg Tâl: it is my belief that the removals as a clump should not have occurred. The initial discussion around these xwiki templates and their moving to {{plain sister}} was that they should have been retained as they widely expected to be used crosswiki, and we left them with guiding text. I also think that they were deprecated rather than deleted with good cause, and enough cause for them to have been discussed individually, not as a clump. Thing that there was also quite a reasonable discussion for {{blank line}} too at that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to propose undeletion, do what you must. In the meantime I'll delete no more of them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without consensus to delete the rest, I'm closing this out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
It's marginal, but there's been no discussion for a month, and the last discussion leaned on keeping. Being a bit bold, but hopefully no one sees this as a major issue. Undeleted.

For technical reasons, typing "S: Portrait of a Spy", which is the real title of this novel, directs you to wikisource, so this soft redirect page is helpful. I created this page yesterday, and it was incorrectly deleted by @EncycloPetey: as having no content. Pppery (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book is not in the public domain. We cannot host it on Wikisource. We do not create cross-project redirects for works that we do not host and will not host for the forseeable future. It was therefore deleted correctly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. While a cross-project redirect would be useful to counter the technical issues facing this title, we don't do that sort of thing here. On the other hand, if a free or public domain work exists that is called "Portrait of a Spy", the page could be created and a small note added to it... for example, this work by Ernest Temple Thurston might be PD by now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any link to enWS that is at another wiki should be deleted if it lands on a deleted work/dead page. If you are unable to make that edit then please identify where the incoming link is located, and we can see what we can do. With regard to (re)creating faux pages in lieu of a work, the community has had that discussion previously and it was determined that we are not the encyclopaedia, and we have no means to provide landing pages for works that are not here though could be here, either now or when copyright has expired sometime into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear, you wanted to link from us to enWP with a soft redirect. Umm, no. Please see WS:WWI

What is the value for this site? Or for those looking for the actual work? Nudely pointing to an encyclopaedic article is not the purpose enWS, and if we tried the reverse at enWP it would be deleted out of hand as out of scope too. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: The reason I created this soft redirect is not because of links from enwiki, but because actually typing the title of this book on enwiki directs you to wikisource because S: is an interwiki prefix for wikisource, as I said in my initial undeletion request. Pppery (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pppery: Ah, now I understand, that was a page that you were trying to create at enWP. One of the downsides of wikis is imperfection, you are out of luck, and they cover that at w:Wikipedia:Page name. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, you're still misunderstanding, billinghurst. I was not trying to create a page on enwiki for this book (the relevant page already exists as Wikipedia:S – Portrait of a Spy]), but rather making it easier to find that page for people who type the actual title of the book with a colon and get sent to Wikisource due to the S: interwiki prefix. Pppery (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the problem with this. It costs us little, and may make some things easier for users of other Wikimedia sites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What value is there is having a soft redirect from Wikisource to a Wikipedia article about the work we don't have (and won't have)? The whole point of having separate projects is that each project does different things. Blurring that line of distinction costs us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. We follow WS:WWI, and where would it stop? How would it be managed? Smells ugly and full of battles especially where titles are not unique. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The value is that when people enter S: Portrait of a Spy on Wikipedia, it sends them to a reasonable place. We're compensating for a quirk in Wikimedia. It would stop when we run out of titles prefixed with "S:"; that seems like a really short list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same view as Prosfilaes.— Mpaa (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wikisource News.png An image created locally for news, though never used. After 10 years it is probably time to delete and move on. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete Aw, but it's flamey and cool. ;-) (No, you're quite right, if we create some sort of regular newsletter one day, we can make some new logo then.) Sam Wilson 05:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A book written c.1979 by Mauri Repo, that has the claim that it is an excerpt from Marui Repo's "Hiihdon lajiosa" 1979-89, translated from Finnish. It depicts the very first academically credible and verifiable instance of of the word "sauvakävely" (trans. pole walking = nordic walking) and its training methods.

This work

  • has no licence
  • there no clear indication that it is in the poublic domain either for the original or on the translation
  • is an excerpt

billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete , looks pretty clear cut —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

Not in English and therefore beyond scope. If it's not wanted at Japanese Wikisource it probably belongs at Wikibooks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to User:CES1596 and User:Dmitrismirnov for taking care of this. The work was ineligible for move to jaWS due to Japanese copyright laws in force there; a PD version has been uploaded instead at ja:芭蕉俳句全集. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template seems to form the process of simply having a non-proofread page, and no other real value. It would seem that there is no special ability to do forms, and if they are specific, we can just use images to represent. This template behaves in a less than pleasant means when transcluded, and I think that we would be better to just have a page left as red, it isn't problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see the value of having a placeholder for a missing form; there can be more element positioning involved than an inexperienced proofreader may be comfortable setting up (the same reasoning as {{missing table}}). On the other hand, I notice that this template is used literally nowhere, so I would not object to deletion in this case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]