Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2009-12

=Kept=

=Deleted=

Unused and ancient templates
As part of clean-up I have deleted some old pre-parser templates (unused and undescribed), was going to bring them here however Pathoschild indicated that it was wasting everyone's time. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete(d) per nom. ;-) Hesperian 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

=Other=

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Section 3/Title X/Workforce Investment Act, Section 171 amendment
{{closed|1=speedy moved billinghurst (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)|text= Never mind the lack of a header or even being an orphan here, the page, and whatever it's intent was, is also completely redundant. It is basically a copy of the original amendment being made found in the main article -- which happens to be in the form of an addition to the end of existing statue with completely new content; not a series of deletions and/or insertions made to existing language where it's conceivable creating such a page is worthwhile or actually serves a purpose.

This, however, is nothing more than pointless clutter.

There's a pointless redirect related to the Title X page that, at the minimum should get the boot too (but in light of the 2 dozen other pointless redirects clutering things up}, I guess keeping this single one makes no housekeeping difference at the end of the day. George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I keep away from US legislation, it sounds like a delete for redundancy/replication. Pointless redirects should be converted to dated soft redirect so they can be cleaned out by the bot in a couple of months. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Well I think I figured out what the original author's intent may have been when he/she pruned out most of the significant "branches" of changes being made to existing law(s) as they should have been found in the original work's layout and placing these paragraphs & sections on separate subpages instead.&#8226; An example of what I believe the author was trying to do starts in Title XI, Subtitle C, Section 1121, subsection (a). Here, subsection (a) instructs that a new Chapter is to be added to the existing law(s) at the time and the text for this new chapter was to follow. The author instead cuts this entire new chapter from where it should have appeared as it did the original's layout and places it on it's own sub-subpage, a link & back-link to the now "missing" chapter is substituted {‘‘CHAPTER 556—SHORT SEA TRANSPORTATION’’ in this example} and returns to following the original work's layout until the next point where a considerable amount of new or amended content normally would have appeared, repeating the above.&#8226; Anyway, isn't there a way to kill the substituted link and just have the content appear where it should, under the Title/Section that it should, without making this into more of a project??? I've seen something similar to this being done with certain templates and their documentation page popping up for you when actually viewing the template instead of applying it. George Orwell III (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about transcluding a page? You can include the text of another page or a section of a page readily.  If you want to transclude a whole page you would code it like   and you can use relative links if it is a subpage or a full path.  Happy to point you to an example, or directly assist if that is required. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * YES.. that's it. Thanks (I keep forgeting that made-up term). I gave it a shot but I get the feeling I renamed the page being inserted into the main work's subpage's section incorrectly. I'm also curious to know what to do about the missing header on the page being inserted too. George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Scratch all the stuff above re: trancluding a 3rd page into the main body of the article (resolved) except for the original request to delete the page with the duplicate content linked in this section's header. Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, I placed a header on the page, you should consider the appropriate linking. billinghurst (talk)

}}