Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2010-05

=Kept=

United States Code
{{closed|1=Keep — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)|text= {{cot|Previous discussion here.}}


 * (And all its sub-pages. I didn't put {{tl|delete}} on all of them because there are hundreds of them.)

It's not a static work. It is too dynamic and always changing. The policy, What Wikisource includes, states, "…works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." And one example given of an evolving work is: "Compilations where there are many sources of a particular text, and/or the text is to be constantly updated as more relevant information is found and added…" I know that a lot of work went into creating these articles, and it's a shame to delete them.  Nevertheless, if one goes to a particular section of the code here on Wikisource, it may not match up to the code as it exists at that moment in law.—Markles 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue was handled in the case of the CIA World Factbook by preserving a 2004 version of the work. Obviously the US Code is much bigger, but one possible way to make it fit the "evolving works" standard would be to save a complete copy (djvu? pdf? not sure if this is even possible) and work from that. --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * jeez, keep. {{user|Emesee}}
 * Delete. Agree with Spangineer, if we keep that it should be a specific version that is identified for replication. The current hotchpotch is a little bit of a nightmare. billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think "a little bit of a nightmare" and "hodgepodge" are apt descriptions.  It already overwhelms the nice folks at Cornell (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode), the Law Revision Council (law.house.gov) and others.  I suggest avoiding it altogether, even specific snapshots, because freezing it in time has little-to-no value to our readers, especially in light of how much work it would be to get that snapshot edited into Wikisource.  On Wikipedia, meanwhile, we've done a good job using {{w|Template:UnitedStatesCode}} which links to the Cornell version and that's fine.—Markles 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial keep Having worked with this stuff when I largely replaced Template:USC with Template:USCX, I agree that most of this material is unlikely to be added, and totally incapable of being maintained. I can't even imagine anyone trying to do anything about the Internal Revenue Code.  A few select titles, notably Title 17 (Copyright), are of great interest to those who edit here, and maintenance is within the realm of possibility.  Those few should be kept. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I can see some benefit, but even a great interest to a discerning audience is still not enough to overcome the accuracy problem of using evolving documents.  I think does readers a disservice to send them to a document that might not be right.—Markles 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How we handle a wholistic approach to dealing with replicating laws of 200 nations and subsidiary legislatures, add in the UN, WTO, etc. is a necessary discussion, though, I don't think that is the forum. One needs to understand the differences in another countries legislative frameworks and associated jargon. I am happy with the key point of not replicating a dynamic work, and looking at specific snapshots; while the discussion on the development of how to do it, I believe belongs elsewhere, and needs consideration, and NOT just from a US viewpoint. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's possible to get a complete copy of Title 17, for example, upload it as a djvu to Commons, and use it as the source text for that Title on that particular date. If someone is willing to put in the effort to add the content of that file to Wikisource, I'm not opposed, so long as the date of download is clearly marked in the header, and a more regularly updated version (i.e., the appropriate government website) is prominently linked.  As for the current material, I don't see any way to verify it, so I'm inclined to say delete all and rebuild it (if anyone has the desire) from dated sources uploaded to commons.  --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; it can be replaced with dated editions. Having done some work on it, I know very well that the current incomplete hodgepodge of various editions is a total mess. — Pathoschild 21:41:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to agree with the above. Trying to have the entire work up-to-date would require all of the energy of this project concentrated upon it, and even then, we still wouldn't necessarily be able to ensure complete accuracy. Keeping a few select, dated editions of significant titles is a good idea, however, especially in the instance of hte Copyright Act, which is very relevant to the rest of Wikisource. Jude (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on keeping Title 17 - I think even keeping part of the Code, particularly Title 17 pertaining to copyrights, increases the problem. We are directing readers to that title everytime a PD msg is put up.  But if it's out-of-date then we're doing them a disservice.  Just because it's important doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep an Evolving work, in violation of WS policy.—Markles 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good argument for directing readers to an official site with every PD message instead of the wikisource version, which, as you say, may be out of date. Any copy kept by wikisource should be presented as a historical document, not as a current reference. --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps to the extent that any pages are kept they should also include a date and a link that may be followed for a more up-to-date version. Anyone would remain free to update the Wikisource pages. This should be the case for all statutory documents, not just the US Code. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states in its header: "enacted July 2, 1964." It has since been amended many times (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).  Is that what you mean?—Markles 11:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. What I really had in mind was how we treat the laws of other countries; they have similar problems. (But see more below.) Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not keep as dated? Even if the law changes in the future, we can still maintain an accurate record of what the law was at a particular time, or from a particular range of dates. This is actually useful to the extent that, when an act is committed that is asserted to be unlawful, the law applied is that which existed on the date of the act, not on the date of adjudication of liability. BD2412 T 17:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's the general consensus, but the text we have now is not dated; it's a hodgepodge of different sources and editions. — Pathoschild 20:11:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viewing the issue here as a proposed deletion is entirely too simplistic; there are hundreds of (perhaps more than a thousand) articles involved. Some most certainly should be deleted.  A better approach might be to take a wider look at how Wikisource handles the entirety of law as a subject matter, perhaps through a new Portal:Law.  We might begin by looking at the difference between an "Act" and the "Code". Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good place to start looking at this.  If you go ahead to Title I, that begins "Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971), as amended by section 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71 Stat. 637), and as further amended by section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90), is further amended as follows:" The primary reference there leads us to section 1971 in Chapter 20 of Title 42.  That chapter is not currently on Wikisource.  The numbering of that Title goes up to Chapter 148, but in all that the only section we have directly is 263a in Chapter 6a relating to "Certification of laboratories" in Public health.  The text of Acts should remain as produced; they may have been subsequently amended, but that would belong to some later Act.  All Code sections here should have links to the relevant Cornell and/or government sites, and the header notes, in addition to stating how recent our content is, should advise the reader how to get more recent information.  Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea that codes can be different from statutes, but we also run into problems that certain codes are written at a specific time themselves and then later amended. Take, for example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.—Markles 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me add, also, that Wikisource shouldn't be a legal reference. Woe to them who use it as such.—Markles 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as we know it today is really an alternative name for Title 26 of the US Code. It replaced the IRC of 1954, which in turn replaced the IRC of 1939.  PL 99-514, with the short title, "Tax Reform Act of 1986" was the specific statute that implemented this.  We have only a few scattered sections of this, and the Cornell site itself states that 1176 updates remain to be integrated.  Anybody who believes that we can maintain this Title needs being struck with a big clue-bot, and our few scattered section are likely good candidates for deletion.  I also agree that the Wikisource pages should not be used as a legal reference in a real case, but they can be a useful launching point for someone's legal research.  This distinctly parallels the situation where Wikipedia articles should not be used as references for student papers.


 * What it comes down to is that the holistic discussion should take place before any massive deletion campaign. That discussion will better inform any deletion process, and allow anything salvageable to be saved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Naturally the discussion should take place, however, the deletion forum isn't that place IMNSHO. We are talking about a structured component of WS, so that requires the opportunity for a full community, presumably WS:S.  -- billinghurst (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: {{user|Billinghurst}} has a good point, WS:S might be a better place to have a greater in-depth discussion about this issue with the wider community. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep title 17, at least. A few points, some of which have been made above:
 * Title 17 is directly pertinent to, at a minimum, WS:WWI and WS:COPY, and is frequently referenced in discussions at WS:S and WS:COPYVIO. In other words, it has value as a ready (and linkable) reference for this project itself, irrespective of its additional value as another source text within our library.
 * Title 17 is also referenced on (and linked from) en.wp and en.wb, several legal blogs, and probably other projects also. We are talking about breaking a lot of people’s links.
 * Many of the items in Category:United States copyright cases construe (and link to) the provisions of Title 17. Contrary to the suggestion that our copy of Title 17 isn’t a reference source, it’s entirely feasible to use it as such.  Just look up a provision that interests you (say, {{USCX|17|1|107|§ 107}}) and click “what links here”: Presto, a list of cases applying that provision of the statute.  That the listing is incomplete (because fewer than all cases are online here) is no reason to delete the underlying text of the statute; WS doesn’t hold itself out as comprehensive and nobody has suggested deleting other very large but incomplete projects.
 * It doesn’t change that often. The last meaningful amendments to Title 17 were the additions of Chapters 12 and 13, eleven years ago.  Year-to-year ferment in the Code may be a reason to delete some parts of it (at least, until somebody gets around to writing the scripts that would be necessary to keep our version synced with the official one), but carries little force as a reason to delete Title 17.
 * Should a consensus emerge to delete the Code in its entirety, I would hope that implementation of that decision could be delayed long enough to permit an upload of a djvu of the most recent published version of the Code and a migration of the text to the  namespace.  In the most recent published version of the Code (2006), Title 17 is fewer than 200 pages, well within our capacity to handle.  Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarmstro? How did you envisage that this document should be handled, as static or dynamic?   If static, then which date were you going to settle upon?  If multiple dates, how are you proposing to differentiate?  Does it (legislation) require a disclaimer that it is of a date, rather than necessarily current? -- billinghurst (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All pages hosting modern laws should have such a disclaimer. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As they generally do. We could record comparable information on the {{tl|textinfo}} box. My slight preference, although I’m not trying to dictate policy, would be for us to host the most recent (current) version of the code, a document which naturally will evolve over time (albeit much more slowly, at least as far as Title 17 is concerned, than people seem to be assuming).  Once our version gets synced up with subsequent amendments to the statute, former versions of the text will remain accessible in the edit history: in an ideal world, you could step back and see the law as it existed a year ago by examining our copy of the page from a year ago. At least, that is how I’d prefer to see our copy of Title 17 evolve; others may (and probably do) have perfectly valid contrary opinions. Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

{{cob}}
 * Keep. I think this is more of a Scriptorum issue then here; it's too large. I have no problem keeping static copies of the laws. In response to Tarmstro99, right above (13:56 04/22/09), if you want to do the 2006 published edition of the laws, or just Title 17, I'm happy with that. I think that's strongly in our mandate. However, I think each page should be static; if a law is updated on the 1st of June, and then on the 15th of November, 2009, and we're trying to follow the laws, then we should have Title 17 xxx (1 June, 2009) and Title 17 xxx (15 November, 2009). The edit history isn't to track the evolution of the text, it's to track the evolution towards perfection in the text itself and the changes in the various notes we put around the text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me emphasize for clarity; I encourage the keeping of these texts as static texts, especially if we're matching a published edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping a static edition of each title isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it could rapidly spiral out of our own control in attempting to keep them up-to-date (or the post the more 'recent' version). It would still be a massive project and undertaking, possibly more than just keeping it up to date. I wouldn't oppose this suggestion is someone were willing to implement it and see it through. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a project for all published writing in the English language; that dwarfs any tiny subset of it, like the US Codes. We have too many in-progress projects here for me to worry about one more.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the importance of Title 17 - Is it important to the readers or to the editors who have an understandable interest in copyright law because of the nature of Wikimedia? Many of the statutes in Wikisource are amendments to Title 17, but those represent a small minority of all statutes enacted.  Title 17 is no more special than Title 18 (crimes) or Title 42 (Public Health - which is the largest title by far).  TItle 17 may be less dynamic than some others, but what's the reason to keep it in Wikisource?  Does it further WS's mission?  Why not just link to Cornell or law.house.gov, where they have non-profit/government professionals who keep it up-to-date better than we ever could? —Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on appropriateness of discussion here vs. Scriptorium - As the proponent of this deletion, I have learned a lot about this subject. I will concede that this should get a review at WS:S before any action taken.—Markles 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be best merely to make an announcement on the Scriptorium and direct people here to involve them in the discussion. Jude (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! See WS:S.—Markles 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the United States Code is to be deleted, then I could also propose deleting the laws of the Republic of China because the Legislative Yuan now in Taipei, Taiwan amends these laws more frequently than Communist China and I cannot always maintain the English translation as I am already so busy on Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "If delete A, then delete B." Why does that mean "Keep"?—Markles 18:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider the laws of the Republic of China evolving works like the United States Code. To keep the United States Code, we need a uniform governmental source to get the text including revision history. Otherwise, maintaining is so hard. English translations of the Republic of China also have the major problem about evolving changes, but I am reluctant to have them deleted, though I stop posting more for now.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should move the pages to a static dated version and replace them with disambiguation page offering whatever static pages we have (which presumably will grow) as well as a link to more reliably updated source. Deleting alone is a poor option, who knows what sort of incoming links we have.--Birgitte SB  18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself, I don't think networking disadvantage should ever come between site policy. While your idea has merit, precious little should preclude action in any circumstance if it's required by policy. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  {{sup| Talk }} 13:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisting to gain proper consensus.

The current consensus appears to be that we keep some acts/titles as dated, "stable" copies, with external links to an up-to-date copy. The question merely remains is: Which titles do we wish to keep static copies of, and which titles should be deleted?. Jude (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem remains that the proposal is too big and has too many pages for a simple deletion discussion. To start with for the short to medium term I would keep the main page for the code, and for each of the Titles in the code until each can be given its proper consideration in separate discussions.  These are also helpful to the reader who just wants a broad idea of how these things are organized. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, no way. United States Code/Title 17 is an example of what we can do.  In time, people will give similar special treatment to the other parts of this work.  Rome was not built in a day. John Vandenberg {{sup|(chat)}} 07:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the point being made is that, currently, the USC is languishing with nobody giving special treatment to other parts of the work. There are parts of the code that are impossible to keep up to date--and there are parts of the code that we're currently hosting which are massively out of date. United States Code/Title 17 might be (and indeed, is) a brilliant example, but what of the rest of it? Jude (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Once we are finished title 17, we will focus on the others. Title 2 and 44 are ones I would like to do.  I am sure that Title 10 would be done quickly if we grabbed some of the MilHistory project.  Deleting these pages destroys a lot of the infrastructure which has been started.  e.g. United States Code/Title 15/Chapter 7A is probably the only good page of Title 15, but it helps set up cross links. ala w:WP:BTW. John Vandenberg {{sup|(chat)}} 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point about the infrastructure is important. Proposing the deletion of many of these pages is tantamount to saying that we should delete the Encyclopædia Britannica pages because we haven't been able to complete the whole thing quickly enough.  Yes, there are parts, such as the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), that are probably impossible to maintain, and these may never be done, but that's normal for such an immense project. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion&mdash;I've already explained why all these titles should be deleted (with the exception of Title 17 and the existing hierarchy pages); it boils down to a) we shouldn't show inaccurate material to our readers, b) much of our material is out-of-date, and c) it's just as easy to recreate the material as update it. However, here's a potential compromise&mdash;what if on each US Code page we hide the text, as we do for possible copyright violations or long discussions, and add a template saying something like "This content may be out of date.  Please see for an up-to-date version.  You may also show Wikisource's text." Once a user recopies the text and date-stamps it, the text is no longer hidden and a different template is used instead, saying, "This material was accurate as of .  Updates since then may be reflected at ." --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind actively discouraging people from using our texts where they are out of date. In most cases, we have a link to Cornell at the top.  We could make that more prominent.  But most of our pages are empty - they are a structure waiting to be filled.  I've added text quality links for the first 17 chapters. John Vandenberg {{sup|(chat)}} 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spangineer's three criteria appear to make sense at first glance; however:
 * (a) The fundamental premise is sound, but rather than simply removing the inaccurate material, it is more constructive to express the extent of our doubts. By demanding perfection from the beginning, we can never attain it.
 * (b) Of course most of it is out of date. We hide possible copyright violations because of the legal implications that are not a part of this matter. That first part of the suggested compromise can probably be bypassed, and it will be enough to go directly to the second.
 * (c) The major failing of this view is that people don't recreate things when they don't know that they need to be recreated. Newbies who are running around looking for something to do won't touch it if they don't have a framework to work from.  Most of us are unlikely to have any interest in agriculture whatsoever, but if someone comes along with a keen interest in Title 7, that little bit of structure may be all the encouragement that he needs.
 * The Cornell links could be a little more detailed so that they go directly to the referenced provision. The quality links on the head USC page are a good beginning toward making sense of this material from the top.  I have two suggestions here: 1. The 0% template should show a symbol of some kind; this would distinguish between really having nothing and simply not having yet considered that provision. 2. The 25% template could have an optional parameter showing the degree of progress. Thus "2/63" would indicate that we host bits from two of the 63 chapters in that title.  The parameter doesn't need to be super accurate since its purpose is only to give a rough idea of how far that title has progressed. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't have a problem with keeping "structure" pages that don't have any text on them or contain only a framework. I'm against showing out-of-date text to readers without a clear and easily noticed warning. --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Then we're not as far apart as it first seemed. We agree about warnings. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at United States Code/Title 26/Chapter 1/Subchapter B/Part I/Section 63. Are the notes there what you were thinking of?  By all means let us know if this can be improved. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rearranged the note a bit, but overall it looks fine to me. The notes on all these pages might be better handled with a template, so that the key information is always in the same place. --Spangineer{{sup|wp}} (háblame) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the changes. The template would presumably be inserted in the "Notes" section. What would it include?  So far I see currency date, unconsolidated amendments, and proofread date. I would suggest that the 75% template should not be allowed on a statutory provision until these notes have been completed, but I don't know if that is technically feasible. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In the old discussion, someone suggested downloading a complete copy of the U.S. Code and working from that. This is feasible as the House of Representatives makes the whole thing freely available for download. In fact, I think this is what Cornell uses as its own source. ASCII and PDF are both available. Seems possible to write some kind of script to parse at least one of those formats and rewrite it in MediaWiki markup. Then cite the "2008 edition" or whatever to let people know how old the copy is. --LarryGilbert (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what LII (Cornell) used originally at some point and still applies for the changes to the Code since then as well as for keeping each Title's sub-division's "Notes" page current & relevant. While I agree that it's possible to bring the category up to ~January 2008's revision of the Code with some combination of scripting and importation (above my skill set & pay grade), the feasibility of doing so would require an effort that is beyond the level of interest shown in the category to date (well at least that's my perception from the short time I've been here I should add). While I hope for a complete Code to be hosted here not only for the related WS content that can utilize the info but to do away with the clutter and redundancy of the Code on Wikipedia as well, the likelihood of tackling a project like that are slim to none in my opinion.
 * The best solution offered that I've read has been to have the basic framework (or 'the folder tree' if you prefer) of each Title's sub-division's reamain in place and hopefully pass the reader off from there to a related Wikipedia article or to an external source hosting the Code such as LII so they can investigate the content and how current it is on their own if they wish to. George Orwell III (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. To solve the issues raised, we need to set up guidelines for how to includetexts so that the date of accuracy is unambiguous. As Prosfilaes suggested, each page title should be followed by a date in parentheses. Also, laws which were amended at some date should ideally have a disambiguation page pointing to subpages which contain the law as it existed on various dates. Consider the following example: Law A is enacted in 1978, and its Section 2 is amended in 1990. The following structures should exist:

Law A               //disambiguation page Law A/Section 1    //redirect Law A/Section 2    //disambiguation page

Law A (1978) Law A/Section 1 (1978)* Law A/Section 2 (1978)

Law A (1990) Law A/Section 1 (1978)* Law A/Section 2 (1990)

Notice that Law A/Section 1 (1978) is linked from both Law A (1978) and Law A (1990), since it was not changed.

Also, we should have disclaimers stating that Wikisource may not contain the most recent version of any given law. Needless to say, this will take quite a while to fill out, but that hasn't stopped us before. I think Wikisource should not have to stop short of including this important legal text. --Eliyak T · C 00:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My goodness, did I just reply to a discussion from October? Is there that little interest in the USC? How sad. At least we are keeping it, apparently. --Eliyak T · C 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That was kind of funny... Anyway, the 'born-digital' versions for the USC are linked on on the main talkpage. Still no XML but they keep promising they'll release one every quarter George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:USC
If United States Code is deleted (see above), then this template should be deleted, too.—Markles 10:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See also WikiProject US Code for other considerations. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

}}
 * Kept at this time. No consensus for deletion, though there is the consensus to tidy, and to better clarify the dates of the specific parts and to clearly annunciate that it is not current legislation, but legislation of a date. Persons advocating keep should possibly consider the formation of a project that captures this information, and encapsulates the principles proposed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

=Deleted=

Index:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1, 1836.djvu
{{closed|1=Speedy delete {CSD4]|text= and the only existing sub-page. This file exist now with the name Index:Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, volume 1.djvu, the old one is a reprint of the new. Only the first volume has been reprint so there is no way to get a complete set of the second edition. Phe (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete underlying Page:, and create a dated soft redirect of Index:. {{smaller|I am interpreting the statement the old one is a reprint of the new means that the file recommended for deletion is a reprint of the work linked in the body.}} I think that we can speedy this as Redundant. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeps, my wording is ambiguous, the old one is the Index I created first, not the newest print. Unsure if a dated redirect is needed, no links to it and it's a recent creation. Phe (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted, redundant page as duplicates primary edition. Recent addition of back of house page, so no soft redirect created)

— billinghurst  sDrewth  08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum, I have asked for the identified and nominated image file to be dealt with as a duplicate. — billinghurst  sDrewth 

}}

Index:Constitution of the Western Cape.djvu
=Other=

Absolute font size templates
{{closed|1=Templates deprecated, replaced and a protected against accidental recreation by a warning template. &minus; Inductiveload— talk/contribs  00:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)|text=

Template like large and small are counter-intuitive and inflexible, because they use absolute font sizes that do not line up properly with the "normal" size on the page. For example, {{x-larger|large text}} is two sizes larger than "normal" and small is "normal". Compare with relative templates such as {{larger|larger}} and {{smaller|smaller}} which apply a relative change, and are guaranteed to provide the right direction of sizing, and, moreover, will continue to work even if the user has different default font size in their browser.

Therefore, I propose the following templates be deleted. The replacements I suggest are the ones that seem to have the same effect, however, if the templates have been used as would make sense (eg small for smaller than usual text), then a straight replacement with {{tl|smaller}} might be better.


 * xx-small, replace usages with {{tl|x-smaller}} {{x-smaller|example}} (may hit your browser's minimum font setting)
 * x-small, replace with {{tl|smaller}} {{smaller|example}}
 * small, (doesn't do anything right now, does it even need replacing?)
 * large, replace with {{tl|x-larger}} {{x-larger|example}}
 * {{tl|x-large}}, replace with {{tl|xx-larger}} {{xx-larger|example}}
 * {{tl|xx-large}}, replace with {{tl|xxxx-larger}} {{xxxx-larger|example}}

Ideally, I think that we should not have these templates at all, as they are misleading. We have a good set of relative templates. Comments? Inductiveload (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote most of the proposed replacements, too (I think, have not checked;), although {{tlx|xxxx-larger}} wasn't me and that nesting technique should be a single level percentage; 300%, or so; that's also not a css keyword, so the correspondence breaks down. Anyway, these are not really 'equivalents', they're relative font sizing, which is good form. There is an old discussion about this here. I'd be inclined to be sure the documentation is clear about the trade-offs involved in font sizing techniques and possibly review the present usage of these templates. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert to redirects of equivalents I am very much into the KISS principle as being appropriate, and very much into relative font sizes, rather than fixed font sizes. Here I am learning from conversations with Cygnis insignis about coding for the variety of devices that are making their way towards us. They are all lightly used, and making them redirects should circumvent legacy issues. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of these templates and fully understand the value of relative font sizing. The intent here was to encapsulate the css font-size property; the template names correspond to the css spec's standard absolute properties values. In other words, invoking these templates is a shortcut to invoking specific css keywords.


 * JM, I think something like that would be useful as I have no background in the dark arts of CSS. Inductiveload and I did discuss this a little in IRC, and part of the aspects of difficulties imposed by various size templates with regard to line spacing, etc. Presumably others, apart from just me, fallback on their preferred templates and hack away at getting the formatting to fit. — billinghurst  sDrewth 


 * I looked at the old thread and see I even suggested redirecting some of them. I think this pivots on the trade-off between offering a complete set of tools vs an inordinately large suite of tools. This was of concern, before.
 * Also, I see that I started using the nested-spans; I believe the spec says this is explicitly supposed to produce a cumulative effect. And Hesperian offered structures such as: " {{larger|{{larger|}}}} ", which should produce reasonable results for the set of templates.
 * I do expect these to be little-used and cautioned against. My reticence to redirect is primarily about muddying the semantics; in css, "small" means a specific absolute size keyword, and "smaller" means a relative change. And in html, "small" is a keyword with a relative meaning, so it is really about which set of terminology one is drawing from for the naming of templates.
 * There is an issue of browser compatibility, as IE6 does not support the relative sizes well; not at all, I think. I'm no fan of going much off the proper path for out-of-date browsers.
 * I will look at usages, and believe a bunch of the absolute form will be best simply converted to a relative form. Once any extant usages are checked, I have no real issue with re-casting the terminology to use the names as shortcuts. From that view, "small" certainly maps to an intent of "smaller" than normal. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, {{tl|xxx-larger}} and {{tl|xxxx-larger}} were me, but I felt it would be good to extend the range. Using the same nested structure seemed logical (it's what {{tl|x-larger}} does, so i just extended the system. I didn't know a lot about CSS, but it seems that will always give consistent results, as opposed to anything using a fixed value which may not look right under certain settings. In this case, it shorthand for many CSS tags.
 * I am aware some of the "equivalents" I gave are not really the same thing, semantically speaking, but they have the same actual effect for me (and others I suspect?), so we need to decide how to do it (effect vs intention of the CSS tag vs intention of the writer}.
 * As for the redirects, the first template I reached for was {{tl|large}} before I found about the relative templates. Thus I anticipate a lot of new users will end up using the redirects, perhaps without realising it. If that heavy double usage is acceptable, despite the disparate meanings of "small"/"smaller" etc in context, then redirects are fine. If not, I would say replace (carefully) and remove the absolute ones without redirects, and a note saying that the proper template is larger to stop well-meaning people filling in the perceived gap before they find larger. Inductiveload (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * xx-small, x-small and small are all cleaned put, and can be dealt with easily now. The "large" templates all have a lot of usage, so probably need some botting to replace, if we will replace. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  00:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've marked {{tl|small}} as deprecated and put a placeholder there to prevent well-meaning people trying to create a new one. If there are no objections, I will do x-small and xx-small soon. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * x-small and xx-small now also removed and replaced with a blocking template. The "large" templates still need to be replaced appropriately. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

}}