Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-02

=Kept=

=Deleted=

Some templates for consideration
{{closed|Various|text= Here are some more dodgy templates that we can do without:


 * {{tl|MultiCol}}: seems to be an functionally exact copy of {{tl|Multicol}}. Unused.
 * {{tl|ASIN}}: link to an Amazon product page. Only used on one page. I'm not convinced that we should be using such a proprietary way to identify products. Surely ISBN or OCLC would be better identifiers of such materials?
 * {{tl|span}}: creates a plain <span&gt; (no style options, etc). Unused.

And some unused redirects that we can tidy up:


 * {{tl|Tdeprecated}}: unused redirect to {{tl|deprecated}}
 * ⁂: unused redirect to asterism. We also have *, so this seems a little redundant.
 * {{tl|wp}}: unused redirect to {{tl|w}} (Wikipedia link).
 * (Unsigned comment by User:Inductiveload)
 * I agree with all this except that possibly ASIN should be kept; a link to Amazon can be useful.--Longfellow (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the unsigned comment. I have two more along with {{tl|multiCol}}, both unused:
 * {{tl|EndMultiCol}}
 * {{tl|ColBreak}}
 * If you think {{tl|ASIN}} is useful, that's fine by me. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just deleted the aptly named ASIN, then noticed someone wanted it kept. I would like to see a reason stated, anything can potentially be 'thought useful'. The target page of the single example was empty, and not much use if it wasn't. If the rationale is that someone will purchase and transcribe the work, I think that is a hopeful and out-moded approach - it is much more likely that a library will produce a scan. A commercial link with no value is speedy deleted without hesitation, there is strong precedent for that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Amazon "Look inside" feature can provide an online copy of a reliable printed source for a text.--Longfellow (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that we should favouring any commercial source of a work that we have generated, and especially not in the main namespace, too exploitable; possible case for its use on talk page, but I am not convinced. One unique identifier for a book should be sufficient, and I would much prefer OCLC or similar, and then let someone use those references elsewhere be it Amazon, or wherever, off their own back. We identify our originating source (direct or defacto through the image). — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The symbol ⁂ is an asterism, which is, I suppose, similar to the output of the template. The title and purpose should be defined before deleting redirects, I asked about this at Template talk:Asterism. I have used the character a couple of times, and noticed it may not appear in some circumstances; I imagine it was intended to be a substitute for the character. Is making * an escape from a wiki bullet a foolish notion? Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right in that ⁂ is an asterism, but the template asterism produces a line of asterisks, which is what the template is actually used for. The template has only ever produced a line of asterisks, and I upgraded the capabilities myself to include variable numbers of characters, custom characters, spacing or images. This use of the template is moderately common, but I have never needed the ⁂ character. Perhaps the template should be renamed.

{{asterism}} {{***|9|1em}}
 * ⁂, {{tl|*}}}, and *** are all redirects. Just having *** seems best to me, as it is the only one which correctly reflects the output of the template. {{tl|*}} as bullet-escape seems like a good idea to me—I don't see why we need it for an "asterism".
 * As for ASIN, I think it is pretty useless, and I don't see it used usefully here. If there is a good use, then keep it, otherwise my template-cleaning-up preferences say "delete". Inductiveload— talk/contribs  03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I came very close to deleting {{tl|⁂}} myself a while back, simply because the effort involved in invoking the template via such an obscure redirect is at least as great as the effort encapsulated by the template. People are not going to spend five minutes trawling through a unicode table in search of this obscure glyph, just so they can invoke a template that they could have invoked via *** in five seconds. Hesperian 04:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've used asterism since it was repurposed, as a section break element, but it needs a better name. When I needed an asterism it appeared inline, this creates a new line. Rename Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to what? Ideas, anyone? asterisk break, asterisk line (although the character can be changed so maybe a more "general" name would be better). Inductiveload— talk/contribs  06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was considering something like sectionbreak and section mark, and I had been using it as a 'section end' - does the latter best describe its usage or confuse matters. If I couldn't be bothered with the dingbats, eg. this recent indulgence with two different uses, I would use a rule as a substitute. The element in print is often distinguished by a full width aster ＊, the character * is usually a footnote - perhaps this nit-picking observation is relevant. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I used a full-width star before, but it was reverted because not everyone can see this glyph. If you absolutely postiviely mush have this glyph, you can alter the "char" field, or use an image.
 * Name-wise something like rule? Maybe Character rule or something? I think better to not emphasize the "section-ending" property, as this will make things like your recent indulgence seem like template abuse, when it is actually a valid use of the template. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, allow me to add Sectionbreak to the deletion request, as it was only used on two pages (since changed to asterism). If people need a semantically distinct variant of asterism, we can redirect, but I'd rather just delete and be done with it. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  13:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how we are going to be able to determine which have been agreed to and which have not. It may be useful to separate and have individually listed as subparts of the discussion. — billinghurst  sDrewth 

Reboot
To keep it clear, let's comment on each template separately. I propose deletion of the following templates: }}

Template:Protected title
=Other=

Outing
This new policy page should be merged if appropriate into Blocking policy, and deleted as redundant or unneeded. — Pathoschild 01:17:19, 03 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't need a specific policy for the matter, overarching principle and blocking policy seem more appropriate. Move text to talk page of policy indicated by Pathoschild. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all ready covered by Blocking policy. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect→Blocking policy; no need to delete the history of this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with this proposal too. It that was the process, I would suggest a link to an anchor point. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, Jeepday's target and have a discussion about a specific merged text on the talk. Or #Outing per the discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No object to merge and redirect, Will leave the wordsmithing of the merge to you all. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "Freemasonry"
The page "Freemasonry" did direct to "Humanum genus". "Freemasonry" should not direct to "Humanum genus", because there are 226 pages about freemasonry. The page "Freemasonry" should be deleted, so when people write "freemasonry" in the search box, they get the page with search results and not the page Humanum genus. --ANCJensen (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirected to the "Formless Void", cygnis insignis 19:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)