Category talk:Reference pages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I don't know where the discussion is on RW about source:space, but my question is: What would it do that wikisource can't? Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not too familiar with wikisource, but... deal with non-public domain material? Random web things like the timecube or that chickenhawk stuff? Blue (is useful) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not PD, we can't host more than a "fair use" fragment. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am well and truly out of my depth in this discussion, so I'll defer on that to people with more knowledge. Blue (is useful) 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the lot, save for the the NHG stuff. TyBother me 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- At least some of these, like the Dynamiclear and Lenski correspondences, the Annotated Bible and the NHG stuff, are things we'd probably want to keep around. And none of it can stay in mainspace as is. Blue (pester) 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- RW-space perhaps, but the speeches really don't belong IMO. TyBother me 23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think just tossing it all in projectspace is a short-sighted, rug-sweeping solution. I believe we could use a source: namespace, with some restriction on what we could host. Blue (pester) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then ask Trent about it. TyBother me 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You know as well as I that Trent is very busy and much more likely to listen to the idea if there is a show of support beyond myself. Blue (pester) 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- While a few of these things should perhaps simply be deleted, there are a number (e.g. Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation/OCR - what deoes OCR even mean?) that would definately be best in a 'source' namespace. PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Make a petition at the bar? PeterQuasniki 2012! 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been support for this idea in the past, but I think we should take this slowly. Perhaps start a forum? Blue (is useful) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps, perhaps - the problem though is how many people will see it. PeterQuasniki 2012! 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- There has been support for this idea in the past, but I think we should take this slowly. Perhaps start a forum? Blue (is useful) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Make a petition at the bar? PeterQuasniki 2012! 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- While a few of these things should perhaps simply be deleted, there are a number (e.g. Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation/OCR - what deoes OCR even mean?) that would definately be best in a 'source' namespace. PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You know as well as I that Trent is very busy and much more likely to listen to the idea if there is a show of support beyond myself. Blue (pester) 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then ask Trent about it. TyBother me 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think just tossing it all in projectspace is a short-sighted, rug-sweeping solution. I believe we could use a source: namespace, with some restriction on what we could host. Blue (pester) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- RW-space perhaps, but the speeches really don't belong IMO. TyBother me 23:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- At least some of these, like the Dynamiclear and Lenski correspondences, the Annotated Bible and the NHG stuff, are things we'd probably want to keep around. And none of it can stay in mainspace as is. Blue (pester) 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the lot, save for the the NHG stuff. TyBother me 20:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am well and truly out of my depth in this discussion, so I'll defer on that to people with more knowledge. Blue (is useful) 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not PD, we can't host more than a "fair use" fragment. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)