Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Trinidadian English

Trinidadian English

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Closed as transwiki. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for speedy as a GFDL copyvio of a wikipedia article, which it is, but appears to have had at least some work done to it since. Apparently a copy of an article that was deleted then reposted on wikipedia, see w:List of Trinidadian English terms. I recommend adding a query on the article's talk page before deleting. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is valid, I randomly googled about 20 of the words and they all came up as being Trinidadian English. This isn't a book, but could it be? --Elaragirl 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was marked for speedy as a GFDL copyvio, not because of the content. It was copied before the days of import, and apparently we're missing the early edits. (By that measure the current wikipedia article is also copyvio). We could try to get an admin to undelete the early stuff and import it now, if there were substantial revisions before the one that was copied. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recuse myself from the discussion as I originally tagged the article as a candidate for speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 01:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I rewrote the whole thing? --Elaragirl 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could give that a shot. --Swift 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary - this is just a syllabary and nothing more, and in fact a violation of WB:WIW#Wikibooks is not a dictionary. Wiktionary does allow (I've worked on some stuff moved there from Wikibooks like this) some "categories" and other project pages to keep a link like this, and add some of these works into that project. It would certainly take a slightly different form that current exists here, but it is something that would be interesting to add to the depth that already exists on that sister project. --Rob Horning 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, as per Rob Horning, unless this gets properly rewritten as a wikibook. --Swift 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as with the above comments. Xania ^talk 13:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I recused myself from the discussion, I would like to point out the reason I originally tagged this page for speedy deletion. It is in violation of the GFDL. It specifically was a copy-and-paste version, with minor edits, of either the 2006-08-05 or 2006-08-09 revision of w:List of Trinidadian English terms, probably as fork in case the content got deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trinidadian English terms (second nomination). It was copied without the edit history as required to be legal under the Wikipædia's GDFL license. Just food for thought — User:Iamunknown 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we can always import "after the fact" and restore to reflect the modifications here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Up to which revision would you import? From my own analysis, it could have been either the 2006-08-10 or the 2006-08-05 revision that User:Grika copied from. The only difference between the two is that w:User:Mailer Diablo removed the afd header as he closed the afd discussion. I know this is incredibly nit-picky, but I want the GFDL copyright issues to be infallible. I don't think we can do that in this case — User:Iamunknown 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dont think we even need to get that tricky. We could simply post a note that says the page originally came from wikipedia, that the orignal authors of the page are located on that project, and that technical issues prevent the history pages from accurately describing the pages edit history. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is kept by an informed consensus even though, if you think my arguments are valid, it is in violation of the GFDL, and we do not decide to back-import the texts, then I would feel more comfortable with copying and pasting the history (with a prose note about its complicated history) to a talk sub-page and then posting something a link on the talk page. Its not really technical issues — it's circumstantial issues — User:Iamunknown 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]