Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposed deletions
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Possible copyright violations. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).


Please place your request in a level 2 header at the bottom of this page.

Individual birth year categories: 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE[edit]

These categories are so sparsely used, they are useless for the purpose of grouping similar items, in this case cohort authors of a given year, together. Instead they serve to divide these ancient authors from each other!

If these author birthdates could be reduced to decades in which they were born, they could all be scanned by a reader who wants a population picture of the different authors of this era by means of the decade categories in about thirty seconds, but as it is, it takes about eight minutes to find them all. And I use the word "all" advisedly because so far we have three authors at the most listed in these thousand categories!

I think Pathoschild went overboard with this idea he came up with, and that the categories should deleted, and the "author" template tools used to place these and future ancient authors placed in their respective estimated decade categories. If we have a specific year, it can be put in the "notes" section of the Author: page. ResScholar (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Between these and the corresponding death year categories for the same period Special:UnusedCategories is unusable for maintenance. Only the first 5,000 items are listed there, sorted by ASCII, and we reach 2007 and run out. As a result any unused category beginning with a letter can't be monitored. I propose that the death year categories are managed in the same way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both proposals (birth and death). I would actually suggest removing the 1000 BCE - 500 BCE range as well. I only found ten authors born in that period and 500 BCE would take us up to roughly the classical era. (In fact, we could probably lose the decade categories too, and stick with centuries, or even one category each for pre-1000/500 BCE births and deaths.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support AdamBMorgan's view.--Mpaa (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Adam's proposal. I don't disagree with the spirit of Pathoschild's endeavor, and finding ten authors in a four minute search is not the same as three authors in an eight minute search. More importantly, after 1000 BCE we start to have chronicles accurate to within a year of different cultures, particularly that of Israel. By contrast, the pre-1000 BCE dates are only accurate to within 35 years at best (I just found out, except for King David) and present a misleading depiction of the accuracy of the birth and death dates. We could finesse the situation and place the cut-off date for yearly categories at 800 BCE which would include everyone except some fragments by Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese kings, whom admittedly it wouldn't hurt to lump together by decade, but I am all for keeping it as simple as possible and using a round number like 1000. If we do want to lump the early authors together in some way, we could originate a 700 BCE and earlier "Prehistoric authors" category, which Pathoschild, the person who originated the "Ancient authors" category, suggested long before we got around to discussing the matter. ResScholar (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • More thoughts on this: Deleting the unused 500-1000 BCE birth and death years would help our users find the relevant authors in the grid displayed in each century. But they would be user-unfriendly for newcomers who might be brave enough to introduce an author page for that era and then find their birth and death year categories red-linked and not know why.
  • I introduced a limited deletion in hopes of attracting interested parties in organizing these author "era" categories, starting with something we could all agree on and then discussing more involved issues in a larger forum like the Scriptorium. It turns out we did agree, Pathoschild himself stating he had no objection to the removal of the categories. But I found the process getting carried away by Adam and Mpaa who had apparently thought about these issues even more than I had and, their imaginations being less limited than mine, thought they could summon interested parties and informally present consequent proposals in a single administrative action. Holding the two processes separate in my thinking, I wasn't prepared to explain my reasoning very well when the time came, so I apologize if I fostered the impression that I was trying to arbitrarily direct the discussion.
  • But as for my second bullet point, although these same grids could also be used to aid in the speed of navigation of the 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE works as well, I think the inaccuracy of author birth and death years of that era that I eventually discovered still should override the continued existence of those years. And as I stated, I am of two minds about the unused birth and death years for the 500 BCE - 1000 BCE works, but think we should keep the used years, as I stated before, due to the accuracy of records from that era.
  • Moving forward with an observation, possibly for a larger discussion: The "Ancient authors" category has 290 items so this is what we could do: We could allow users to add birth and death dates in the header template, have them appear automatically in their respective categories (either red-linked or pre-originated in the way we have it now). And then WE go back and add a century category to group them by centuries as Adam suggested. That would produce categories with (290 ÷ 11 centuries ≈ 26) an average of 26 authors per century. And we could add an explanation in the century categories that the authors are double categorized and only very newly added authors would only be found in each century category's respective decade categories. ResScholar (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We definitely should be concatenating the BC birth and death categories by some means. I would think that anything that is BCE could be removed as an individual year, and then group by decade, century or millennium, whatever others consider appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I propose splitting the "Ancient authors" (though keeping the category), and you re-propose lumping the BCE categories! I think these philosophies deserve further explication because I expect opinions would differ on how best to keep these time categories organized.
      • I completed the 2000 BCE - 1000 BCE deletions today, so the topics that Adam broached can pursued without distraction. I combined them all into 2nd millenium BCE categories Category:2nd millenium BCE births, e.g. to keep them neat, and placed those categories in their respective Category:Births by century or Category:Deaths by century category, with a sort key to keep them first in the list. I also added a 100 unit "decade grid" of each decade to the millenium categories, just as a century category sometimes contains a 100 unit "year grid". The grid could use some neatening, but I wanted to wait in case I needed to undo.
      • I spoke vaguely about this and that year being a good boundary date for particular purposes. Billinghurst has joined the interest taken in reforming the categories, so I will get started in gathering the facts to which various sorting philosophies would be applied to help our fellow Wikisourceans decide for themselves what they think is the best way to proceed.
      • To not build suspense, my main concern with Billinghurst's proposal would be the loss of accuracy in the birth and death dates where a user places them on the author page. And if the author template could somehow be reworked to round the numbers automatically, we would still lose the birth time sequence at the very least of the three authors now shown in the 480s BCE authors category. ResScholar (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        I am not proposing any change to the author pages, just how we concatenate into the categories, so to the underlying template {{author}}. There is already some coding and to me, if we look to manipulate anything that is BCE, we can probably get some better groupings. Too late for anything problem solving, just the abstract idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        1. We don't need to be a drastic as I suggested above. It was only an idea.
        2. There's no need to change author pages for any of this. The categorisation made by {{author}} can be adjusted instead; I've been trying to make it smarter anyway. The template {{is year}} can return an appropriate decade or century as required. We just need to decide on a cut off. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        My suggestions are back to year zero, no change; 0-100BCE, ... 400-500 BCE; 500-1000BCE, 1000BCE+ ... KISS. This is based on that I have never even looked at any of the categories, and presuming that we are talking in the area of 100 to 200 authors. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        You two's suggestions would spoil Pathoschild's "era" divisions. And they would deny a curious user's ability to "zoom out" by going to year cat then decade cat then century cat. And they would cost precision in 480s BCE decade category and possibly others as I've already mentioned. ResScholar (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
        Then suggest a better grouping. Pathoschild's implementation is based on which factual source? And yes, it would destroy the zoom out functionality, and it would definitely spoil the worse drill down to emptiness which occurs in so many places. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
        Sorry I missed seeing your reply. The Library of Congress Classification uses 600 CE and 700 CE as divisions for Greek and Latin works respectively between ancient and later. Pathoschild couldn't have selected both, could he? I don't know why he picked 1420 as mediaeval, but it's very close to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, which is a standard division between mediaeval and later.
        I wanted to propose my suggested grouping (double categorization by both century and year), described above, in the Scriptorium, but it turns out from my account of each ancient century at the end of this section, that it looks like about a fourth of the ancient authors' birth dates aren't being placed in a century or year at all. Since one [or the only?] Maintenance of the Month for November is undated works, I was thinking of enlarging the Maintenance to include undated ancient authors. However we accomplish the task, we can redo the tally, and I can do my proposal on the Scriptorium. The tally seems necessary because it prevents conflicts that might arise from people making sweeping generalizations about the population of the categories.
        I try to think ahead, and I had the idea of adding century cats to the mediaeval life dates as well. And the question of whether to do it collides with a third idea I had for improvement, that is of removing a lot of the mediaeval popes as authors (and consequently from birth and death date categories) that Sherurcij added a long time back, as it seems to be the case that a lot of them have no recorded writings. This could be done fairly quickly by looking to see if any works are mentioned on each pope's Catholic Encyclopedia entry available here on Wikisource.
        So I will check to see who is involved in doing the Maintenance of the Month and see if it's in any way convenient to add it. Otherwise I will start to work on them myself. ResScholar (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts about works to which categorization will apply[edit]


Civilization: Greece

Earliest date known to within about one year: 776 BCE
Event of earliest date: First Olympic Games
Earliest author known to within about one year: w:Solon
Life years of author: 638 BCE-558 BCE

Civilization: Israel

Earliest date known to within about one year: 931 BCE
Event of earliest date: Death of Solomon/Rebellion of under w:Rehoboam
Earliest author known to within about one year: Solomon
Life years of author:  ? – 931 BCE

Notes: Authorship of various works is disputed, but usually not his existence. I was wrong about David’s death date being accurate to a year; Solomon’s reign was 40 years, which may be a figurative expression. Method of dating: The w:Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem (701 BCE) was dated from archeological studies of Assyrian documents w:Sennacherib’s Annals and applied to the event mentioned in three books of the bible and then back-dated back to Solomon’s reign according to the list of regnal years of the series of Kings of Judah.

Civilization: Assyria and Babylon

Earliest date known to within about one year: around 900 BCE
Event of earliest date: none
Authorship: See below

Notes: w:Chronology of the ancient Near East states “The chronologies of Mesopotamia depend significantly on the chronology of Ancient Egypt” and “around 900 BC, historical data, written records become more numerous once more, with the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, enabling the certain assignments of absolute dates.”

The w:Assyro-Babylonian Literature article only shows one work after that time period by individuals significant to have their birth or death years listed: w:Babylonian Chronicles. These would have to be edicts by various Babylonian Kings after around 900 BC, if there are any actual quotation of edicts in these chronicles (I haven’t looked), often written centuries after the events they describe.

Civilization: Egyptian

Earliest date known to within about a year: 1069-525 BCE.
Event of earliest date: Unlisted synchronization of chronology with known historical event from three years down to one year.
Earliest author known to within one year: First tomb biography existing from that period after the above-mentioned event with life span described in terms of regnal years.
Life years of author: ? - ?

w:Conventional Egyptian chronology states: “The dates of Dynasties 21 to 26 are from Kenneth Kitchen (1973), supplemented by Ian Shaw (2000). There is a 60 year discrepancy between the dates proposed by these two authors.”

The reference section speaks of three competing chronologies (high, middle and low) put forward by Kitchen, so I would guess the authors of the Wikipedia article must have picked the one that matches Shaw’s the best, and the 60-year discrepancy refers to the one that matches the worst. This guess is borne out by two dates listed side by side for Ramesses XI’s death date, used as the end of the 20th Dynasty (1072/1069 BC). So apparently about a three-year accuracy range is available at the 21st Dynasty which at some point or points tapers down to one year by the end of the 26th Dynasty in 525 BC, as there is no mention of date discrepancies in the article on the Persian invasion of Egypt.

w:Ancient Egyptian Literature only mentions tomb biographies as potential sources of author life dates after 1069 BCE.

Civilization: Chinese

Earliest date known to within about a year: 841 BCE.
Event of earliest date: Exile of King Li of the Zhou Dynasty.
Earliest author known to within one year: Authors in w:Classic of documents, such as w:Marquis Wen of Jin.
Life years of author: 805-746 BCE

Note: See w:List of rulers of China for 841 BC date.

Civilization: Indian

Earliest author known to within one year: w:Aryabhata. Life years of author: 476-550 CE

Note: Earliest listed on w:List of historic Indian texts

[Addition: "List of historic Indian texts" doesn't include rock carvings, so I was able to find w:Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty (304-232 BCE) who had the w:Edicts of Ashoka carved during his reign from 269 BCE to 231 BCE.] ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Addition w:Arthashastra of the same dynasty is attibuted to w:Chandragupta Maurya (lived c. 350 - 283 BCE)] ResScholar (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Civilization: Persian

Earliest author known to within one year w:Darius the Great. Life years of author: 550-486 BCE

Note: w:Behistun Inscription is the work.ResScholar (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Clarification: 18:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Death century tallies will obviously be similar.

BCE: 10th, 0; 9th, 0; 8th, 3; 7th, 1; 6th, 7.
BCE: 5th, 19; 4th, 14; 3rd, 13; 2nd, 9; 1st, 19.
CE: 1st, 35; 2nd, 22; 3rd, 16; 4th, 24; 5th, 10.
CE: 6th, 10, 7th, 24; 8th, 14, 9th, 7; 10th, 19, 11th, 28, 12th, 42.

ResScholar (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Popes with no writings[edit]

In addition to mediaeval popes, I also found some popes from the Ancient era with no recorded writings:

[I updated this list on November 20th, comparing it with the Documenta Catholica Omnia website. Unfortunately, although this website does in some places speak to the authenticity of the writings of the early popes, in other places it offers no opinion. In order to positively discount the authenticity of a certain pope's writing, I have had to rely on explicit statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia, {nevertheless,} the absence of which {in the cases where a pope's alleged writings are not referred to as primary sources} suggests to me a lack of certainty on their part, rather than a positive endorsement of their authenticity; and that {to me} this {seeming} lack of certainty is also {ultimately the primary reason} why they did not mention these works as primary sources in each pope's Catholic Encyclopedia Entry.]

Marcellus I

John I

There are also some Ancient popes whose only recorded writings are spurious. These writings by other persons, well-meaning or otherwise, are attributed to the following popes:

Evaristus, Pius I, Urban I, Fabian and Lucius I. Also Felix I and Mark. Reclassified as works being spurious but not absent: Telesphorus, Zephyrinus and Anterus. Also Anastasius II

This covers 33 CE to 254 422 495 600 CE. I will continue to add more up to 600 CE while my day-to-day health keeps up, then finish the tally. ResScholar (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 07:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 12:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Can one of the involved; summarize the outcome of this discussion? Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:popup note[edit]

I believe that this template which is just a reverse implementation of {{tooltip}} should be dispensed with. The rendition should be reversed as a conversion to tooltip, and then replace with a redirect. I cannot see the point of the back to front version. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Went through this over the pr-typos/corrections.js "debate" & while its true that PopupNote seems to be just reversing params {{{2}}} & {{{1}}} of ToolTip, for the most part, - the remaining issue where one template or the other used {{{named}}} parameters initially while the other(s) didn't making the straight-forward solution not so simple. At some point in time, a similar consolidation of like-function templates took place (3rd template?) and that's when it dawned on somebody the target and the tip parameters were reversed in some cases and I believe the deprecated template at that time filled in as way to overcome that lack of named parameters/reverse order issue.
Now if there is a way to standardize both families via Bot into a single template (or w/ the loser becoming a redirect), I'd gladly support the deletion. Without any progress on that front, I'd have to lean towards oppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You folks do realise {{SIC}} chains to {{popup note}}, don't you? There is probably a lot more usage of this template than immediately meets the eye. In all other respects I concur with GOIII (well, I didn't know the history..) above. 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't {{SIC}} be based on {{tooltip}} instead? The true usage of {{popup note}} would be much less then.--Mpaa (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As originator of this template, I'd like to note that it predates {{tooltip}} by about a year, at least on this site. It was created without knowledge that the the similar w:Template:tooltip existed on Wikipedia, by replicating some code found elsewhere on the net. However, it appears likely that User:Bob Burkhardt was aware of {{popup note}} when he copied over tooltip from Wikipedia, as he changed the colour of the dotted line to cornflowerblue (from black on Wikipedia) to match. I agree the templates should be merged, but I think "popup note" or similar is more descriptive and therefore easier to remember (for those without a comp sci background) than "tooltip". --T. Mazzei (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If interest in merging this function still exists please do so. I will close this as "no consensus" on my next housekeeping pass, if it remains inactive. Jeepday (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jeepday: This template was converted to use tooltip Special:Diff/3988379 by Eliyak, so I would prefer that we look to update any underlying components and mark this as deprecated as a minimum. Running a bot through to capture and invert $1 and $2 is pretty easy. I could have done that earlier, when I proposed the deletion, but that is unfair and imposes my own PoV and prefer that a discussion was had first. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

note: I have converted Template:SIC to utilise Template:Tooltipbillinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
While looking to tidy, I see that Template:definition was just a variation of popup note, now tooltip. Seems like that should just become a redirect, or be converted too. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I would delete Template:definition as well. I see no point in keeping it.--Mpaa (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have replaced the uses of Template:Definition so whomever closes this can determine whether to delete or convert to a redirect, noting that there is a redirect Def. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ozymandias of Egypt[edit]

It seem to detail the same text as is at Ozymandias (Shelley), but with less accompanying paraphernalia. I suggest merging/redirecting. It Is Me Here t / c 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks like this might be the 1914 Harvard Classics version, while the version offered for keeping seems to be the 1875 Golden Treasury version. Encourage someone who is better and validating minor difference than I am, to take a look. Possibly need to versions for the different works. Jeepday (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • keep needs a {{versions}} page, we are comfortable with multiple copies from different sources. If concerns about {{veracity}} then tag it appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Dream of the Rood (translation)[edit]

A recent edit from a new user account seems to indicate that The Dream of the Rood (translation), added here in 2008, may be a copyvio. The linked translation is the same as ours, at least for the portions I have checked, and that site prohibits copying of the translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A General History for Colleges and High Schools (Myers)[edit]

While the original scanned docs are of course in PD, the actual content of the text appears to be simply transcribed from the scans. I have no way of discerning how accurate the transcription is, and judging by the very poor quality of images uploaded by the main editor, User:Chuck Marean, I don't think we can trust this information is accurate. I am very open to any sort of evidence the book is either accurate, or that this type of transcription w/o proof is acceptable here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence it's not accurate? We have scans and transcribed text from the scans. I don't see any reason to delete it on the pure assumption that it might be inaccurate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Many of the images are crudely colored sketches presumably based on drawings in the original work. this is clear evidence of poor understanding of how faithfully turn a source text into an editable document. I have no direct evidence for poor transcription. I should also point out the editor has been permanently blocked at WP, including his own talk page, indefinitely, for a complete lack of competency, and no understanding of what the project was actually attempting.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until such time as a full copy of the book is brought in to replace this version. It does appear to go against our policy on annotations, but was created before we developed that policy and we agreed to grandparent works from before that time. The text does have some scan backing and has been validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per BWC — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prince of peace[edit]

As above, a hand transcribed work, of questionable accuracy, with amateur images uploaded as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite different from above. We have no scans, we're missing most chapters, and looking at the chapters we do have, like Prince of peace/Chapter 3, Jesus the boy, don't look like they're complete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed the amateur images, prior to a full review of them for deletion at the commons. i normally dont like to alter files up for deletion, but what i removed cannot stand even if this file is kept in any form. dont like having to mention this, but the creator was permabanned at the english WP for a complete inability to comprehend editing guidelines.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • delete out of scope in the form that it is presently — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow! I like those blue-gray coloured images! One tires of so many b/w images. —Maury (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The labeling of the images is certainly creative. A picture of Christ set into the floor is labelled "Angel warns Mary", and the event of his circumcision as a baby is labeled as his baptism (which didn't happen until he was 30). Weird. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • yes, i noticed the labels seemed off. i didnt go further with figuring out how close the labels/comments actually were to what they portray. I of course would LIKE to think the work is salvageable, and maybe some tweaks could make it a good source, but im doubting that a lot.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope that work in some form is salvageable too! It has some bodacious beautiful illustrations! Create a category and save the images? —Maury (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the work is snippets and it doesn't look retrievable in its current form. If we can get a scan or a verified version of the work, then that should not prohibit its recreation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Death certificate of Pope John Paul II[edit]

Move to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mediæval Towns: London/Source pages[edit]

This is a subpage of work, that is not actually a work, just a link to scans, where only 2 scans exist. I would recommend that we delete the page, and if necessary we can link on the works main talk page about the available links. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

delete per above.--Mpaa (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Jane Addams 2.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This file is a picture of Author:Jane Addams, however, it is unused due to there being a better image available. It is small and of no particular quality, I cannot transwiki to commons as there is insufficient information available to populate the template. Do we just delete it, as it is sitting here with little purpose, and no ability to be externally linked? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
delete per above.--Mpaa (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This image seems to have been a design presumably as part of our visual branding. It is unused, has no information supplied for it, and I am not seeing a purpose to transwiki to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
delete per above.--Mpaa (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bookkeeping files[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Three files that were tranwikied from enWB, in what looks like an attempt to save them. They are not related to any works that we have, nor we would ever have.

billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

delete per above.--Mpaa (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Equation gifs from Relativity: The Special and General Theory[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The following list of files are all equation gifs from within the work Relativity: The Special and General Theory and they are unused. It would seem that that the work now uses <math> convention to undertake the work, which is our preferred means. These files are redundant to our needs, and transferring them to Commons is not within their scope.

billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

delete per above.--Mpaa (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Florida's timber industry-an assessment of timber product output and use, 2005[edit]

This work is just two images (boths scans of a page of a work) on root page, with no text, and the remainder of the images not added. I will be moving the images to Commons, as they qualify to be transwiki'd. The work itself is in scope, however, with two images and no text, it isn't in scope in its current form. I propose that we delete it, without prejudice of being redone, until we can get a form with text layers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Piers Ploughman[edit]

A version of William Langland's work that is in Latin and Old English, though we just have the prologue, no source, and as it was contributed in 2008, it seems unlikely that it will ever be completed. There is already an existing translation of the work at Piers Ploughman (Wright). I would suggest that if the work is deleted that it be redirected to Piers Plowman which is a {{versions}} page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion and proposed solution, but the information used above to support this is incorrect. The work by Langland is in Middle English, not in Latin or Old English. The Wright publication is not a translation; it is simply another edition of the same Middle English work, possibly assembled from different surviving manuscripts, but it is the Langland work, it is still in Middle English, and it is not a translation. Again, however, I agree with the proposal of deletion and redirection. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep I misspoke about the translation aspect, the chapter titles are in Latin. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Subpages of works migrated to Translation namespace[edit]

Some works have been moved to the Translation: for about 5 months now. Where these pages are subpages of works, I would like to think that we can now remove the soft redirects that are the subpages, and just retain the the overarching redirect for the parent work.

Examples of works are

I believe that we can have any deletion message point to the pertinent page that it replaces and act as a de facto pointer. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I was hoping we'd get to resolving some of that maintenance & tracking overhang myself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Three works uploaded by User:HectorMoffet[edit]

Agreed in all three cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Healing of the Nations[edit]

The work has been added as a copy and paste of a OCR'd scan from With next to no text correction, page headings, in place, and not necessarily a good scan. I would feel that the work would be better to be deleted, and if to be resurrected it would be done with scanned image available at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The American Revolution (scriptural style)[edit]

Copy and paste of OCR'd scan. Needs plenty of work, has not had page headers removed, etc. We would be better to restart and to do as a scanned version. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The First Book of Napoleon[edit]

A work that is simply a copy and paste of the OCR scan of a work at Contains all the headers, etc. It would be better to delete the work, and restart with scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Grendon Farm.jpg[edit]

Unused image, no licence, no source. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely unused. It is use at User:Brookie/Grendon, which is a historical account that was transferred out of the main namespace a few years back. However, neither that page nor the image indicate their origin, and the contributor of both has long been absent. I'd be in favor of deleting both, as there is no source nor license for either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

September 11 Morgan Stanley Monument Inscription[edit]

It's almost certainly not copyrightable, but I don't really think it's in scope. Is it what we should classify as documentary?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)