Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposed deletions
Shortcut:
WS:DEL
WS:PD
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).

Contents

Nominations[edit]

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]

EARLIEST RECORDED LIFE DATES OF AUTHORS ACCURATE TO WITHIN ABOUT A YEAR IN THE VARIOUS WORLD LITERATURES ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA

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)


TALLY OF NUMBER OF BIRTHS OF AUTHORS PER CENTURY IN EARLY CENTURIES ON WIKISOURCE

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.]

Linus
Marcellus I

John I
Sylverius


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)

Summary[edit]

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

Template:popup note[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted and redirected.--Mpaa (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
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. 58.165.185.82 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)
Started to replace {{popup note}} with {{tooltip}} as MpaaBot. I'll do it a little at a time. Let me know, should you find issues.--Mpaa (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Hebrew}} is based on {{popup note}}. Can someone see it if it can be replaced with {{tooltip}}. Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done for what it is worth. I suspect there is a lot of scope for simplification. AuFCL (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 22:36, 12 August 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]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
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]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

File:522px-Book-Wikisource-logo.png[edit]

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]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted
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]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted and redirected
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)
Disagree in all three cases. Leave them there. They meet none of the criteria for deletion. Our job is to improve the entries. I too, like billinghurst, 'don't like the way they look', but users and editors should improve the aesthetically-challenged pages, rather than referring to them derisively, and marking for 'deletion'. Instead, a tag should be put at the top of each that informs that each of these 'need improvement'. Joe Hepperle (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing aesthetic about the issues; they are miserable quality. If they're useful, we can produce them by the ten thousands in the time it takes to produce one quality work, one work that someone might actually read.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Regretfully, and to my detriment, I must admit that I can discern nothing that makes sense in what you just wrote. But yet, I'm sure you meant something. The misunderstanding most probably comes from me using my mother tongue, American English. In American English, the two phrases you used, "...nothing aesthetic about the issues..." and the phrase "...they are miserable quality...", are contradictory. In my dialect, the word 'aesthetic' carries a meaning of 'pleasing to the eye' (among other similar meanings). What word in your dialect would you use to mean that you "don't like the way it looks", or that it is "not pleasing to your eye"? Whatever that word is, that is the word I meant to use when I wrote that (Insert your dialect's word here for "it is not pleasing to your eye") is not a valid reason to delete these pages. Next (in my misunderstanding) is your beginning phrase, "If they're useful...". On researching what Wikisource is, I came across this sentence: "Originally conceived as an archive to store useful or important historical texts... it has expanded to become a general-content library" (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisource). In my dialect, the preceding quote describes a 'once existing thing', or 'state', that has now evolved into an 'other' thing, or 'state'. Are you of an 'Old Guard' who refuses to accept that Wikisource has "...expanded to become a general-content library" and, therefore, demands deletion of all submissions that are not "useful"? Or, am I dialectically deficient in not understanding that the phrase "...has expanded to become a general-content library" somehow actually means that it has not expanded, but rather that it remains as an exclusive archive solely for the storage of "...useful or important historical texts"? Then, you write that "...we can produce them by the ten thousands(sic) in the time it takes to produce one quality work". Please forbear my ignorance here, but who is "we", and what is the "them" that the "we" can produce by the tens of thousands? Why do you set out a mathematical equation, stating that the "time it takes to produce one quality work" is equal to the time that it takes "we" to produce "ten thousands" of "them"? User billinghurst wants to delete these three text sources because she doesn't like the way they look. There is no 'time' component in "...doesn't like the way they look". And, there is no Math problem to be solved in the phrase "...doesn't like the way they look". So, I'm confused (or maybe it's just my dialect) as to why my statement that "...'doesn't like the way they look' is not a valid reason to delete" would bring a response from you about time sequences and Math problems. Finally, I am reading these three texts (not all at the same time, of course). Your phrase, "...one work that someone might actually read" is moot now because I am 'someone', and I am reading these. If you are not reading these three texts, I question what business you have in this. These are electronic files, not paper from felled green-house-gas-fighting trees. Everyone would agree that what is posted now is the raw product of an OCR scan. Everyone would agree that the text needs to be proof-read for correctness and completeness. But what horse do you have in this race that makes you clamor for Deletion! rather than the usual method of improvement of the text? Second finally, I keep seeing the phrase, "delete and recreate from scans". What does that mean? Do you folks have the scans somewhere? Who is supposed to do this? Who has the scans? (forgot to sign) Joe Hepperle (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer the questions of the last line. The Internet Archive has the scans in various formats (see Help:Internet Archive for details on this). To make them available here, we upload them to Commons and then create an Index page for the file (see Index:Civil Service Competitions.djvu for my most recent one). Once the Index file has been created, then wikisourcerors can clean-up the OCR and make it available in the Mainspace. e.g. Civil Service Competitions. Because this process will use the archive.org OCR'd scans in the side-by-side format, it makes more sense to "delete and recreate from scans", rather than try to clean-up the copy/paste version of the same text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you Beeswaxcandle. It all looks daunting, but I'll get to work on this in the upcoming week - at least a start on it. If I understand you correctly, these three texts, as they exist now, should be deleted, and I would start new pages on these, done as you have done in the links you provided? Joe Hepperle (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't like being misquoted. My comment was not "because I don't like the way that they look." The purpose of this site is to put quality proofread works with a semblance of quality into some structured format. It is not the purpose of the site to dump ugly, scrappy text just because it is easy. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See wikt:aesthetic. The example sentence is even "It works well enough, but the shabby exterior offends his aesthetic sensibilities." I'm not familiar at all with any dialect of English that conflates "aesthetic" (looks pretty) with "high quality".--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Healing of the Nations[edit]

The work has been added as a copy and paste of a OCR'd scan from archive.org. 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)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Keep. Maybe I'm confused because I'm new to this. If you are saying that you are going to Improve these because You are going to recreate these from 'scans' that you have, then okay. But if this is just trick words to make this text source disappear from Wikisource, then Not Okay. I am reading these three texts! (not all at once of course). Help me understand here. Joe Hepperle (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The American Revolution (scriptural style)[edit]

Copy and paste of archive.org 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)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Keep. Maybe I'm confused because I'm new to this. If you are saying that you are going to Improve these because You are going to recreate these from 'scans' that you have, then okay. But if this is just trick words to make this text source disappear from Wikisource, then Not Okay. I am reading these three texts! (not all at once of course). Help me understand here. Joe Hepperle (talk) 07:42, 11 August 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 archive.org. 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)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Delete and recreate with scans. Although some half-dozen fixes were done to the text (in December last year) there's not enough to make it worth chopping-up and moving this text into the Page namespace. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Keep. Maybe I'm confused because I'm new to this. If you are saying that you are going to Improve these because You are going to recreate these from 'scans' that you have, then okay. But if this is just trick words to make this text source disappear from Wikisource, then Not Okay. I am reading these three texts! (not all at once of course). Help me understand here. Joe Hepperle (talk) 07:41, 11 August 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)

We allow transcriptions of audio and visual works, so I'm don't see why we couldn't consider transcriptions of written works to be in our WS:SCOPE. The only questions in my mind are (1) What legal limitations might keep these from being PD. Not the usual copyright issues, but there are restrictions on photographs of certain kinds of art/sculpture in some countries, and this sort of thing might run afoul of that. The folks on Commons address such issues all the time. (2) Should we require that such transcriptions contain either an accompanying photo or a citation of a published source to support the inscription? --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep an unusual work for us, however, it is loosely an historical document looking at how we describe the contents. It should be well-curated. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Decree Protocol-Number-20120457.pdf[edit]

No-license, and it was my understanding that Vatican works were subject to Italian copyright regulations, unless otherwise indicated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unlicencsed, unsourced, and recent work with no evidence that the work is out of copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Comp3-pre-0415.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a test fragment, as opposed to a complete work.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: is this one of your play things? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. Folks should really utilize What links here for files, indexes and such first.

Please keep it around until I can organize an effort to host the entire new Compendium III. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:ARyada 1prep SB T2 E 2014.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
No file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Declaration by the United Kingdom on 31 December 1982 on the definition of the term “nationals”.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy kept, undeleted at Commons, within scope — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted at Commons, Undeletion request made. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Should the work not be restored at Commons, is there any reason it can not be hosted here? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Files undeleted at Commons, licensed as {{OGL}} and {{PD-EdictGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Minutes of War Cabinet Meeting 1.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy kept, in scope — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No file.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted at Commons, Undeletion request made. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Should the work not be restored at Commons, is there any reason it can not be hosted here? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed at Commons. Pity people cannot check for appropriate licences. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Nemesis (Harland).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: withdrawn Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Not an exact duplicate of Index:Nemesis (1881, c1870).djvu but the latter recently uploaded does not appear to have missing pages..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify. We allow for versions, so I don't see an issue presented for deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It was my understanding that incomplete works weren't retained? If that isn't an issue, the former can be Djvu-patched and retained. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn, Different editions, so no deletion issue actually raised here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Calcutta, Past and Present.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Source file was deleted at commons over copyright concerns. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept published before 1923, file moved to English Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Vetëvendosje! political programm in english.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vetëvendosje! political programm in english.pdf ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, file was deleted, and published after 1923 without information about death of author. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Kaufmann Visayan-English Dictionary.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaufmann Visayan-English Dictionary.djvuShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept published before 1923, file moved to English Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:University of Saint Andrews five hundredth anniversary.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:University of Saint Andrews five hundredth anniversary.djvuShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept, published before 1923, file moved to English Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvuShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept, published before 1923, file moved to English Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:History of Hindu Mathematics, 1935.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:History of Hindu Mathematics, 1935.djvuShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, file was deleted, and published after 1923 without information about death of author. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Know your rights ACLU 2008 english.pdf[edit]

No file found matching this name. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete — File was deleted on Commons June 2013 as being without licence. No-one seems to have missed it in the interim. No objection to recreation in the future with suitable licencing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Assembly of kosovo trans s 2007 05 31 al.djvu[edit]

Non-english work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be transwikied before deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Celebration of the Five Hundredth Anniversary of Foundation, University of St. Andrews.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: 1911 work, now held locally under PD-1923 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Seemingly deleted at Commons, willing to withdraw if work is locally uploaded.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "seemingly deleted"? You are the editor who nominated it there for deletion, with the comment that it is PD-US. You were quite able to upload it locally before requesting its deletion. Instead you have created extra work by going about it backwards.

Undelete on Commons, transfer to local, redelete on Commons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Celebration_of_the_Five_Hundredth_Anniversary_of_Foundation.2C_University_of_St._Andrews.djvu filed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: All authors born before 1880, if an end date is required for "do not move to Commons", then 1880+110+70=2060 (and not before 2035 at earliest) aka someone else's problem — billinghurst sDrewth

Index:Ukpga 19570060 en.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, File restored at Commons
Missing file, Rename at Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored , So withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:AnnexB Members of the Commonwealth.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: File restored at Commons
Missing file, Deleted at Commons? Will withdraw if restored or uploaded locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored, so withdrawn.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Iraqdossier.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: File restored at Commons
Missing file, Deleted at Commons? Will withdraw if restored or uploaded locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored, so withdrawn.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Moscow conference 1943.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure,File restored at Commons
Missing file, Deleted at Commons? Will withdraw if restored or uploaded locally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Restored, so withdrawn.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full.pdf[edit]

Underlying file seemingly deleted per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lawrence Kansas Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board Agenda Jan 2014 Full.pdfShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete as not PD. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.djvu[edit]

Translator still alive in 1972, Underlying file seemingly deleted at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.djvu, Poentialy OK as a local upload as it's a 1915 work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Einstein First Paper.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: local file deleted, not at Commons — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Underlying file seemingly deleted as being Out of scope? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any history of such a file existing on Commons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae Volume 3.djvu[edit]

(And pages)

This set of scans is clearly incomplete, I counted 5 "missing" scans within a run of about 30 pages. It's a waste of time to check the whole file given that level of damage. Delete, until a "known" clean version can be located. (Missing scan pages seems to be an issue I've encountered a LOT with Google derived scans, making me wonder if they should be trusted as generally suspect in the absence of actual checks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable replacement file available at IA. Therefore, Keep and replace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Principia Ethica.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy deleted; redundant/inferior to the other existing transcription - plus there was absolutely nothing left to "save" in the Page: ns for this Index: & File: to boot. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
(and associated index)

Apart from being a 1959 reprint (which may still be copyright) this is a duplicate to File:Principia Ethica 1922.djvu which is confirmably pre 1923. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:String Figures and How to Make Them.djvu[edit]

This may be a 1906 edition, but the issue here is that the cover may not be from the original edition, placing it here because I'd like a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no copyright notice for a book from the 1960s published in the US, so it's out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn, provided the Commons license is updated :) Good that I asked here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I note Dover are a "reprint" house anyway, so (inserts GLAM wishlist project idea here)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That Dover is a "reprint" house is irrelevant; they do reprints of public domain works, they do reprints of in copyright work, they do original anthologies of PD material, they do original translations of PD material, and they do some completely original works. Back in the day, they also did a number of works that were restored to copyright by the URAA (including some that are now in copyright basically worldwide.) That a huge percentage of their works are photographic reprints of works does not mean that their name is a copyright pass.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Freud_-_Studies_on_hysteria.djvu[edit]

Concern here is the new material at the start of the work, the original work is clearly PD.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be PD to me; it includes work from the German edition of 1925 by Freud, which the URAA returned to copyright, as Freud's work were in copyright in Germany at the time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Siouan Sociology.djvu[edit]

Secondary sourced, wrong license at Commons (it's under the Project Gutenberg license included in the scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The West Australian, 1949-03-26.djvu[edit]

This is dated 1949 so IS PD-Australia.

The concern is that it's not necessarily PD-US. (1996-50) = 1946. This work is dated 1949. Possibly no notice, but would appreciate a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're correct on PD-Australia, as I don't know the precise rules about anonymity. The URAA is a cure-all for all things like no notice, so if it wasn't PD-Australia in 1996, then it's in copyright in the US now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Life Story of a Viennese Whore, as Told by Herself.pdf[edit]

Source is seemingly unnown, but it's pre 1923 so I wanted a second opinion on this, seems to be secondary source (i.e someones transcription to PDF.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a scan of an old work, so there's no way to tell its originality without checking against an older source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Withdrawn,
And related.

I am having a very hard time considering the scan quality on these to be viable, but would like a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with this is. It's US-no notice or US-no renewal, but except for the watermarks, it's not a bad scan, at least from a glance at the start.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Try looking a little further in. For me the scans are not readable.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The bibliography is perfectly readable. Try giving a page number.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn, It must be a pecularity of my browser :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Withdraen but seriously, can you read this? Page:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf/226

Index:The golden bough; a study in magic and religion (1922).djvu[edit]

This is not a 1922 edition as the title would suggest, it's in fact a 1925 Abriged version, which means it's not necessarily PD-US-1923, The author died in 1941. (so it is PD-Old-70 outside the US). The internal Copyright note is 1922 (with a note about the 1925 reprint), so I am asking here for a second opinion. Going to pagelist check this in any event. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu[edit]

Per a recent Scriptorium thread, it was found that 'new material' in this book might not be free, as the edition is post 1923, (although the original text of Pilgrims Progress itself clearly is public domain.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:British Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fresh-water Fishes.djvu[edit]

(and related pages/file) Can't find a confirmed date of death for the illustrator. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.rarelist.co.uk/book-show.php?book=60570 seems to suggest they were still being published in 1949.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
http://www.millsarchivetrust.org/index.php/profiles/harry_meyer/ says the Doris concerned died in 1983, so the illustrations are NOT out of copyright outside the US ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
After doing a lot of searching it turns out the British illustrator of this work was still alive past 1943. (Confirmed in a note here: http://www.millsarchivetrust.org/index.php/profiles/harry_meyer/ they died in 1983) . So whilst the text is out of UK copyright, the illustrations are not. The license at Commons is seemingly incorrect therefore. The book is a 1920 London publication.13:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggest Localisation of file.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963) Malay Texts.djvu[edit]

Not English.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:A605352600puseuoft.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Redirects cleaned as requested.
(And remaining page namespace redirects)

Work was retitled. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Selkirkmountains00whee.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Redirects cleaned as requested.
(and remaining page namespace redirects). Work was re-titled.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The ancient interpretation of Leviticus XVIII. 18 - Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is lawful.djvu.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Redirects cleaned as requested.
Typo in creation process (would if not indexspace be a speedy delete)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:A623078500mccauoft.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Redirects cleaned as requested.
(and remaining namespace reidrects)- File was moved at commons, and retitled localy.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Againstprofanede00kebl.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non admin closure, Redirects cleaned as requested.
(and associated Page namespace redirects)

Retitled at Commons, Local pages were re-aligned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)