Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:DEL)
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).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.


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

Project disclaimers[edit]

These seem to me legalese bollocks. Personally, they are embarrassing to the point of cringe.

I assume WMF legal counsel haven't recommended them? Someone made one because it seemed like a jolly good idea, and the trend caught on?

Every page served by Wikisource already has a footer with the text "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use", and the linked page says all the important stuff such as "the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice".

Hesperian 10:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have started with this, which might just possibly have some legitimacy, and then taken on a life of its own. Hesperian 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I just discovered w:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I would argue that it is just as relevant here as there. Hesperian 10:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I added the disclaimers in imitation of EB1911. Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Project Disclaimer needs a note I think, since it has the special problem that biographies on non-existent people were submitted. Maybe it should be called a "special note" or something like that instead of a "disclaimer". The authoritative tone of the encyclopedia articles perhaps make them specially vulnerable to misinterpretation I think, and perhaps some sort of "extra note" is warranted to highlight special problem areas? Wikipedia is different than Wikisource where there is no venue except the extra notes for an editor to challenge outrageous material. Library Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be a solution, to create a simple one-size-fits-all notice for all the encyclopedias that might require such a note, as a template which can be simply inserted into the notes parameter of the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One size I think certainly fits a lot, but, for example, Appletons' is just biographies, and it has a special need for a note, but there are a lot of things that are flagged for EB1911 which don't at all apply. I imagine American Medical Biographies needs similar qualifications, at least for the EB1911 things which don't apply. But as for the rest, I can't remember any special reason for one to be differentiated from another. I should double check. Nuttall and Catholic Encyclopedia haven't been provided with these notices, and just in the interests of balance, if they are to be kept for the list above, those two should probably get something as well. Library Guy (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I have gone back and done a review. The EB1911 does make me cringe when it issues orders on how people should use the information. I think other disclaimers telling people to bear biases in mind when using the information seem more reasonable. When a trademark is still in use, I think it is good to warn people not to use it unless explicitly qualified by the date or edition; I notice The World Factbook does something similar for the CIA seal. I think warning on lapses from neutrality and bias are well taken so people know to shift gears from reading things on Wikipedia - in Wikipedia you can slap an applicable banner - in a Wikisource encyclopedia you just have to watch out, and I think the "disclaimer" is good to warn people to do that. I notice in The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Project Disclaimer there is an explicit note I put in on problems I have with the OCR which I think is worth keeping. So on balance I think I would rewrite the EB1911 disclaimer to be more in line with the tone of the others, but I do think "Trademark usage" is a good header. I don't think we need to refer people to Wikimedia Foundation, and the non-Britannica treatment will work in the Britannicas as well. Probably a little more uniformity is called for, but I think a one-size-fits-all is not a solution. I think I originally left the EB1911 (and other Britannicas') disclaimer mostly alone because I figured some Wikimedia legal counsel had written it, which may be the case. But now years later it does sound bizarre, and I think it can and should be changed, but I think the disclaimers (or maybe there's a better name?) in general should be retained for the encyclopedias. Library Guy (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: @Billinghurst: @Beleg Tâl: So I have revised 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer to make it comparable to the others. Better? Library Guy (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I think you're shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. I think that the disclaimer in the terms of use suffices for all these cases, and that these project disclaimers should all be deleted. For project-specific notes such as giving people a heads-up on fictitious entries, we have the notes section of the header. Hesperian 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The disclaimer, if that is truly what it is, is more a universal statement about our work here, and there is nothing specific for one project or another. As a statement of fact it has value in that it may carry the message of "don't modernise the text, it is what it is at the time of the original publication". Maybe this belongs as an essay in the Help section of the site as a collective document, we can also put a specific note on Portal: and Category: pages that address collective works. True that it is less overt.
<face palm> We have Wikisource:General disclaimer that sits there and is linked from every page. That is sufficient, if it needs updating then let us have that conversation in WS:S or on Wikisource talk:General disclaimer. How does an additional link per work bring any improvement> It doesn't. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It does sit there and is linked to every page like you say, but its label is in very tiny print and at the bottom of the page. The labels for the special disclaimers are very "in your face." They should probably link to the general disclaimer after they have had their say, and not repeat things that are in the general disclaimer. The encyclopedia material, especially for EB1911, is linked into many Wikipedia pages. I doubt most people who follow the links are going to be scrolling to the bottom of the page and reading the fine print. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: @Billinghurst: Perhaps the material could be incorporated in Notes on reading the Encyclopædia? Library Guy (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Library Guy: In a general sense the words that you have in the Notes apply to every work at enWS, and I would prefer that we redesign the words and add to the "General disclaimer". I would suggest we merge them into the GD and remove that section too. Either way, the "Notes" don't belong in the main namespace as they are not part of the work, and should be moved to the project, and if retained, linked from the notes section of the main page of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Many people do not see the main page of the encyclopedia. They see the article they link to, and I don't imagine they always scroll to the bottom and look at the fine print there. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone reading a 100 year old enyclopaedia be aware of what they are reading and that things have changed from back then and that new discoveries have been made etc. It's common sense in my opinion and a diclaimer shouldn't be necessary for this. I say just leave the general disclaimer as is and delete all disclaimers above. Jpez (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jpez: Read some of the disclaimers. I don't think all the things are immediately obvious. You have mentioned just one aspect. If you thought further, you might come up with more. But still I bet you would miss some things. A lot of work has gone into the wording, and they have been tailored for different works. The Wikisource general disclaimer is meant to cover all works, old and modern. Certainly these specialized disclaimers could link to the general disclaimer. It might bring more attention to it. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If the need is to delete these disclaimers, can they be moved to a sandbox subdirectory on my home page so I can refer to the text as necessary to put the material in notes or the general disclaimer as necessary? Library Guy (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Library Guy:. To address your concerns, how about a measured approach. We move the project specific disclaimers to the WikiProject space, and ensure that we have either a specific project page for each work OR a collective page for those projects that do not have their own. We put a link from the parent (root) page for each work to its specific disclaimer, though remove them from the general headers, and subpages. This enables specific information that can be set for a project, reference the general disclaimer, and takes it out of the main ns, and clearly has it sitting as our comment, not of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you. Moving the disclaimers to WikiProject space is reasonable. It would be good to have at least a stub project page for each work. They all need to have custom projects devoted to them eventually. I think the disclaimer link should be retained in the article headers. The link has always been clearly in the notes, and many articles are accessed through links from Wikipedia rather than through their respective root pages. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Notes on reading the Encyclopædia can be linked into the disclaimer as well, integrated with it, and moved to the project namespace. I think EB1911 is the only one that has such a thing. I added a link to its page to the list at the head of this discussion. Library Guy (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Hesperian's nomination is indication that addition on every page discredits the whole concept of needing to justify a specific disclaimer, and I can see that point of view. That said, if we think in terms of works and projects, then maybe there is again an ability to explore something like mw:Help:Page status indicators. There is a similar concept in place in categories, eg. the help icon Category:Authors-Ro. Maybe for each of these large compilation works we can have a help type icon that takes you to the project and explanatory means. It keeps the main namespace interface clean, it can be a standardised approach, and allows the projects to manage their components. It is something to consider, and it helps us having to have repetitive noise of disclaimers in every page of a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding linking from every article, Billinghurst represents my position correctly: linking to a disclaimer from every page will only leave me feeling that the problem has not been solved or even much mitigated. The remaining issue is with the word "disclaimer". If every article linked to "project notes", and those project notes lived in project space, and were largely useful material, but just happened to contain a certain amount of material that I continue to regard as pointless disclaimers, then I would say that matters had been improved enough. Hesperian 04:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see changing the name to something like "reader advisory." Having worked quite a bit on various encyclopedia articles, I really find the tone and claims of some objectionable, and the "advisory" or whatever will help mitigate my discomfort. That being said, I also find a lot of valuable information in them, sometimes information that is useful today and forgotten. I'm all for keeping the main namespace clean. This is not an issue that I had been aware of. Since many of the encyclopedias don't have a project space yet, perhaps another way of handling the advisory text would be to handle it like the templates, e.g. Wikisource:Americana reader advisory; this would get it out of the main namespace. Another problem the encyclopedias frequently have is that indexes and volume lists are in the main namespace when this material is not part of the original text of any of the volumes. An interesting approach has been proposed for EB9 which utilizes the index volume material to index the articles. Library Guy (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Some really poor quality scans[edit]

These are all terrible quality Google Books from back in the day when their digitizing workflow not only yielded awful scans but stripped out images, leaving big "holes" in the work where images should be e.g. Page:The Practical Book of Oriental Rugs - Lewis - 1911.djvu/128. Thus any transcription project based on these scans cannot be completed. It's fine to host stuff like this if someone is passionate about the work and is actively transcribing it despite, and in full knowledge of, the flaws in the scan. But there doesn't appear to be any action on these. Some of them haven't been touched except for me flagging bad image scans. In my view, we improve Wikisource by discarding them. Hesperian 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The work on oriental rugs should be replaced with the version here, or the images can be added from it. I have added the image on the faulty page cited above and the previous page. Hrishikes (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I would think that we could upload a replacement file, and move any pages that have been proofread. Matter of getting a better quality file in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
For the work on Malta, the images can be added from here. I have added one image here, from which the quality can be assessed. Hrishikes (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Do you have access to the whole scan of The History of the Knights of Malta where you got the image from? I myself have no access to it. If so we can add the better version and delete the existing one altogether. Jpez (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jpez:, Sure, I have access. That's why I could add the image. Without replacing the scan, I can add the images, if you plan to proofread the work. Hrishikes (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: To be honest I don't plan to work on it any time soon so I'd be wasting your time, I've found a condensed version from the same author which I plan to work on instead. Thanks. Jpez (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Overarching comment, we should replace what we can with better quality scans; where there is significant transcription done, then we can move the pages if a suitable scan exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on Index:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor.djvu a little, and intend to work on it more as time allows. I don't understand the motivation for deleting, it already contains text data that doesn't exist anywhere else on the Internet. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So long as you're invested in the work enough to follow it through despite bad image scans such as Page:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor.djvu/21, then just strike it from the list above. Hesperian 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Added multivolume-in-one index, with images: Index:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor (1908 - 1914).djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Great -- thank you @Hrishikes:. I've started migrating the content over, fine to delete the original scan once the existing transcriptions are moved. -Pete (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For the secret service work, the images can be added from any of the two HathiTrust versions here. From this site, without partner log in, pages need to be extracted one-by-one, so getting the whole book is time-consuming. But the image pages can be extracted and the images added to the page ns of the work here. Hrishikes (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the file. Pages 256-257 of the book were missing, and have been added. Fresh pagelisting required. @ShakespeareFan00: Hrishikes (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that hard to download a book from them as a collection of images; just take a page;seq=7;width=1190, up the width so you make sure you're getting all the detail, say to 3000 and replace the seq value with a variable and get all the pages; i.e. on Unix: for i in `seq 1 36`; do wget -O $i.png ";seq=$i;width=3000"; done. (The value 36 is the number of the last page in the internal system.) It will make JPEGs with a .png extension, so if that will gum up whatever you're processing them with or you're uploading the images straight to Commons, you'll have find the problem files (e.g. with file) and rename them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can u pse give a Windows-specific instruction? Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Download Cygwin and install Wget on it. Do the above. Someone with more Windows knowledge could probably tell you to download wget and run some similar pattern in Windows Command Line, but I don't know Windows in that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The DownThemAll addon that User:Jpez shared at the Scriptorium might also be a good option for this kind of task? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only thumbnails can be downloaded with this tool, because they show up together on the screen. Bigger images have to be opened separately, so cannot be downloaded together with this tool, as far as I could see. Hrishikes (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added plenty of books from there myself. Go to the last page of the book, right click it and pick "copy image location". Open downthemall and add a new download. Copy the link there. In the link you pasted change the width (I've found 2000 is good enough) as mentioned above, width=2000, and change seq= to seq=[first page number:last page number] exactly as is with the square brackets. For example seq=[1:200] if the last page is 200. Start the download and downthemall will download all the pages in image format. Then they may need some cleaning up and they'll need ocr. Jpez (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Has Index:Chicago manual of style 1911.djvu been improved? There are a couple of copies on The print is alright so I presume it is the image quality that is the issue? Would like to work on this. Is it alright to get images from another, identical copy or is that cheating? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no real attachment to Index:International Library of Technology, Volume 53.djvu, as you say, it's a particularly nasty Google scan. I can't recall why that particular volume seemed like the one to make an index for. Sadly, I still can't find a better version, though it looks like the publisher recycled a lot of content for A textbook on architecture and building construction (digitised by in 2016) - the first section looks the same, then it diverges a bit. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: That is a copy from the University of Michigan. The copy from the University of California is available here. Hrishikes (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Great! I didn't think to check HathiTrust. That's actually Vol. 53B, but they have Vol. 53 too (from Wisconsin). Interestingly when you search for "International library of technology 53B", the UC volume doesn't come up at all! Even when searching "Geometrial drawing projection" (using the topic list, which is how 53 is catalogued there), I don't see it. Out of interest, what search terms did you use to find 53B?
The annoying thing now is that the UoW copy is 3 several pages offset forwards relative to the Commons file (e.g UoW title page is p.9, at Commons it's p. 6), which means a straight replace wont work, even with padding the new file, so I guess a bot needs to move everything 3 pages up if the file is replaced?
One last dumb question: how to get a book from HathiTrust to IA for Djvu conversion and readiness for ia-upload to do its thing? The BUB tool seems to be stalled since September. I feel like I may have had scraper scripts once upon a time, but times have been a-changing since then! I see that's still the way, looking higher up this thread. BUB would be nice though! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I found it by searching for International Library of Technology. Additional parameters don't work. It can be downloaded with DownThemAll of Firefox (page rename parameters to be applied) or with the Hathi Download Helper (freeware, but slow; no remame required). Then djvu with ocr can be created offline, which is my preferred method. Or, the work can be converted to pdf and uploaded to IA. Djvu will be created at the time of shifting to Commons. If it is offset by three pages, three blanks can be removed while creating djvu offline. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu[edit]

This work is confused in its location at enWS. To me it looks as it is a dual language text, and probably belongs at mulWS. It is no ta work that looks as though it should be jointly hosted at enWS and elWS, the mix of pages simpy doesn't work.. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify? What is "It is no ta work" mean? -- Outlier59 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"No ta"≡"Not a". AuFCL (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Outlier59 (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
An annotated text should probably go to the base language, in this case elWS. Sticking it at mulWS would hide the fact that there is a transcribed New Testament from elWS. This is a cross-wiki issue, so should probably be discussed with more than one Wiki, but I'd be happy to host an English book with (say) French notes here.
BTW, the Ancient Greek Wikisource proposal passed; is that just dead and the Ancient Greek material going to elWS, or should Ancient Greek works be added to mulWS anyway?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: The base language is grc, not el. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but el.Wikisource asserts that it is the proper home for grc material, like we hold ang files and deWS holds goh (Old High German) files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a discussion at el:Βικιθήκη:Γραμματεία#en:Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion on one wiki, I post my answer here, and not in elWS. ElWS has this index (el:Βιβλίο:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu) since 2008, mostly untranscribed. Looking at a sample of pages, I fail to see why it can’t be hosted in both elWS and enWS. The introduction is in english and certainly shouldn’t be transcribed in elWS. So if the greek part is transcribed in elWS (where we host ancient greek, koine greek and modern greek texts), the english introduction will stay untranscribed if no other WS accepts it, and it seems to me weird an english text to be hosted in mulWS. I am not accustomed to the standard enWS practice, but for example, in elWS, an edition of Plato’s works where the text is in greek and the introduction in latin (a common practice for 19th century or earlier editions) will be transcribed both in elWS and laWS. (el:Βιβλίο:Platonis opera, ed. Burnet, tomus I.djvu & la:Liber:Platonis opera, ed. Burnet, tomus I.djvu and el:Απολογία Σωκράτους (Πλάτων) with preface hosted in laWS la:Praefatio (Platonis Opera, Tomus I).—Ah3kal (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @EncycloPetey: @Prosfilaes: Hosting a work cross-wiki in this fashion isn't unusual here on enWS (examples from my own contributions: 1, 2, 3), and it sounds like it's normal practice on other wikisources as well. Does this deletion proposal suggest that a) this is not an appropriate approach in general, or does it suggest rather that b) Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu is unusually unsuited for this kind of approach? If the former, I agree with Ah3kal; I also fail to see why cross-wiki hosting is a problem. If the latter, I would like to hear further discussion regarding where the line is drawn, and why this work is not appropriate for cross-wiki hosting. I will note that the English introduction is substantial, and much longer and more valuable than many articles hosted uncontroversially on enWS. To sum up: unless I hear more convincing arguments to the contrary, I think that this text should continue to be hosted primarily on elWS, but with the introduction (and any other English sections if they exist) on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the practice of cross-wiki hosting; it certainly seems better than moving it to mulWS. I'm not a fan of the Plato examples; I'd rather short introductions even in one language stay on the main language. E.g. a English text with a couple pages of French introduction and some glossary and short notes for French students should stay wholly on the English WS, with possibly a cross link from the French WS. In this case, there's enough English text to make it worth keeping here, and also the desires of the editors working on the volume to handle it cross-wiki. (As for the Plato examples, I work on neither the Latin nor Greek WSes, so my opinion there is irrelevant.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion except to say that our current methods for handling such works is a confusing mess and could be improved with clear choices and clearer guidelines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


Although this is at WS:PD, it's effectively a merge request.

This template currently calls {{table style/parse}}. There is nothing inherently wrong in this, but in doing some digging I found that independently someone had developed {{p}} which calls its own equivalent parse template, except for some very specific circumstances does the same thing as what this template was nominally intended for.

Therefore I am considering this template to in effect be a duplication, unless there are specifc uses that would require the direct use of a <div>...</div> combination over a conventional wiki paragraph.

I hope you don't mind me starting disscusions like this, but a reduction in complexity can only be a good thing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also the redirect which {{Ssc}} is.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
These look like duplicates to me, so I'm inclined to vote delete. Do you know if there is any reason for their existence as separate templates from {{ts}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably to differentiate their function, {{p}} handles paragphs vs table cells,and {{tf}} was obviously div based. {{ssc}} calls the table style parse thingy directly, and as I recall was shorthand for style-short-code. It would in the interests of reducing complexity to have ONE core version of the /parse portion aliased if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering that {{ts}} is just a generic style tag, it should work on any element provided that the CSS rules are applicable to that element. Maybe we could move {{table style}} to just {{style}} and then there won't be a need to add a new template for every type of element? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You'd need to merge/harmonise the various sets of format codes, I am not sure that {{p}} and {{ts}} use the same set of codes, but in principle I don't see why having a common core {{style/parse}} would be opposed. Or even something in Lua drawing on a "protected" page with code,expansion pairs, so that adding codes doesn't involve changing the whole template every time. (IIRC at present {{table style/parse}} is a big switch function...
Aside - {{P}} IIRC does some additional wrapping to creates a new <p> tag which I am not entirely happy with given the rows I've had with mediawiki about how it crunch-mangles content with mismatched tags on transcluion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not certain that all elements would work in <span> so making it too generic will not work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Author-based poem categories[edit]

The following author-based categories are of the sort that are usually deleted by consensus:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Categories that are <form> by <author> should not exist. These are two separate category trees on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two more in case of deletion: Category:Poems by Catullus + Category:Poems by John Donne.— Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree to remove, noting that they will need to be replaced with something like Category:Russian poetry]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
They are subcats of Category:Russian poetry, but yeah the pages in the categories will have to be moved there before the subcats are deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, there is Category:John Boyle O'Reilly poems‎ as well. Maybe we should get rid of Category:Poems by author entirely? The only item in that category that is worth categorizing as such is Category:Poems written by children. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Poems written by children can exist without being a subcat of Category:Poems by author, which is a misleading supercat anyway, since "children" is a type of author, not a particular author. BD2412 T 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is it desirable to have a "Poems written by children" cat? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, but I think the point being made is that it does not run afoul of the particular issue under consideration in this thread, as that category name is not constructed in the same pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I found some more such categories.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat:Executive orders and also Proclamations I'm divided in opinion. These are effectively subcategories divided by governmental administrations. They could just as easily be said to be divided by years, and although they could be renamed that way, it is usually much more useful to have then identified by which US president headed that administration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you, even though they fit the same pattern. Do you think Presidential memoranda, determinations, radio addresses, notices, and possibly speeches should be kept for the same reason? If not, why? I'm not American and I'm not really familiar with US Presidential official writings. Also keeping in mind that if such American presidential categories are okay, then so are similar categories for presidents, monarchs, and other officials in any country whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not the ruler that's the organizing principle here, but the administration, and a government is not always tied to a particular monarch. In the UK, older documents might indeed be organized by monarch, but only where there is a fixed and established set of official forms of documents to organize under such. But in modern UK, for example, it would not be suitable to have categories for George V, or Elizabeth II, as they are not the head of the UK government. Rather, UK administration is tied to the prime minister. So if we were to extend this principle, it would make more sense to organize by Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, etc. However, I'm not certain whether the PM of the UK issues executive decisions in the same way that a US president does, and certainly did not do so if you go back far enough.
I am not certain that radio addresses should be kept, even for US presidents, as they do not hold the weight found in executive orders or determinations. Those latter are both instruments of executive power, which a radio address is not. This issue is probably one that will need some discussion, some consensus, and a written guideline that we can then point to in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I only created the categories because there was no place to put them and other U.S. Presidents have some of the same categories. As for the U. K., I'd say it would be under the Prime Minister once they were head of the government. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Principles of Political Economy[edit]

This page has an inadequate amount of content to be kept.Mr. Guye 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was just started, and it's actively growing. So there's no reason to delete at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Scan of 2nd ed: Hrishikes (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely be working to a scan for such a renowned work. Little value in bringing in a text only, we may as well just link to one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The author page has links to scans for the 2nd edition and for the 1st US edition, but not for the original UK edition. If someone does locate a scan, we can do a match-and-split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should not do a match and split for such works. It has long been discussed and proposed that without edition data that match and split is problematic, and the community at those earlier times had a tacit agreement to abide by that point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861)[edit]

Not actually versions or translations of The Flowers of Evil, but rather just a list of what poems were contained in each original French edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The lists could be merged and moved to a subpage of Author:Charles Baudelaire since they are lists of individual poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, or to a section of the author page itself Author:Charles BaudelaireBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too long to place on the Author page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia- The Missing Manual[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia- The Missing Manual has sat here for a very long time, it consists of merely a table of contents of nothing but redlinks. There is no content here to host, nor any indication that anyone will ever complete the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The full work is here: w:Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Scan is here: The scan has copyright notice of 2008. As per the WP article w:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, it was released under free license in 2009. The TOC here is a copy of the TOC at w:Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, from where the work is downloadable as pdf. Hrishikes (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This work also falls under the discussion at WS:CV#Deletion of all GFDL-only worksBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So if Wikipedia already offers this publication as a book, then are we going to host it here as well, or not? If no one is going to work on this, then it should be deleted here. As I say, it's sat unedited as a redlink table of contents for years now. If someone wanted to upload a pdf to Commons and transcribe it, they could do so. But the current version is just a graveyard of dead links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This work is in scope aside from the unresolved question of GFDL-only works, but I agree with User:EncycloPetey that deleting now and possibly re-adding later is the best plan here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The WP version is an editable one, that means, Broughton's original has been improved upon by other WP editors. Readers can get this updated version from WP, so we need not bother with it here. The TOC here is of the WP version; we don't need it. But we can present to the readers the unadulterated first edition, so I have added the scan. Hrishikes (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the incomplete work, though will state that we would host the original public version if scan supported, or complete. We would not host an actively edited version per WS:WWI. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jusjih (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


File was moved from Commons, but basically issues from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf need to be solved. Either the unfree images mentioned cut from the PDF and new version reuploaded while old revdeleted, or as per Wikisource:Copyright policy#Fair use it should go away. --Base (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The scan of the work is the scan as has been released and is the copy of the text. I would Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for the file, and the reproduced text. The issue of any claimed images is related to the discussion on WS:S about the proposed change on exemptions to copyright where they are part of a reproduced work, so images for me are undetermined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


Non-commercial restriction makes it incompatible with Wikisource's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Prosody (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be applicable to us anyway; it's not the type of thing that would be relevant in a case in a US court. Definitely delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The work to which it is attached also needs a check. Not sufficient information at the moment for any sort of judgement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the noncommercial clause was added to DPRK law in 2006, after the 1996 URAA cutoff, so Aegukka (1945) should still be hostable as {{PD-1996}}. It appears to still be under copyright in source country. See relevant discussions: w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status of Aegukka, w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status updated, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Converted MIDI).ogg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the noncommercial clause is relevant. It doesn't affect whether or not the work is copyrighted, so it would have no effect in US law.
Also, the URAA date for North Korea would be in 2003, because that's when North Korea first signed the Berne Convention, the first copyright treaty they had with the US. 1996 is only for countries that had signed the Berne Convention or the WTO at that point. Afghanistan, for example, has a URAA date in 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I think I see what you're getting at. If the work was PD in the PDRK in 2003 (URAA date) then it's PD in the US currently. If the work was copyrighted but permission given to use and distribute the work for any purpose, then in 2006 that permission was restricted to noncommercial use only—then the work is copyrighted in the USA, and if we are bound to follow what is essentially a relicensing in 2006, then the work needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)