Wikisource:Proposed deletions

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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

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



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)
  • The book itself is historically significant, so it is something we should have. BD2412 T 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    What is known about translations? While the work is of an age to be kept, the translation has no provenance. Do we know if it was translated early enough? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Another concern has arisen see w:Josephine Mutzenbacher which is the Wikipedia article on the work, namely that according to the Wikipedia article it contains highly controversial themes which mean the book may be considered illegal in the US or UK under obscenity laws. Perhaps this is one to ask WMF legal about? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is very rare for a purely textual narrative work to run afoul of obscenity laws in this century. In any case, literary and historical value are both defenses against obscenity. BD2412 T 16:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no strong argument presented for the deletion of the work for being contrary to WS:WWI. I am indicating that I will close this as kept. We would still do well to seek a scan as that becomes more definitive. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the obscenity charges, but there's no concrete evidence of a pre-1923 translation and Carl Lindberg, at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-05#File:The_Life_Story_of_a_Viennese_Whore.2C_as_Told_by_Herself.pdf, has been unable to trace the provenance of it. This could very well be a modern Internet translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete According to this article, it looks like the first English translation was published anonymously in New York in 1931. Another English translation, again from the USA, was made in 1967 by Hilary E. Holt under the pseudonym Rudolf Schleifer. I'm not sure which one this is, but both translations would be under copyright anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1931 translation is out of copyright as far as I can tell. It probably wasn't filed for copyright (probably couldn't be filed for copyright) and I find no renewal in the renewal databases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I should have read further in that article; it has an excerpt of the two translations. The Holt translation is nothing like the one we have. The 1931 edition is also not entirely the same as the one we have. There is a 1970 "translation" by Paul J. Gillette which is a paraphrase of a previous translation so my guess is that this is the one we have. There's a scan of the 1931 translation here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That appears to be merely an excerpt, it's only 32 pages.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;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 $i.png "https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;seq=$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 archive.org. 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 archive.org 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)

Template:Tf[edit]

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)

Category:Kalevala (Crawford)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted with clear consensus, and help page updated accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category for the chapters of a specific translation of a particular saga. There is no purpose served in having such categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Actually it's a typical use of categories - to gather all pages of one kind together. Also it helps to remove them from Special:UncategorizedPages (are you even care about maintenance??). And there are no prohibition in Help:Categorization. --Infovarius (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's against established consensus though; the pages are accessible via Special:PrefixIndex. I will happily edit Help:Categorization to explicitly prohibit it if necessary. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I think it would be good if you (or anybody else) make such addition to WS rules. The point is that User:Infovarius, who did that categorizing, has come from the Russian WS (the same as me — I've come from Ru-WS as well), where such categorizing is applied and considered reasonable; so he just did here the same to which he had been accustomed in the Ru-WS. Thus, such clarification would be helpful for new-comers from the Russian WS (and other Wikisources where such categorizing is applied as well). And if you really add this, then I also propose to add a point about another categorization ban — as far as I know, in the En-WS making categories for works of particular author is banned as well, meanwhile it is (as for previous case) applied in the Ru-WS. And if you ultimately insert to rules those additions about those two bans (ban on categories for subpages of works, and ban on categories for collecting works of particular author), then it would be helpful for users from other Wikisources to get knowledge about categorizing cases which here, in the En-WS, are considered wrong though in their WSes those cases are considered correct. --Nigmont (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nigmont: Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the addition. Now I understand that English Wikisource is against such categories (and don't care about uncategorized pages and so on). P.S. German Wikisource uses such categories too: de:Kategorie:Kalewala, das National-Epos der Finnen. --Infovarius (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the main page has a table of contents, then there is no need for the category. All the pages of a single work should be available through that work's primary page in the Main namespace. If they're not available that way, then a Table of Contents should be added. The Help page lists four types of categories we use, and "chapters from a work" is not one of them. Just because a thing is not specifically prohibitted doesn't make it a good idea—categorizing for categorizing's sake is not beneficial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as nominator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Jpez (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, the category itself was deleted, but all the links to it are still there on all the pages from the work. Those links will also need to be removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

More Canadian politicians[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
More Canadian politicians whose works are copyrighted.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to delete them, but should we also clear Category:Author-PD-none?--Jusjih (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Not automatically, no. Some of them were deliberately kept after a discussion on this page, with the rationale that they are sufficiently important that they are likely to be recreated if deleted (e.g. Che Guevara). Some of them actually have hosted works as well, such as Justin Trudeau whose works are generally copyrighted, but who also issued a couple of joint statements with Donald Trump that are freely licensed or PD in the USA. I agree that there are probably a good number of authors in that category that could go, however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, different editions —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to retain this poor scan version when the 1855 edition

Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2 - 1855.djvu is already present on wikisource in better quality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are the two identical? Is the scan so poor as to be unusable? If the edition is different, and the scan is usable, I see no reason to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Different editions. The subject titled is 6th (1882) and the 1855 is fifth ed. The 6th has a note about revision +++ so it seems to be a keep, though a better scan would be worthwhile. Probably also worth adding note about other editions if we wish contributor efforts. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Three letters from the President[edit]

Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States Regarding the notice about Belarus[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kiraroshi1976: these appear to be in scope, why are you proposing their deletion? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: They were merged into the notices because they might not ever be published in the Federal Register. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. Trump sends a letter to Congress, which is in scope, but we should delete it because the letter is part of a notice that may or may not be published in a journal in the future? I am very unfamiliar with the American political system, but I don't understand how this is any rationale for a deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Letters from the President to Congress are government documents in the public domain. We are free to do with them what we want. BD2412 T 03:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Letter from the President to the President of the Senate[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand the reasoning given for their deletions, and would like that explained better. That said, they definitely need to be moved and the titles deleted, they are far too generic for our use. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Selections from the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Buḫārī[edit]

This work is in Arabic, except for the front matter and endnotes. If arWS doesn't want it, it should be deleted as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As a mixed language work, it may be something that sits at mulWS. @Zyephyrus:? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: can this be imported to there? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Try oldwikisource:Special:Import. I just imported a few, with more to be done.--Jusjih (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have exported Index:Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari (1906).djvu and all relevant pages, but missing some templates on Old Wikisource makes oldwikisource:Index:Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari (1906).djvu incomplete.--Jusjih (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I see Old Wikisource having much better display. If no other comments, the pages here will be deleted soon.--Jusjih (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Decameron[edit]

No specific spurce is indicated for our only copy of The Decameron. The header says that it is "translated by J. M. Rigg and John Payne", but those are two separate translations. Payne's translation was published in 1886, and the translation by J. M. Rigg in 1903. Further, our copy apparently also includes the Introduction by Edward Hutton from the 1930 Everyman's Library edition. So, the Introduction is probably still under copyright, and the text may be a hybrid of two different translations. Payne's translation is in PD in both the US and UK, as he died in 1916, but the Rigg translation is still under copyright in the UK.

In short, our only copy of this work is a total mess. This is a double shame since there is a little irreverent comedy film out now that is based on the Decameron. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Going solely on the information in the header templates, we have intro through Novel 5 by Rigg, and novels 6 through 10 by Payne. I'm loth to delete a large body of text that's otherwise in scope (especially since the text itself isn't poor quality like some OCR dumps we've seen) so my preferred approach would be to split it into the two translations and mark them both {{incomplete}}. The missing parts (Payne's 1-5 and Rigg's 6+) can be supplemented from Gutenberg or something, or we could look into a WS:PotM to provide a decent version of each. - Hutton's intro should, of course, be deleted if copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Gutenberg has copies of both translations, and I can find scans of both translations pretty easily. Since it looks like a good copy, or parts of two good copies, it's not something that needs deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
RE: Gutenberg: I've found a clean scan of Payne's translation at IA, and have added links to those scans from my user page for transcription. It's in three volumes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if people are sure that we can get a clean split, and have true texts, then I am comfortable with that approach. We may wish for some good notes on each item's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any sort of mass-move tool, perhaps using AWB, that I can use to accomplish this? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Author:Tricia M. Whitehill[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This person is not listed as an author in the attributed work, Putting a Stop to Modern-Day Slavery and is only quoted. She has requested[1] on Wikipedia's BLP/N that this be rectified and ideally the page deleted. According to Help:Author pages, an author page is contra-indicated "Where a person is the subject of one or more works, but is not a creator of written work." DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. While I would oppose deletion if the only reason to delete were that Whitehill wants it deleted, in this case none of the works listed at Author:Tricia M. Whitehill have anything to do with her beyond a passing mention. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Presidents of the United States 1789–1914 (Vol. 1).djvu and Page: pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted— Mpaa (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like everything has been migrated to Index:The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914, v. I.djvu.— Mpaa (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted along with User:Wei Guan improperly used with just minor differences.--Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is a mix of excerpts from w:Records of the Three Kingdoms, apparently translated by WS user User:Wei Guan, and excerpts from w:Zizhi Tongjian, translated by w:Rafe de Crespigny.

There has already been some discussion at Talk:Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian (about 10 years ago) regarding what to do with this page: the consensus at the time appears to have been to split the content between Translation:Records of the Three Kingdoms and Translation:Zizhi Tongjian. However, this was not done for some reason.

I suggest that the excerpts by User:Wei Guan be placed at Translation talk:Records of the Three Kingdoms/Volume 36/Guan Yu as an alternate rendering of Translation:Records of the Three Kingdoms/Volume 36/Guan Yu. I also suspect that the excerpts by Crespigny are copyvio so I suggest to just delete them outright. Either way there is no reason for the mixed page Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian to remain.

(Note: the page was previously proposed for deletion, but only as part of a long list of works marked with {{no license}}.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 29 August 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)

{{bad title}} versus red link[edit]

At the moment the following works are labelled with template:bad title

with the purpose of guiding contributors to not create those pages. However, they are still linked to occasionally, and getting a blue link, rather than a red link is as problematic. [We are now also having those pages show up as existing and able to be linked through to Wikidata.] As we can protect those pages I would prefer that we delete and protect those pages against recreation, rather than utilise "bad title" template. If people think that guidance to users is required then we can also create custom guidance through an abuse filter to a list of page creations, as is done for headerless pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that blue links are likely problematic. I do think guidance to users would be helpful, if possible. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, sounds reasonable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Two Years' Vacation[edit]

A work that was started in 2013 and unsupported by a scan, with only parts of chapter 1 started and in a non-standard format. The work should be deleted without prejudice in its current form. When someone works from a scan, then that should be suitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A scan-backed transcription is in progress at Index:Adrift in the Pacific, Sampson Low, 1889.djvu. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
So is that a delete, or leave? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a speedy Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as redundant, and turn into a redirect to the correct title. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I oppose a redirect; en:w:Two_Years'_Vacation says "In 1889 a two-volume English-language book titled A Two Year's Vacation was published by Munro in the United States. Later the same year, a single-volume abridged edition in the United Kingdom was released by Sampson Low under the title of Adrift in the Pacific." I don't see any need for an old unfinished copy that's not scan-backed, but it's a completely different (and probably better) edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)