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)

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)

Young Winston’s wars; the original despatches of Winston S. Churchill, war correspondent, 1897-1900[edit]

This is an incomplete work and it has been abandoned with less than 10% available. There are no images available and the work appears to have been published in 1972. So it seems that we won't get further with the work. I see little value in retaining in the form that we have. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit different from other cases where a long work is abandoned. In this case this appears to be an anthology (of letters) of which some are present in full and others are missing. I think that in such cases it may be worth keeping the whole for the sake of the existing letters. However, I acknowledge that this may not be the best solution. Either way, if the existing sections are in fact full letters, these need to be kept even if the anthology itself is deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor in another discussion made the point that the list and order of PD works can be copyrighted by an anothology publisher. However, in this case, this is just a list of all his letters in chronological order, right? In which case Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as a whole. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A message to my doomed colleagues in the American media[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, no explicit free license, can be re-added if author agrees to a compatible license —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This work is self-published, and has been reproduced here. I do not see that it fits within the scope as described at WS:WWI in being a peer-reviewed work. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Documentary sources -> "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events." --1Veertje (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@1Veertje: This is not a documentary source, it is opinion or essay. A documentary source would be something like birth or death certificate, probate, land records, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with reason mentioned by billinghurst as well as the precendent that original contributions are not in scope Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete {{{1}}}Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete well outside WS:WWI criteria. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In a sense it was re-published in the latest episode of the WeThePeople LIVE podcast (not a small podcast [1]) where the author was interviewed, making it not just self-published. This is not just some nobody on the internet. He has also written for The Guardian [2] --1Veertje (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) It was also re-published in the Huffington Post 1Veertje (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaning delete. The Huffington Post is interesting, but it's in their blog section. And the only license I see is "P.S. You’re welcome to repost/reblog/republish this if you like." which is not clearly a free license; there's no explicit right to make derivative works. There is no link to a source for the work (fixable, yes) and no source for the PD license we have on there right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
keep, pending a source and an appropriate license (as per Prosfilaes above). This is not an original contribution by a 'self-published' author, it is a text by a notable senior editor at a major news service, hosted, so presumably reviewed, by Huff'n'puff and others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that getting an appropriate license will require contacting Kovalev and doing some sort of OTRS thing. While I do think it can now be considered in scope because of its publication in the Huffington Post, it still doesn't have compatible licensing. Is there someone familiar with the OTRS process who can follow up with this? Otherwise my vote is still delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The licensing situation is plainly unsatisfactory and there has been no progress on that in three months. BethNaught (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Time Machine.djvu (reprint)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, duplicate edition
Propose we delete Index:The Time Machine.djvu and the work done there. This is a reprint of the 1895 Holt edition—not a new edition—and we have already completed and validated the Holt first edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I spot checked a few pages and it not only seems to be word-for-word identical to the earlier edition by the same publisher, but even the pages line up exactly. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a long held, and long forgotten work. It is OCR scanned (poor quality) and pasted text; and it is an ugly mess and not of the standard that we profess as our desired quality. No useful proofreading will happen with the current text to progress its preparation and improvement as it is simply too hard. Wile the work is in scope, in its current state of distress, I believe that it should be dumped in its current form, and if it is to be resurrected then it should only be from scan-supported text which can be proofread. I doubt any of it is particularly worthwhile to rescue back to a scan, though if someone wanted to and did that, it may be somewhat recoverable. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This work was on my list of non-scan backed for investigation anyway, so I've just done so. I note that it has 139 fairly long subpages and a WikiProject. The subpaging appears to be arbitrary. No serious work via the WikiProject has been done since 2009. A random flick through the articles indicate that the text is taken from the Internet Archive OCR of the text. This means that it is not a match and split candidate per the guidance at H:MS. The only tenable keep solution would be one where side-by-side proofreading takes place and then transcluded over the top of the current text. If this is done the current presentation needs to be scrapped and changed to 1 article to 1 subpage, which will make it more practical to use and reference. This means that we might as well scrap what we've got now and start again when an interested wikisourceror has the energy and mind-space. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to close this as "delete", any comments to the contrary? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Go for it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Go ahead; there seems to be no value to this, and it can be easily replaced from IA if needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Matthieu Felt[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, no free works available, or likely to be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I just deleted his only hosted work due to another discussion on this page. Not likely to have any other hostable works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree Marjoleinkl (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Very unlikely to have any works published PD, except maybe his thesis when he finishes his PHD. Looks like that delete work is, to date, his only non-academic publication. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Experimental long form Chronological Tables[edit]

These appear to have been some attempts I made to combine the c. 1870's Crohnological Tables with the Short Titles and more recent repeals data from legislation.gov.uk.

As Wikisource doesn't have anything like the resources the latter mentioned site does, these are essentially unmaintained. I've got no objection to these being retained if someone wants to take on the large task of researching the relevant statutes so the Portal can be updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - these look like a lot of work to keep up, and in the absence of a willing editor I'd delete it, noting that a simple list of the Acts of Parliament should still be retained. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu suitably expanded using Short Titles Act 1896 and more recent data. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just keep Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes and Short Titles Act 1896 in that case, and leave it at that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 6 March 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)

Bible (Douay-Rheims Original)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, within scope, no consensus to delete, scan is available — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess this should be done here since it survived a previous proposed deletion. The concern that the AFAICT only substantial contributor has is that the facsimile being used to back it is so hopelessly low quality as to be useless, and probably no other facsimiles of this edition are forthcoming, it being a rare book and all. This issue wasn't raised in the previous discussion. Prosody (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your reasons for proposing deletion. If this is the best scan we are likely to get of a rare and important book, then why would we delete it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The editor in question has moved on to Bible (Douay-Rheims, 1633-1635), a later but not substantially different publication with a better scan. The problem with the original one is that the best scan we have is missing chunks of pages, and the text is in many places illegible; see Page:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu/313. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the OCR may be garbage but I can read the text in the scan, so "illegible" is a bit strong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- same reasons it was kept the last time, plus above commentor (rare & important book) Lx 121 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The only reasons put forward for deletion are (a) the contributor is working on something else now, and (b) some people have trouble reading the text in the scan. Neither of these seems a valid reason to delete this work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Psalms (Bible)#Translation comparison[edit]

There have been translation comparisons kicking around the Bible project for a long time: Psalms (Bible)#Translation comparison is the biggest though Bible/Genesis/1 also exists as do a number of templates under Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Bible/. Since these kinds of works are listed as banned on Wikisource, and since some new users have started contributing to these pages again, I think it's time we move them to Wikibooks or delete them altogether. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There has previously been discussion about some of these pages, and they are probably in the archives of this page (otherwise WS:S archives), think it was when we did our last big upgrade to disambiguation and versions. The pages represent what we were at a point of time, for a short span of time. If the argument is coming around again, might be worth a summation of that discussion first. Personally, I have learnt to develop a blind spot, from avoiding the argument. I doubt that WB wants them. So it may be that we have to grandfather them, though that may mean moving them out of main ns and just let people hammer away on them but not encourage any similar such activity. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The previous discussions come from Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works, specifically #Comparisons. Consensus was that such pages are to be banned. I think they should not be grandfathered, since they're incomplete; we should either unban or remove, and I prefer the latter course. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a different situation to previous discussions, since the pages currently under discussion do not display parallel text. The current discussion covers pages that look more like versions pages for specific verses of the Bible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The purpose of these pages is to be "a comparison of various English translations" (source). Most of them are incomplete, which is the reason they don't always display parallel text the way one might expect. However, if they are truly disambiguation/versions pages, we have another problem: do we really want to allow individual disambiguation of individual verses of text? In past discussions, I've brought up the question of creating versions pages for excerpts from larger works, such as Our Father or Psalm 23, and the result of that discussion was that such pages are appropriate if those excerpts have been published as standalone works unto themselves. Do we really want to extend this, and allow versions pages for every single verse regardless of publication status or our policy on exerpts—noting that if it is permissible for Biblical works, then it should also be permissable for all other hosted works? Finally, I should point out that the list of versions on each of these pages in question, if fully completed, is identical to the whole work's version page (Psalms (Bible)) with the only addition being the translation comparison. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think these verse version pages can be very useful, not for being a way of comparison between translations but for the sole purpose of being able to be link for references. I've come along many works that reference a bible verse and I don't know which version to link to, so I don't and leave them as they were and it's a shame. These version pages could be a nice way to link to them and would let the end user choose which version suits them. It would be nice if they could be automatically populated also, as each transcription takes place. Also I don't see a problem with these verse version pages being used with other works which are heavily referenced and have multiple translations. Jpez (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I do admit that such pages would really be valuable for linking to individual verses without specifying the version (an improvement on the current {{bibleverse}}. I still think that such an effort belongs at Wikibooks more than here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the {{bibleverse}} template until now and have been explicitly linking. The obvious choice for most works we currently host is the KJV because this was the commonly available and used version throughout the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. With respect to the main topic of discussion, my comments in the 2013 discussion still stand. The pages are ugly, other sites do it better, I believe it's beyond our remit. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 to Beeswaxcandle. Comparative versions are annotation versions, without real copies, and not supported by scans. They sit there ugly and untouched as no one knows what to do with them. I still favour deleting them, though know that will cause a ruckus. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Having pondered over this I vote delete. If it's not in our scope it shouldn't be here. If it can be hosted on wikibooks it would be a nice way to link for references, but as Beeswaxcandle mentioned KJV is the best option for this and is where I will be linking to from hereon, unless the work mentions otherwise. Jpez (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, for the Qur'an[edit]

I just noticed Qur'an/Al-Fatiha#Translation comparison also; if no one objects I'll clear it out with the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lord Buddha[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
No author, no source, no license. Created by combining extracts from the opinions of many living authors. Hrishikes (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The life of Mohammed[edit]

Whilst the work is within scope, it is an ugly copy and paste of OCR text, and it has been long abandoned. The work should be deleted, or replaced with a scan version. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A scan is available at https://archive.org/details/lifeofmohammedfo1900bushBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
If deleting we could import the scan, and set up an index page then delete the work, with active link to index. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari[edit]

Another copy and pasted OCR text that is in no fit state. It should be deleted, and when someone feels willing to bring a scan and work upon it, they should. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Scan. Going from scan would essentially be starting from scratch, as the existing OCR is useless for proofreading. If you think it best to delete in the meantime, go for it. (Same with the life of Mohammad above.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If deleting we could import the scan, and set up an index page then delete the work, with active link to index. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about pasted OCRs: As we seem to have numbers of work like this, is there value in starting a more general discussion about our general practice for managing these, and allowing admins some latitude to work without repetitive, and unresponded DRs? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not covered under the Speedy deletion policy, unless we consider it "no meaningful content". How difficult is it to add "Abandoned and incomplete" to the list of speedy criteria? I assume there are a lot of deletion tools that would need to be updated. On the other hand, if nobody responds to or opposes your deletion proposals, I think you're safe to proceed with deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Author:Sabit Ince and Sevgileri Yarınlara Bırakma[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
To start off with, the work is attributed to w:Sabit İnce, a living Turkish poet. However it is at best a bad, unsourced, unlicensed, unattributed translation of one. The author page claims it's a 1999 work, which AFAICT would imply it cannot be public domain by the normal operation of law. However the author page also claims it's the Turkish anthem, which is false. The IP who created the author page probably did a botched copy-and-amend of Mehmet Akif Ersoy.

That said, I suggest deleting the work on copyright grounds and the author page because there will then be no hosted works and probably no hostable works. BethNaught (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pages with authority control by quantity[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
This category and subsidiary categories count the number of identifier links. I don't see that it provides any benefits, and just seems to be a superfluous category on an author page. With the AC data coming from WD and their identifier growing, it seems to be noise IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, looks pointless to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Voices of a People's History of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: moot, is already deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Book published in 2004 by two authors, one of whom is still living, being a collection of source texts with introductions. This page does not attempt to reproduce the introductions, as they are still in copyright; it merely gives a list of links to WS versions of the source texts which were quoted. Under current copyright law there is practically no hope of us hosting a complete copy this century. I don't think this list page adds any value in itself or to the linked works. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a copyright issue here; the table of contents is copyrighted in and of itself, and assembling the anthology, or the pre-1923 part of it, is a copyright violation. On the other hand, there's no violation in holding the texts separately, and it's a useful list of things we might want to add. It should perhaps be pared down what we don't have and could and added to Wikisource:Requested texts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems spurious to me to think that the TOC would be copyvio; it's just a list of PD works; does it even meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? The only part of the TOC that's necessary to preserve in these cases is the order of sub-pages anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Anthologies are explicitly called out for copyrightability in the Copyright Acts. The threshold of originality seems clearly passed; nobody else would have produced a similar anthology. There's roughly a hundred entries on the PD part of the list, and I doubt anyone with a similar goal would have used a quarter of the same works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
In light of this: we should Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the anthology's page as copyvio, but Symbol keep vote.svg Keep all contained PD works by moving each to their own page with a note that they are sourced from Voices. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is similar to #Young Winston’s wars; the original despatches of Winston S. Churchill, war correspondent, 1897-1900 above. It would be good to have consensus on how to deal with copyrighted anthologies of PD material in general. I personally think that hosting the anthology in the form used by Voices is fine; it keeps the PD material and excises the copyvio. I think that this is no worse than using {{image removed}} for works where the text is PD and the images are copyvio. That's just my opinion though and I'm willing to follow the opposite position if that's what others prefer. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser[edit]

Delete? Not English? Is sheet music is treated differently? Jpez (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sheet music isn't treated differently; this should be moved to dewikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
s:de:Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser already exists; they have four verses, but no sheet music. Interestingly their first verse is different to our "text" (it's just an image). Does anyone know what's going on? BethNaught (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Ours is the 1797 original by Lorenz Leopold Haschka; theirs is the 1826 revised version that was adopted as the national anthem of Austria. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted at de:WS:Skriptorium to see if they want to import it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bible (World English)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, no discussion for one month —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
While I do not necessarily want this work to be deleted, I can't help but noticing that it fails the WS:WWI evolving works criteria: "works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." So, I just want to start a discussion to check the following:
  1. That there is consensus to keep the work despite its evolving nature
  2. That perhaps we can identify a specific version to validate our version against

Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The late war, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815[edit]

Another bad OCR dump, and duplicate of The Late War. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • convert to a redirect to identified work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Law of Ukraine: On the Self-governing Special Administrative Territory of Transcarpathia, 1992 (draft)[edit]

This is a draft law, that has been contributed without a licence. It would not be {{PD-GovEdict}} as it is not law, and it is currently without a licence. @SirChesterton1: contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)