Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.

Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement

No source, no license, no indication of being in the public domain —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Found the source: [1] — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The text of the source does not match what we have. I am having trouble finding our opening passages in the link you posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(At least, a sentence matched). @EncycloPetey: Found it, the content that corresponds to our page starts in the middle in the page 44 of that pdf, though the delimiting of paragraphs seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That means we have an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, it appears that the PDF is a compilation of several different, thematically related documents. His statement (English’d) is one such separate document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  In which case we do not yet have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • No, that is the source; it’s just that the PDF contains multiple separate documents, like I said. It’s like the “Family Jewel” papers or the “Den of Espionage” documents. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I meant to say that we do not have a source for it as an independently hosted work. To use the provided source, it would need to be moved into the containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Well these document collections are bit messy, they were originally independent documents / works but they are collected together for release, e.g. because someone filed a FOIA request for all documents related to person X. I don't think it is unreasonable if someone were to extract out the document. I wouldn't object if someone was like I went to an archive and grabbed document X out of Folder Y in Box Z but if someone requested a digital version of the file from the same archive they might just get the whole box from the archive scanned as a single file. Something like the "Family Jewels" is at least editorial collected, has a cover letter, etc., this is more like years 1870-1885 of this magazine are on microfiche roll XXV, we need to organize by microfiche roll. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @EncycloPetey since this PDF is published on the DOD/WHS website, doesn't that make this particular collection of documents a publication of DOD/WHS? (Genuine question, I can imagine there are cases -- and maybe this is one -- where it's not useful to be so literal about what constitutes a publication or to go off a different definition. But I'm interested in your thinking.) -Pete (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Why would a particular website warrant a different consideration in terms of what we consider a publication? How and why do you think it should be treated differently? According to what criteria and standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Your reply seems to assume I have a strong opinion on this. I don't. My question is not for the purpose of advocating a position, but for the purpose of understanding your position. (As I said, it's a genuine question. Meaning, not a rhetorical or a didactic one.) If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative of course.

    I'll note that Wikisource:Extracts#Project scope states, "The creation of extracts and abridgements of original works involves an element of creativity on the part of the user and falls under the restriction on original writing." (Emphasis is mine.) This extract is clearly not the work of a Wikisource user, so the statement does not apply to it. It's an extract created by (or at least published) by the United States Department of Defense, an entity whose publishing has been used to justify the inclusion of numerous works on Wikisource.

    But, I have no strong opinion on this decision. I'm merely seeking to understand the firmly held opinions of experienced Wikisource users. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    You misunderstand. The page we currently have on our site is, based on what we have so far, an extract from a longer document. And that extract was made by a user on Wikisource. There is no evidence that the page we currently have was never published independently, so the extract issue applies here. We can host it as part of the larger work, however, just as we host poems and short stories published in a magazine. We always want the work to be included in the context in which it was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    OK. I did understand that to be TEaeA,ea's position, but it appeared to me that you were disagreeing and I did not understand the reasons. Sounds like there's greater agreement than I was perceiving though. Pete (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unclear what you are referring to as a "longer document." Are you referring to the need to transcribe the Russian portion? That there are unreleased pages beyond the piece we have here?. Or are you saying the "longer document" is all 53 sets of releases almost 4000 pages listed here (https://www.esd.whs.mil/FOIA/Reading-Room/Reading-Room-List_2/Detainee_Related/)? I hope you are not advocating for merging all ~4000 pages into a single continuous page here, some some subdivision I assume is envisioned.

    Re the policy statement: I am not sure that is definitive: if someone writes me a letter or a poem and I paste that into a scrapbook, is the "work" the letter, the scrapbook or both? Does it matter if it is a binder or a folder instead of a scrapbook? If a reporter copies down a speech in a notebook, is the work the speech or the whole notebook. etc. I am pretty sure we haven't defined with enough precision to point to policy to say one interpretation of "work" is clearly wrong, which is why we have the discussion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    The basic unit in WS:WWI is the published unit; we deal in works that have been published. We would not host a poem you wrote and pasted into a scrapbook, because it has not been published. For us to consider hosting something that has not been published usually requires some sort of extraordinary circumstances. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    From WWSI: "Most written work ... created but never published prior to 1929 may be included", Documentary sources include; "personal correspondence and diaries." The point isn't the published works, that is clear. If someone takes the poem edits it and publishes in a collection its clear. It's the unpublished works sitting in archives, documentary sources, etc. Is the work the unpublished form it went into the archive (e.g separate letters) or the unpublished form currently in the archives (e.g. bound together) or is it if I request pages 73-78 from the archives those 5 pages in the scan are the work and if you request pages 67-75 those are a separate work? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    I will just add that in every other context we refer to a work as the physical thing and not a mere scanned facsimile. We don't consider Eighteenth Century Collections Online scanning a particular printed editions and putting up a scan as the "published unit" as distinct from the British Library putting up their scan as opposed to the LOC putting up their scan or finding a version on microfilm. Of course, someone taking documents and doing things (like the Pentagon Papers, or the Family Jewels) might create a new work, but AFAICT in this context it is just mere reproduction. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    In the issue at hand, I am unaware of any second or third releases / publications. As far as I know, there is only the one release / publication. When a collection or selection is released / published from an archive collection, that release is a publication. And we do not have access to the archive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    We have access, via filing a FOIA request. That is literally how those documents appeared there, they are hosted under: "5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(2)(D) Records - Records released to the public, under the FOIA," which are by law where records are hosted that have been requested three times. And in general, every archive has policies around access. And I can't just walk into Harvard or Oxford libraries and handle their books either.

    My point isn't that can't be the interpretation we could adopt or have stricter policies around archival material. Just that I don't believe we can point to a statement saying "work" or "published unit" and having that "obviously" means that a request for pages 1-5 of a ten report is obviously hostable if someone requests just those five pages via FOIA as a "complete work" while someone cutting out just the whole report now needs to be deleted because that was released as part of a 1000 page large document release and hence is now an "extract" of that 1000 page release. That requires discussion, consensus, point to precedent etc. And if people here agree with that interpretation go ahead. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    For example, I extracted Index:Alexandra Kollontai - The Workers Opposition in Russia (1921).djvu out of [2]. My understanding of your position is that according to policy the "work" is actually all 5 scans from the Newberry Library archives joined together (or, maybe only if there are work that was previously unpublished?), and that therefore it is an "extract" in violation of policy. But if I uploaded this [3] instead, that is okay? Or maybe it depends on the access policies of Newberry vs. the National Archives? Or it depends on publication status (so I can extract only published pamphlets from the scans but not something like a meeting minutes, so even though they might be in the same scan the "work" is different?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    If the scan joined multiple published items, that were published separately, I would see no need to force them to be part of the same scan, provided the scan preserves the original publication in toto. I say that because there are Classical texts where all we have is the set of smushed together documents, and they are now considered a "work". This isn't a problem limited to modern scans, archives, and the like. The problem is centuries old. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    So if in those thousands of pages there is a meeting minute or letter between people ("unpublished") then I can't? MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way beyond my ability to follow it. However, I do want to point out that we do have precedent for considering documents like those contained in this file adequate sources for inclusion in enWS. I mention this because if the above discussion established a change in precedent, there will be a large number of other works that can be deleted under similar argument (including ones which I have previously unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

for example, see the vast majority of works at Portal:Guantanamo —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(@EncycloPetey, @MarkLSteadman) So, to be clear, the idea would be to say that works which were published once and only once, and as part of a collection of works, but that were created on Wikisource on their own, to be treated of extracts and deleted per WS:WWI#Extracts?

If this is the case, it ought to be discussed at WS:S because as BT said a lot of other works would qualify for this that are currently kept because of that precedent, including most of our non-scan-backed poetry and most works that appeared in periodicals. This is a very significant chunk of our content. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, that would classify encyclopedia articles as extracts, which would finally decide the question of whether it is appropriate to list them on disambiguation pages (i.e., it would not be appropriate, because they are extracts) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extracts are only good for deletion if created separately from the main work. As far as I understood this, if someone does for example a whole collection of documents, they did the whole work, so it's fine, it's only if it's created separately (like this is the case here) that they would be eligible for deletion. Editing comment accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We would not host an article from an encyclopedia as a work in its own right; it would need to be part of its containing work, such as a subpage of the work, and not a stand-alone article. I believe the same principle applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of our non-scan backed poetry looks like this A Picture Song which is already non-policy compliant (no source). For those listing a source such as an anthology, policy would generally indicate the should end up being listed as subworks of the anthology they were listed in. I don't think I have seen an example of a poetry anthology scan being split up into a hundred different separate poems transcribed as individual works rather than as a hundred subworks of the anthology work.

Periodicals are their own mess, especially with works published serially. Whatever we say here also doesn't affect definitely answer the question of redirects, links, disambiguation as we already have policies and precedent allowing linking to sub-works (e.g. we allow linking to laws or treaties contained in statute books, collections, appendices, etc.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

They are non-policy compliant, but this consensus appears to have been that though adding sourceless works is not allowed, we do not delete the old ones, which this, if done, would do. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire

Looks like transcription of some screenshots of web pages. Not in our scope per WS:WWI#Reference material: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text" ... "Some examples of these include... Tables of data or results".

Besides, the PDF file contains two pages with two tables from two separate database entries, so it is a user-created compilation, which is again not possible per WS:WWI.

(Besides all this, I still believe that our task is not transcribing the whole web, as this creates unnecessary maintenance burden for our small community. But it is not the main reason, though it is important, the main ones are above.)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – These reports are published specifically by the United States government at least 3 months after a natural disaster that serve as the finalized reports. There is an entire page specifically about these sources. The PDF is Wikipedian-made but the tables are not. The U.S. government divides every report by county and by month. The fire was in a single county, but occurred in April & May 2024, therefore, NOAA published an April 2024 and a May 2024 report separately. The PDF was the combination of the two sources. To note, this is an official publication of the U.S. government as described in that page linked above: "Storm Data is an official publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which documents the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and/or disruption to commerce." Per WS:WWI, this is a documentary source, which qualifies under Wikisource's scope per "They are official documents of the body producing them". There is way in hell you can argue a collection of official U.S. government documents does not qualify for Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The definition of the documentary source in WS:WWI says that "documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries." Pure tables without any context are refused by the rule a bit below, see my quotation above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is how the National Weather Service, a branch of the United States government publishes finalized results...Like every single fucking natural disaster in the United States is published in that format. File:Storm Data Document for the 1970 Lubbock, Texas Tornado.jpg is a 1970 publication (pre-Internet) and this is a physical paper that was physcally scanned in. That to is in a chart and table. If charts and tables produced by the US government are not allowed, then y'all need to create something saying no U.S. government natural disaster report is allowed because tables is how the U.S. government fucking publishes the information. Yeah, good bye Wikisource. There is literally no use to be here. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is absolutely OK that they publish tables, but our rule does not accept such screenshot-based material. Being rude or shouting with bold or red letters won't help. Although you have achieved that opposing arguments are less visible, it will not have any impact on the final result. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If/when this is deleted, please make a note somewhere that Storm Data is not covered under Wikisource's scope, since both the 2024 wildfire and 1970 tornado document above are from Storm Data and they would not be under the scope. There needs to be some note about that somewhere that the U.S. document series Storm Data is not under Wikisource's scope. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not, it is not a matter of publisher. Besides, our rules are worded generally, we never make them publisher-specific. Speaking about Storm Data, they publish a monthly periodical, see an example which would definitely be in our scope. Unlike screenshots of their web. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So Storm Data is allowed, but screenshots of Storm Data is not allowed? Is that correct? WeatherWriter (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

More or less. We don't accept extracts or user-created compilations, but if you have a government work as a whole, we'll generally take it. Screenshots of works aren't specifically in violation, but it's a horrible way to get a whole work. You can use podman on the HTML, or print it directly from your browser, and that will let the text be copyable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested author-requested speedy deletion on it. No use to try to argue or debate. I know you are an administrator who clearly knows it isn't in scope and needs to be deleted. I don't want to argue or debate it anymore and just want to be done with Wikisource transcribing. I do indeed lack the competence to know what is or is not allowed for Wikisource, despite being a veteran editor. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, I would lean towards  Keep for reports by federal governments on official events. I know that we keep for example Civil Aeronautics Board / NTSB reports. Presumably, the NTSB dockets could also be added if so inclined. This seems to be the NOAA equivalent where the differences seem to be some level of "lack of narrative / description" and the proper formatting of the sourcing from the DB for structured data. I don't really think the first is particularly compelling to merit deletion, and the second is really about form not content. E.g. it might make sense to download the DB as a csv and then make each line a sub page to be more "official" but this seems fine to me (might make sense to upload the 1 line CSV anyways for posterity). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• On this topic, I want to throw 2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report into the mix. This is a nearly identical format Wikisource collection (and Wikisource validated collection) for the NOAA finalized report on the 2024 Greenfield tornado. I am wanting to throw this into the mix for others to see a better-example of NOAA's finalized report. Also noting the Wikisource document is listed on the EN-Wikipedia article for the tornado (see the top of w:2024 Greenfield tornado#Tornado summary). WeatherWriter (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not the NOAA finalized report; it's a stitched together collection of NOAA reports. It's not entirely transparent which reports were stitched together. It's clearly not Storm Data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Every URL is cited on the talk page. See Talk:2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report in the "Information about this edition". To also note, the "Notes" section actually says, "This tornado crossed through four counties, so the finalized report consists of four separate reports, which have been combined together." I do not know how that is not transparent enough to say which reports are in the collection. The reports "Event Narrative" also make it clear for the continuations: For example, one ends with "The tornado exited the county into Adair County between Quince Avenue and Redwood Avenue." and the next starts with "This large and violent tornado entered into south central Adair County from Adams County." NOAA is very transparent when it is a continuation like that. If you have any suggestions how to make it more transparent, I am all ears! WeatherWriter (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also quick P.S., this is in fact Storm Data. You can read the Storm Data FAQ page. Everything regarding what is an "Episode" vs "Event" (as seen in the charts aforementioned above) is entirely explained there. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I missed those URLs because they're not listed on the PDF page. Someone should archive completely that Storm Data database, but that's not really Wikisource's job. We store publications, not user-created collections of material from a database. There is no "2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report" from NOAA; there are four separate reports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator misreads the relevant policy. The fact that a document is in tabular form does not mean that it needs must be excluded; this is a good example of that fact. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  ...and besides that it is a user created compilation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Upon my request, the two reports compiled in our pdf have been archived by archive.org, see here and here. Archive.org is the service which should be used for web archiving, not Wikisource, where the two screenshot-based tables are now redundant and without any added value. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It might make sense to add these to field to wikidata for storm events, assuming the event itself is noticeable, given that it is built for handling structured data. But that is a question for the wikidata commmunity. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the claim that the page is a compilation was not disproved, and so I suggest closing the discussion and deleting the page per Wikisource:WWI#Compilations. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• You’re out!voted 2–1—in fact, no one even !voted delete. -- —unsigned comment by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2025.

Well, I am giving an argument that it is a compilation which is explicitely prohibited here. None of the two who voted for keeping disproved this argument. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW,  Delete on Jan's premises. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment As I see it, the principal objection is that two separate reports have been compiled into a single page. The logical solution is therefore to split the page into its component reports, and turn the current page into a disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Hunminjeongeum

Although the scanbacking was started in the Korean Wikisource, it seems to be stuck, see here. The work can be undeleted after/if the proofreading process of the original is finished. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you deleting, the Hunminjeongeum??? Do you know you cant do that?? Who are you and why you want delete such important work?? Makes no Sence. NO! Resits (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow, such a bad atitude! Ur deleting colaboration from users, and not colaborating anything, Ur sabotaging, open work. If there work to be done, in proofreading of scans, why u deleting ALL translation in full page formate?? U cant do that!! So, this page is all good, tranlated. And u wanna delete it, and have bad scans not profread? makes no sence. vote against here. discrescpet for users colaborations! Resits (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that policy says "present" and "complete" and avoids saying words such as "proofread" or "validated". If we want to require proofreading, understandably, it would be helpful to clarify that is the expectation by setting it out. Right now it is compliant with the terms of the policy AFAICT, MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point. "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki". It looks as if it complies. -- Beardo (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Complete" could certainly be taken to mean "validated" or "proofread", I expect that was the intent behind the wording, but especially between "proofread" and "validated" there is a significant difference as we know. I would support an update / clarification to include a quality statement in the policy. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I interpret "where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation" that if the text in the original language has only been partially transcluded, then it should at least cover the part which is translated into English. I can't see what "at least as far as" could mean otherwise. -- Beardo (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have always understood that it should be at least "proofread" because the status "not proofread" does not mean anything. But I agree that it would be better to have some quality statement included in the policy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

If "Complete" = "Done" = "Validated" i.e. gone through ALL stages of the proofreading process, the policy statement "where the original language version is complete" could be read as "where the original version is validated" as far as the English version (e.g. if the first 10 pages are validated and the next 10 pages are only proofread, the English translation can cover the first 10 pages but not the first 11), but that seems especially strict. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"Completed" is used to mean different things in different places, so it really does need to be defined here.

By the way, this propsal really seems to have rattled some cages ! (See the recent change which I undid). -- Beardo (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: as far as I'm aware we almost always take "complete" to mean "proofread" (or for a mainspace page "is a transclusion of a proofread index"). — Alien  3
3 3 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And also the other way: we never understand "complete" as "not proofread". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

{{incomplete}} specifically refers to "are not available on Wikisource in any form, either as text content or page scans." Note any form so specifically no requirement on whether it was proofread against the scans or even for the text content any quality marker. As we specifically separate completeness from both scan-baking and even {{OCR-errors}} which is listed as errors a separate category form completeness. That may be how it is interpreted given how things have evolved but not how it is actually written out in our templates and policies. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The rule clearly says that the work must be scanbacked. So it is not completeness of the transcription in any form that is required, it is the completeness of the scanbacking process. While we may discuss whether "complete" means "proofread" or "validated" (and I agree it would be better to have it specified in the rule), it definitely does not mean "not proofread". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"Completeness of scan-backing process" is ambiguous is my point. Do we consider works that were match-and-split but still-to-be-proofread scan backed?

• Yes, with "scan-backed" meaning all subpages of are transcluded from scans while "incomplete scan-backed" means only some subpages have been migrated, while others are still left in main untranscluded. E.g. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would be considered a scan-backed work.
• Yes, with "scan-backed" meaning all pages of work in main are transcluded and all pages of the work are transcluded. "Incomplete scan-backed" means that all pages in maing are transcluded from scans but not all portions of the work are present yet. E.g. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would be considered a scan-backed work.
• No, "completely scan-backed" means completing the scan-backing process to either proofread or done. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would not be considered a "scan-backed" work.

On here now we recently deleted The Indian Orphan as "redundant to a scan-backed copy" but Forget Me Not/1825/The Indian Orphan is not proofread and hence according to the proposed definition isn't "scan-backed". So is that message wrong? MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"scan-backed" and "scan-backed and complete" are different things. As far as I understand it, "scan-backed" is just your first point: all the text comes from a scan. "scan-backed and complete" implies that the scan-backing is reasonably complete (in which I'd place that "reasonably" somewhere near "at least proofread except for problematic or empty pages").

(On the specific case of The Indian Orphan: that was a self-published extract from a 1836 reprint, claiming to be the 1824 work; from this perspective being actually based on a scan of the real 1824 work was already enough to make the other one redundant.) — Alien  3
3 3 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Urd/1907/Pianist Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen

Translation that isn't scan-backed in the Norwegian Wikisource. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• They are just not linked: https://no.wikisource.org/wiki/Urd/1907/Pianist_Sigvart_H%C3%B8gh-Nilsen --RAN (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton: the nows page is not scan-backed. — Alien  3
3 3 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Can you rephrase what "scan-backed" means in this context? The scans are housed at Commons: File:Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen biography in Lordag on July 27, 1907.png Are you requiring that Wikisource must house the scans, rather than Commons? Isn't this something requiring a fix, rather than deletion? --RAN (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It means that the page on noWS has not been proofread against the scan. This would need to be done at no:Indeks:Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen biography in Lordag on July 27, 1907.png by someone at noWS, before we can host the user translation here at enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Why do we need an index page for a magazine article just 5 paragraphs? Aren't indexes for whole books? --RAN (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

People should be rather adding whole works rather than single articles. I'm not saying you have to finish it all, just that when setting it up for work, instead of working on little parts here and there to be recomposed when there are enough of them, it'd be better to set up the index once and for all, so as to be done with it. (Of course, you are then free to only proofread and transclude a few pages of that.) (Well, that's what we'd do anyhow. But I suspect the NOWS people are probably not huge fans either of disconnected articles.) — Alien  3
3 3 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• This has been discussed multiple times. A magazine article or a newspaper article is a complete work. That is not a reason for deletion. We have over 500 The New York Times articles ranging from 1851 to 1929 and as far as I can tell, the closest to a complete issue is one single day in 1929 with an index, the rest are single articles with no index, because an index is not needed for a single article. --RAN (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  An index is necessary for something to be scan-backed. I might be tolerant of some other way of linking the scan, but this page doesn't have any link to a scan to check it. That's the whole point of the scan-backed requirement, that anyone can check the text versus the scan.

  We permit single articles to be posted, but it's a lot easier when you load scans for the whole work as originally printed. Ideally, it would be nice to have an magazine or newspaper here. I'm more conflicted about newspapers; on one hand, it's unlikely we'll transcribe an entire newspaper, but on the other, so many newspaper clips are tiny texts that were never meant to stand alone; they feel like much worse violation of our no-excerpt rule than full chapters of a lot of books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Note that many magazines come in volumes so we are talking about uploading 6 Months or a year, etc. While it might be preferred to upload the whole issue it certainly isn't necessary. The two pages proofread here can be easily be moved when the whole work is uploaded to replace it when someone wants to.

  Among other things, it means that know you need to go through and check all 500 pages for copyright status which may not be easy, so to get this one article I would need to go through 6 months of Norwegian writers to see what their death dates are to determine whether it is suitable for commons or not. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Magazines were originally printed in issues, and uploading them as issues would be better than uploading one page. I've found that volumes are sometimes too large to upload. In this case, since this is on no.WS, which presumably only takes life+70, I don't think it would be unreasonable to upload just one page. OTOH, for works on en.WS, I'd rather an issue be uploaded to here for concerns of Commons copyright instead of an excerpt uploaded to save that checking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  It is reasonable to tradeoff having clearly licensed content on commons serving both NO WS and EN WS to doing localized uploads, and I am not sure what NO WS's policies are around content that isn't PD in Norway / the EU anyways. It would certainly be reasonable on their part for their admins to not want to deal with files / content that put them at risk for infringement. Even going through copyright clearance and redaction for a whole issue might be a pain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Does that mean that English Wikisource cannot have user translations of works that are PD in the US but not in their home country ? Or what ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Say pg. 10-15 of a magazine isn't, but like here pg. 1-2 containing the article of interest for translation is in the PD in both countries. The point of discussion is whether to just upload the joint PD parts (pp. 1-2) but or whether we need to upload the whole issue to provide scan-backing and create the index file. My main point is that it isn't a trivial ask to the contributor to do so and may cause complications. I personally don't see the value in having an additional 20 pgs. in Norweigian a magazine lying around in the index file scan just for completeness in exchange for these additional complications. 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Separately, this causes issues for scientific journal as well, for example, I have held up scan backing Layered Architecture for Quantum Computing because the scan is of just the article, not the issue and I don't know what the policy to do actually is: https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.2.031007. I can't reassemble the articles (user compilation), i can't upload the individual article if we have a whole issues policy. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Is anyone arguing against that? Yes, in that case just upload pages 1 and 2. But in general when uploading to enWS, not life+x, I'd rather see the whole magazine uploaded to enWS rather than one section uploaded to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's your choice, but I don't think we should mandate people commit copyright infringement in their own country if they prefer not too. I am fine with a discussion going, "hey I saw you uploaded only pages 5-7, we would prefer if you uploaded the whole issue" and they responding by saying "I'd rather not because it's still copyrighted where I am." MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Then ask someone else to upload it if it's available online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I believe www.wikisource.org will take works that are public domain in the US but not acceptable for copyright reasons on their language's Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Imagine requiring someone to load an entire issue of a newspaper, just to load one obituary, just because we want to have the obit to document a particular fact about that one person. If it can be read from start to finish, it is a complete work, whether a news article, a magazine article, a journal article, or an advertisement. We even have several works that are incomplete because parts of the complete document have been lost to history. --RAN (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Imagine that. We require people to upload the whole History of the United States (Beard) even if they just want, say, "PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY", and you're complaining because you just want to upload a tiny snippet of one issue of a work. You only want to document a particular fact about that one person; perhaps Wikisource is not the place to do that. Just upload the obituary to Commons, perhaps.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• That is the strawman fallacy. My argument is magazines articles and newspaper articles, and your argument is about a book. Books are usually read from cover to cover, magazines articles and newspaper articles are meant to be read individually, and are complete works. --RAN (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a strawman; it's not really a logical argument at all, and neither is your "Imagine requiring...". You're complaining about having to cross the street to pick up your mail to a postal worker who walks 10 miles a day.

  Non-fiction books are often used in parts, often only the subjects or fields that the reader is interested in. Obituaries aren't meant to be read individually; people don't buy the newspaper for just one obituary. They read the obituary page at least, and usually newspaper readers read the headlines and other parts. Particularly "to document a particular fact about that one person" also applies to tiny parts of nonfiction books, and sometimes even tiny parts of fiction books.

  Again it wasn't a logical argument; it was a statement that arguing that you shouldn't have to upload so much since you just want "to document a particular fact about that one person" is actively going to irritate certain of us, and it's not something that Wikisource actively supports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476)/Annotated

Dates back to early 2008 (thus interestingly, this work is probably one of our earliest uses of ProofreadPage!). We now use the template {{SIC}} (and similar templates) for noting where typos and errors in the work exist, and all the annotations I can see here are simply noting where the typos are within the work. So, is there a point to having this separate "annotated version" that I'm not seeing, beyond what {{SIC}} can now provide? SnowyCinema (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Would you be willing to do the work of moving these footnotes to {{SIC}}s in the text? (We'd better do this first if we're going to delete the annotation.) — Alien  3
3 3 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Yeah, I'll do it. Just give me a little time, though. (I'll announce here when I start on that.) SnowyCinema (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Autobiography of George M. Craig (1939)

This work has allegedly been written in 1939 but I suspect it has never been published anywhere which would mean it is not elligible to be hosted here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Well, we have many unpublished letters transcribed here, and even guidance about transcribing manuscripts, so I don’t see why this wouldn’t count. The main issue is that we are lacking a scan, but that’s not a requirement for completed works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am afraid no works which have not been published anywhere can be hosted under current rules. The fact that a work has been published somewhere is a sign of its notability. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's not entirely true. WS:WWI has a provision allowing for unpublished research that meets specific criteria. Our policy distinguished between works created before or after 1930, not published. I'm unaware of any provision forbidding the inclusion of all works that are unpublished. There may be additional grounds under which this fails WWI, but lack of publication alone is insufficient as a criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the header of to WS:WWI states: Wikisource, ..., exists to archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history, and to present these publications ....

It is true that for works created after 1930 there is an exception mentioned regarding unpublished scientific research. However, this specific work does not fit under this provision.

Besides, WS:WWI specifically excludes self-published works. Thus it would not make sense to accept works which nobody published at all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We have more than a few manuscripts, hand-written documents, and other unpublished copies of works. If you believe all of these should be deleted for not being published, then that's a separate discussion. My point is that we do not exclude works solely on the basis of not being published. That is not a criterion sufficient in and of itself to exclude a work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We routinely exclude works solely on the basis of being self-published. Not being published at all is even worse. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, if you believe that we should remove unpublished texts, simply for being unpublished, you should start that discussion, since it has not been a reason for deletion in the past. Since that is the only reason for nominating this text, I vote to  Keep. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It is a part of current policy, as shown above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It is also not true that "it has not been a reason for deletion in the past," on the contrary, works have commonly not been accepted based on this reason:

• Quoting you from User talk:PoliticalBuff: Wikisource is a library, and we curate published works.
• or from User talk:Humble Ayankwo#Unpublished works: All works must have been previously published.
• Quoting Billinghurst from User talk:Krantmlverma: If it has not been published previously, then Wikisource is not where the work should be.
• or from User talk:Liuenming: If a work has not been published, then it is not within our scope.
• Quoting Prosfilaes from User talk:Blumagik202: we are a collection of existing works, and don't include unpublished contributions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Quoting an explanation made to a brand-new contributor, intended to provide the broad sweep of what we do, is disingenuous. That first quote was specifically regarding a user-created list. The second, an original work of literature written by the contributor. The comments provided the generalities without covering contingencies and details. Or should brand-new contributors be given the full sweep of every possibility in their introduction to the community? Those comments were intended to explain that we're not a place for people to post their original literary compositions.

If we do not host any unpublished works, then we should not have Index:The Vercelli Book.djvu, because that's an unpublished medieval manuscript on parchment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The Vercelli Book has been published e. g. by the University of Turin and by others too, thanks to which its authenticity can be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The copy I pointed to was not. It is a manuscript copy, not a published copy. If we only host published works, then we can't host a manuscript copy. Likewise we have Zodiac Killer letter, December 1966, which is a poem carved into a desk, and Text on the Column of Victory in the grounds of Blenheim Palace, which is text on a monument. Neither of these are published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We have the scans of the original manuscript and these scans had been published before they were uploaded to Commons. You may disagree with this reason, but it is the reason why I will not nominate it for deletion, and if somebody did, I would vote for its keeping. Zodiac killer letter was also published, otherwise it would not have the copyright tag it has. If you have a look at the discussion at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2023#Template:PD-Disavowed (closed by you), you will see that the contributors to the discussion agreed that it had been published. I think it was also published in some newspapers. We also have the scan of the letter which was published at various online places too, although the uploader failed to note where they took it from. I think it was published in some books as well. Again, thanks to the fact it was (quite widely) published, there is no problem to verify its authenticity. However, the work we are discussing here, has not been published anytime and anywhere. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You have two issues here: one from a discussion about a template where some of the commenters have talked about items that bore the template, and an issue about scans.

A discussion closed by me in accordance with what the commenters had discussed, though I did not personally voice any opinion on the issue, and the discussion centered on the need (or not) of a particular template. The matter was never investigated to determine that all had actually been published. Those who commented said they probably had been, and a few suggested that they might not have been published. Are you suggesting that saying something was probably published is sufficient reason to keep? Because I don't see any evidence presented in the discussion you've pulled in to demonstrate publication, nor was any actual effort made to check.

With regard to the second point: if a wrote out an Emily Dickinson poem in nice lettering on a piece of paper, scanned it, and transcribed it, Wikisource would host that copy? As long as someone else had published that poem elsewhere? You're saying that the copy we host does not itself have to be published at all, only some version of it has to be? So we can host unpublished editions, as long as we have a scan, even a manuscript, and as long as some other edition of that text exists that was published? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I am afraid this discussion is getting too far away from the original point. So just briefly: in the linked discussion multiple people clearly consider ZK letter to have been published (not just "probably published") and rightly so, because it was published, as I have also shown above. As for your Emily Dickinson example, Wikisource would not host that "edition", but not because it was not published. It would not host it because it would be selfpublished. Honestly, I do not understand why you want me to react to more and more unrelated examples and I suggest not flooding this discussion with these further. Let's focus on the main point: Works which were apparently not published by anybody anytime are unverifiable, are not in our scope per WS:WWI and were deleted in the past too. Various border cases can be discussed in other discussions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: "Works which were apparently not published by anybody anytime are unverifiable." I firmly disagree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: "your Emily Dickinson example, Wikisource would not host that "edition", but not because it was not published". So we do host works even if they are unpublished. I am forcing this issue because, as you have demonstrated, old discussions here get pulled as used to support future decisions. And a claim that WWI in some way might prevent unpublished works from being hosted, which was also the sole reason given for nomination, is in fact the very issue under discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Please, do not twist what I have written: I did not write that we host works even if they are unpublished, I did not mean it either and I am sure you are aware of that. The reason would not be that it was not published, because in your example it would be published. The reason for excluding would be different, i.e. selfpublication. I repeat my appeal to focus on the main point of this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I say again: If you are going to claim that lack of publication is the reason for deleting a work, then discussion of that point is the main point of this discussion. So, how would my hypothetical effort be self-publication, but the transcription under discussion is not? Wouldn't the monument example I gave then be self-publication as well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Without scan backing there is no way to verify the authenticity. Given the three criteria for post 1930 created works, it fails the scientific, or analytic and artistic works as unpublished. It also fails the first documentary source criterion as it is not an official work by an official body. The only possible inclusion would be "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.". but without providing a source to verify: "The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction." it currently fails before getting to that question.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

WS:WWI says "Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1931 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable." So WS:WWI clearly provides for never published work to be included. The division between pre-1931 and post-1930 works here I've thought to more of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law; recent works are more likely to be self-publishing, whereas 95 year old works, if they're vanity projects, at least they're vanity projects people still care about. Whether we extend this to a work that's merely 85 years old is a discretionary thing. I would like scans, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as you have also pointed out, this provision is for works created before 1930, and there is also the condition that it has to be verifiable. None of these apply to this work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The original creator of the page has recently noted on the item's Talk page that he is in possession of the original documents. If he can provide a scan, that would make this verifiable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Poem-on and Template:Poem-off

Template imposing arbitrary wiki formatting on content, as opposed to respecting sources. Made around 2010, only 70 uses (some of which ought to get deleted too but that's another question). — Alien  3
3 3 20:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Left margin/i

This is explicitly block template applied to spans, which is incorrect code. Note that there is a template redirect Template:Lm/i and edits made to Template:Left margin/doc that would need to be considered as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Re the technical merits, actually, I thought it would be a problem too, but on checking it doesn't lint (as long as you don't put blocks inside it obviously), so it's probably fine.  Keep. — Alien  3
3 3 08:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Based of https://stackoverflow.com/a/18933182/13259751 I don't think it's wrong from an HTML point of view? I explicitly marked it with {{span-based-template}} in the documentation too so that people don't put block content inside of it.

According to the p element specification it must contain phrasing content which include the span element. So HTML specification-wise nothing wrong with what I'm doing.

As to why I made this template you can see an example use at Page:ADA155378.djvu/42 (ignore the font mess, this work is stil a work in progress). Here there is an indented "block" inside of a paragraph, so I cannot use {{lm}} as it would break the paragraph, hence the need for a span to make a margin. Virinas-code (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Checked on Special:ExpandTemplates too and it does not violate H:DIVSPAN as it only produces a span inside of a p. Virinas-code (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete This is simply replicating a hanging indent. Use {{hi}} instead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

{{hi}} is block based and only makes the first line be not indented. It cannot work on complex layouts such as Page:ADA155378.djvu/43. Note that in the doc for {{lm/i}} the example shown cannot be replicated with {{hi}} if I'm not wrong. Virinas-code (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to use a simple colon? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

A colon is the closest thing there is to {{lm/i}} currently. However (correct me if I'm wrong, paragraphs are weird) using colons breaks the paragraph, while {{lm/i}} doesn't (since it's a span). As seen in Page:ADA155378.djvu/42 my goal is to explicitely not break the paragraph. (and semantically speaking colons don't really represent indentation but rather definition lists so it's weird to use them for styling, but this is not the place for such a debate) Virinas-code (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is it important to not "break the paragraph" here? What's different on this situation from every other similar situation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Upon further inspection colons do break paragraphs. They just look like they don't thanks to a { margin-top: -0.5em; } rule. I believe making a separate template that does not have to resort to such "hacks" for in-paragraph margins is a good idea. Virinas-code (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another issue with colons is that they use a 1.6em wide space, while the work I use {{lm/i}} uses multiples of 1em for indentation, like 8em. Reproducing those with colons implies overriding behavior of colons to make them 1em-sized and repeatedly typing :::::::: every indented line. Hence I think making a single template to indent entire parts of a paragraph is the better solution.

To be clear I'm not saying this is the only solution. I just think it's the most appropriate here, and since the template neither breaks H:DIVSPAN rules neither duplicate what {{hi}} does, there is no reason to remove it. Maybe moving it outside of {{lm}} to a small, deicated page is the thing to do? That way it doesn't interfere with normal work but I can still use it in my proffreading (which uses quite uncommon formatting). Virinas-code (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the spelling mistakes or if my messages sound rude, it's very late and I'm a bit on edge lately. If you feel like my behavior isn't appropriate please tell me. Virinas-code (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

US Reports Volumes scans template

We have two templates for US Reports Volumes, {{US Reports volumes}} and {{List of United States Reports scanned volumes}}. I'm thinking we delete the second one and rework the first one to be of a similar format to {{United States Statutes at Large Scans}}. ToxicPea (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Notes

This and The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Glossary should be deleted for being both from an unsourced edition (now scanbacked) as well as possibly failing WS:WWI. The notes page includes several sections named "Questions and Topics for Study". Nighfidelity (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Those come from this edition https://www.google.com/books/edition/Spenser_s_The_Faerie_Queene/PI09AAAAYAAJ in case anyone wants to scan back a modern edition. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What about The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Sonnet to Sir Walter Raleigh, The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Letter to Sir Walter Raleigh, and The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Dedication to Queen Elizabeth? (Also from the unsourced edition.) — Alien  3
3 3 07:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Authors from A History of Mathematics (1893)

• Author:Alexander III of Macedon
• Author:Callisthenes of Olynthus
• Author:Julius Oppert
• Author:Pythagoras
• Author:Œnopides of Chios
• Author:Democritus (first English translation 1939?)
• Author:Eudoxus of Cnidus (ditto)
• Author:Eudemus of Rhodes (is he an editor?)
• Author:Pherecydes of Syros
• Author:Hippasus of Metapontum
• Author:Philolaus (some fragments survive, unsure if translated)
• Author:Hippias of Elis (given translation is copyrighted)
• Author:Eratosthenes (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Bryson of Heraclea
• Author:Hermann Hankel
• Author:Theodorus of Cyrene
• Author:Timæus of Locri (generally considered a fictional character)
• Author:Christian Ludwig Ideler
• Author:Ernesto Schiaparelli
• Author:Helicon of Cyzicus
• Author:Theætetus of Athens
• Author:Leodamas of Thasos
• Author:Neocleides
• Author:Leon
• Author:Theudius of Magnesia
• Author:Hermotimus of Colophon
• Author:Amyclas of Heraclea
• Author:Cyzicenus of Athens
• Author:Philippus of Mende
• Author:Pappus of Alexandria (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Joannes Stobaeus (is being a compiler sufficient for authorship?)
• Author:Euclid of Megara
• Author:Theon of Alexandria
• Author:Hypatia
• Author:Hypsicles of Alexandria (I think this is fine for the supposed authorship of Book XIV, but did he write anything else?)
• Author:Damascius
• Author:Zeuxippus
• Author:Eutocius of Ascalon
• Author:Heraclides Ponticus
• Author:Geminus of Rhodes
• Author:Philonides of Laodicea
• Author:François Viète
• Author:Nicomedes
• Author:Diocles
• Author:Perseus
• Author:Hero of Alexandria (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Zenodorus
• Author:Hipparchos
• Author:Heron the Elder of Alexandria
• Author:Ctesibius
• Author:Charles François Maximilien Marie de Ficquelmont
• Author:Heron of Byzantium
• Author:Theodosius of Bithynia
• Author:Dionysodorus of Kaunos
• Author:Theon of Smyrna
• Author:Serenus of Antinouplis
• Author:Menelaus of Alexandria
• Author:Nicolaus Copernicus (I would be surprised, but I can’t find one easily)
• Author:Habakkuk Guldin
• Author:Isidorus of Alexandria
• Author:Syrianus
• Author:Thymaridas of Paros
• Author:Georg Heinrich Ferdinand Nesselmann
• Author:Lucius Octavius Cornelius Publius Salvius Julianus Aemilianus
• Author:Sosigenes of Alexandria
• Author:Flavius Odoacer
• Author:Theodoric the Great
• Author:Franz Woepcke
• Author:Sridhara
• Author:Carl Anton Bretschneider
• Author:Charles Martel  Delete No known work, even in French. Yann (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Author:Al-Ṣābiʾ Thābit ibn Qurra al-Ḥarrānī (widely studied in the Arabic world, unsure of translations)
• Author:Muḥammad ibn Jābir al-Ḥarrānī al-Battānī
• Author:Plato Tiburtinus
• Author:Azod od-Dowleh Panah (Fana) Khusraw
• Author:Shirdil Abu'l-Fawaris
• Author:Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ismāʿīl ibn al-ʿAbbās al-Būzjānī
• Author:Abū Sahl Wayjan ibn Rustam al-Qūhī
• Author:Abu Hamid Ahmed ibn Mohammed al-Saghani al-Asturlabi
• Author:Abu Bekr Mohammed ben Al Hasan Al Karhi
• Author:Abu-Abdullah Muhammad ibn Īsa Māhānī
• Author:Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Hasan Khazini
• Author:Alhazen
• Author:Khawaja Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan Tūsī
• Author:Mīrzā Muhammad Tāraghay bin Shāhrukh
• Author:Ghiyāth al-Dīn Jamshīd Masʿūd al-Kāshī
• Author:Bahā' ad-Dīn Yusuf ibn Rafi ibn Shaddād
• Author:Otto the Great
• Author:Otto III
• Author:Hermann Weissenborn (1830-1896)
• Author:Adalbold II of Utrecht
• Author:Adelardus Bathensis
• Author:Francis Raymond de Sauvetât
• Author:Johannes Hispaniensis
• Author:Gerardus Cremonensis
• Author:Zag de Sujurmenza
• Author:Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen
• Author:Campanus of Novara
• Author:Leonardo Pisano Bigollo
• Author:Dominicus Dominici de Viseu
• Author:John of Palermo
• Author:Nicole Oresme
• Author:Simon Stevin
• Author:Thomas Bradwardine
• Author:Richard of Wallingford
• Author:Simon Bredon
• Author:Maximus Planudes
• Author:Manuel Moschopoulos
• Author:Johannes Müller von Königsberg
• Author:Scipione del Ferro
• Author:Lodovico Ferrari
• Author:André Duchesne
• Author:Ludolph van Ceulen
• Author:Gilles Personne
• Author:Pierre de Fermat
• Author:Johannes Kepler (while it says that most translations are from late 1900s, I can’t find any earlier ones on a preliminary search)
• Author:Evangelista Torricelli
• Author:Pietro Antonio Cataldi
• Author:William Buckley (note that redirect “W. Buckley” is unrelated)
• Author:Justus Byrgius
• Author:Johann Hartmann Beyer
• Author:Albert Girard
• Author:Jacques Pelletier du Mans
• Author:Bonaventura Francesco Cavalieri
• Author:Vincenzo Viviani
• Author:Claude Mydorge
• Author:Charles Julien Brianchon
• Author:Jacques-Charles-François Sturm
• Author:Joseph Diaz Gergonne
• Author:Bernard Frénicle de Bessy
• Author:Guidobaldo del Monte

I have made some preliminary checks and couldn’t find anything for these authors. I did for some others, which I’ve already added. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Author:Pythagoras has not been tagged, and it links to a letter attributed to him as author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, Author:Julius Oppert has not been tagged. We're less formal than Commons, but I still think it quite important when discussing an author for deletion to mark it for people who may have the page watched but not this page. [4] has a bibliography that gives English titles for some of his works. HathiTrust isn't working great for me today, so I can't find any of those sources right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest breaking it up into pieces, nominating giant lists is bad as makes it really hard to discuss cases.

• https://archive.org/details/classicsofmodern00knic has selections from both Kepler and Copernicus in it. Was the 1939 translation by Wallis actually renewed [5]? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Fermat's works are in https://archive.org/details/sourcebookinmath0000davi

MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That second has others too, e.g. Cavalieri. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Some more:

• ibn Shaddad: [6]
• Gerard of Cremona: https://archive.org/details/b20458563/page/155/mode/1up
• bin Shāhrukh / Ulugh Beg: https://archive.org/details/cu31924012303800
• Adelard of Bath: https://archive.org/details/cu31924012267781/page/n3/mode/2up

Especially the Arabic/Latin names take some time because they have various forms etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Three more translations

• Andre Duschene [7]
• Claude Mydorge: English translation by Oughtred [8]
• Sturm: On the solution of numerical equations, 1835 Spiller

MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Viete / Vieta: [9] MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The DNB says for Richard of Wallingford: " There is an English translation in MS. Digby 67, ff. 6–12, and another translation of chapters 1–5 in Digby Roll" MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Bradwardine had one of his prayer's translated [10] MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sridhara is translated here [11].08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

[12] for Hero of Alexandria. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Prosfilaes: I finished working on it late, so I didn’t have time to tag all of the pages; I intend to do that soon. MarkLSteadman (and in general): Could you cross out the names for which you’ve already found works? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am not sure I follow. Take Pythagoras, should I just go and update without comment? Are you saying the works on his page listed aren't works and I should go nah I think they are, strike off? Or for Copernicus / Kepler and others, need to clarify whether excerpts from their work qualify, or do we need the whole 1939 Ealiis translation to be accepted as PD-non-Renewal? MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I did this exact same system recently without problem. If you can find (1) any of their works, in any form, (2) in English, (3) in the public domain, then please (a) add those to their Author: page and (b) strike out the name on the list I made above. The bar is quite low, as many (for example) ancient Greek writers survive only through small fragments. As for contested works, (that is, where there is historical controversy over authorship,) the general practice is to have an Author: page and list the work, marking it as contested. For the 1939/1941 mentions, those were just translations which I could easily find. (I’ve finished tagging all of the pages. Your hyper-link to the Hero of Alexandria work is broken, by the way.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Not answering my question. Is the intent here that the standard for Pythagoras no longer qualifies and it is up for discussion? That a quick look at Richard of Wallingford DNB article linked to the page says "a middle English translation exists" but that isn't sufficient and it is up for discussion? MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Like I said there are all sorts of different questions mixed in here:

    • Authors that have works in English translation already, presumably the assumption is that those shouldn't be crossed "as already found works" out because they weren't sufficient in some way (such as Pythagoras, Stobaeus, Hypsicles). E.g. if the Pythagoras fragments are sufficient than other Greek authors in fragments? what to do about them? Just cross those out but then delete Pythagoras?
    • English authors whose scientific works are in Latin. They might have various archival records in English, were those checked and fund insufficient (e.g. whether such English works are still copyrighted...)
    • Political figures: We have letters and speeches quoted in other works, e.g. the 34 letters of Alexander the Great listed here: [13] which are excerpted out of works like Arrian and Plutarch which we have in translation e.g. The Anabasis of Alexander/Book II/Chapter XIV). And then we have for we have quotations in accounts... Can I just cross it and link to Arrian?
    • Copyright questions about translations, especially post-1930 US works and non-renewals: e.g. the 1941 Loeb "Greek Mathematical Works", various theses etc. These need to be checked (e.g. I did a quick scan in the 1968-1970 records / Stanford DB and did not see a renewal). Are you claiming that volume is copyrighted or for some other reason that volume isn't valid? Should I just list that volume and cross it out even though you say "(first English translation 1941?)" and specifically highlight this translation?

    MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Gilles Personne is translated in 1932 here [14] which looks US origin without renewal. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oresme's Treatise on Money is here: [15] (1930). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Poems by Peletier are translated in this anthology: [16] (1900) MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration

The original on svWS is not scan backed, so a user-created translation cannot be hosted at enWS per our translation policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Diogenes99 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The word "scan" is used only once in the policy and is not defined in a way that supports compliance or makes it possible.

"A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation." Diogenes99 (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the policy could perhaps be better worded, but that is still our policy. If you scan-back sv:Kvinnans förnedring och upprättelse using the procedure described at sv:Wikisource:Korrekturläsning, then we would be able to keep Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration, but otherwise we will not be able to keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Diogenes99: do you intend to scan-back the original? — Alien  3
3 3 12:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please delete Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration. It's is not worth the time to inteprret the word "scan" since scanners are not used anymore. Most documents are photographed. Diogenes99 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Diogenes99: scan refers to a digitized files, as are available online on websites such as https://archive.org. The MediaWiki ProofreadPage extension lets us transcribe on-wiki page by page, with the document, so that people can check for and find errors more easily.
As Beleg said, sv:Wikisource:Korrekturläsning covers the process on the wiki in question. — Alien  3
3 3 21:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Judith

The actual text is not being trasnslated. The "translation" currently on this page consists almost entirely of footnotes from some undetermined source. It is 99% footnotes, with no text for the notes to attach to. This violates Wikisource:Translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Aside from the Foreword, all of the annotations are linked to actual translated text. And I can see that the actual text IS being translated. The presence of annotations in a user translation does not appear to violate WS:T, although they probably violate WS:ANN (in which case they should be moved to a separate annotated page as required by that policy). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: a relevant passage from WS:ANN: "This policy does not apply to original translations of non-English works which do not otherwise add new information to the work; for more, see Wikisource:Translations. More elaborately annotated works may be created on Wikisource's sister project Wikibooks."—the footnotes at Translation:Judith do add a significant amount of new information to the work, and the annotations are indeed quite elaborate, so Wikibooks might be the answer here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In the past, we have always aimed for literal translations, but more importantly: What text? Where? Where is the original that is being translated? Per WS:T "An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation." --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That information is provided in the linked page Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible. But you're right, a link to el:Ιουδίθ should be added to that page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now added a link to el:Ιουδίθ to the page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That link points to a text with no scan-backing, so the conditions of WS:T are still not met. There must be a scan-backed copy in the original language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO the WS:T#Grandfather rule applies, since Translation:Judith was already in progress as of July 2013 (even though it is true that very little progress had been made at that time) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This: [17] is what the translation looked like in April of 2025, so I disagree about it being grandfathered. It consisted of only two sentences, with no identified original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It was also part of Translation:Bible at the time, which did have significant progress. (unrelated to this discussion, but it should be noted that Translation:Bible should be moved to Portal space at some point, now that it has been split into separate works) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"Bible" is a collection of texts gathered under a single project. It's not a set collection of texts, as different versions include different sets of books. But I still maintain that, since it had only two sentences, grandfathering does not apply here. Nor does grandfathering afford carte blanche to do anything and everything, without regard for policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree about "Bible" in general; I'm just noting that in 2013 the user translation of the Bible was one project. And I also agree that grandfathering should not afford carte blanche (we do need to do get rid of those footnotes, and I think WS:ANN's suggestion of using Wikibooks is a good one). I just don't think we need to delete the user translation of Judith outright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If there had been a sizeable translation to start with, or if the expanded translation had a scan-backed source, or if the translation were more than a mountain of user-created encyclopedic content, then there might be a case for keeping the translation. But it's not scan-backed, it's mostly encyclopedic content consisting of annotations, and the grandfathered portion was two sentences. At best it might belong on some other project, but it isn't Wikisource content, and it isn't compliant with our policies on inclusion, translation, or annotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: "they should be moved to a separate annotated page as required by that policy". We're required to have a plain, unannotated text, after which a separate annotated version in another location in permitted. But for user-created translations, that violates WS:T, since only one user-created translation per text is allowed, not two. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That's probably why WS:ANN explicitly excludes user-created translations tbh —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This makes sent to me as translations are dynamic and collaborative and that can cause conflict with many of the annotations which tend to assume a fixed published text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Votesmall —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the courtesy ping and the support, Beleg Tâl. I guess I don't understand what the problem is here? Judith is an extremely corrupted text so the footnotes in the translation are extensive to compare the various manuscripts that differ substantially. I am new to WikiSource so I haven't read every rule page on this website yet. I saw the following on WikiProject Bible:

"Don't hesitate to add footnotes. All kinds of footnotes are welcome, including if you're really not sure about how something should be translated. Either another editor will see your footnote, and fix the text, or it is a place where translating well is really difficult, and this info is good to be passed on to the reader. (In case of ambiguity in the text, put the other possible renderings in the footnotes.)"

Maybe it's my fault for not checking more rule pages, but I didn't think I was doing anything wrong since WikiProject Bible actually enocurages the use of footnotes. If my footnotes, which are primarily concerned with comparing the different manuscripts consulted, violate the WikiSource policy, then idk maybe I'll try WikiBooks instead, but I'd like to have this information out there since it's based on years of careful study. Sorry if I'm coming off annoyed, but I've spent years of my life working on Wikipedia and other similar websites just to see a lot of hard work get deleted for technicality reasons. This isn't my first time at the rodeo, so if the entire page is going to be deleted, I'd appreciate a notification so I can back up my work first. (Votesmall (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC))

You're right, the problem isn't the existence of footnotes per se. The problem is that Wikisource exists to provide a platform for the primary text itself, and not to provide a platform for original content. Our annotation policy allows for "original translations of non-English works which do not otherwise add new information to the work", which is to allow for footnotes explaining translation choices and alternate readings and so forth. Looking at your own translation of Judith, however, it appears that most of the content of the page is historical context and commentary, which is tangential to the work itself. Even this could be overlooked (IMHO) if it were not for the fact that it comprises such a significant proportion of the content there. So the problem isn't that there are footnotes, but that the bulk of the content of the page consists of original encyclopedic content, rather than the text of the work itself.

This is also complicated by a second problem, which is that user-based translations created since 2013 are only allowed if the original text has been proofread against a scan of a published copy on the original language's wikisource (i.e. el:Ιουδίθ should be backed by a scanned publication as described at Help:Proofread). There is some disagreement whether this applies to Translation:Judith, since it was started before 2013, but just barely. So that needs to be resolved also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just giving you an update: I have removed all the footnotes on the page. I have kept the foreword and the parts of the translation I have done so far, but I will not be contributing to the Judith page any further since it is probably getting deleted, and there's no point. I'm not going to die on this hill, because I have better things to do than go back and forth over something I'm doing for fun (because, with all due respect, this thread isn't my idea of "fun"). It just frustrates me, because I was only trying to help. Thanks for your guidance on this, Beleg Tâl. (Votesmall (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC))

George Borrow (Winnie Parry Original)

Welsh-only transcription. This should probably be moved to another language Wikisource. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Also Thomas Pennant (Winnie Parry Original) - both should be in cy.wikisource.org -- Beardo (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Thomas Pennant (Winnie Parry) and George Borrow (Winnie Parry), which are unsourced translations of the above. (I suspect they are user-original translations, in which case they fail WS:T until/unless they are scan backed at cyWS) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I am the translator of the English version under discussion. The Welsh original texts are public-domain articles from *Y Llusern* (1907). I would have no objection to the Welsh transcriptions being moved to cy.wikisource.org if that is considered more appropriate. The English versions are my own translations of those public-domain Welsh texts. Since this nomination was opened, the translation of “George Borrow” has been published on the George Borrow Society research page, where both the source and translation are clearly identified. The original Welsh text is “George Borrow” by Winnie Parry in *Y Llusern* (1907), available via Welsh Journals Online. I would be grateful for clarification on whether publication in that form addresses the WS concern, or whether the translations are considered inadmissible on English Wikisource regardless of external publication. Mortal Ken (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mortal Ken: in order for us to host a user-created translation, a scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki. This means that you need to use this procedure to add the original Welsh text to Welsh Wikisource before we can host the English translation here on English Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The original Welsh text of “George Borrow” (Winnie Parry, Y Llusern, 1907) has now been added to cy.wikisource.org with scan references from Welsh Journals Online covering the relevant issues (Ionawr, Mawrth, Ebrill 1907), and the text has been transcribed and verified against those scans.

The English version is my own translation of that public-domain Welsh text.

I understand from the comments above that the requirement under WS is that the scan-supported original must first be present on the appropriate language Wikisource, and this has now been done.

I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether this satisfies the structural requirement for hosting the English translation here, or whether further steps are still required. Mortal Ken (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It has to be scan-supported using this procedure; simply linking to the scan is insufficient. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this might be more helpful for you: Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — that is helpful clarification. For avoidance of doubt, the underlying text of Y Llusern (1907), including the Winnie Parry “George Borrow” article, is in principle public domain due to its date of publication and authorship status. However, I understand that Wikisource’s requirement is not only about the copyright status of the text itself, but also about scan provenance and integration into the ProofreadPage system (Index + Page structure backed by a Commons-hosted file). At present I have access to digitised scans via Welsh Journals Online, but I am confirming with the National Library of Wales whether those digitised page images are cleared for redistribution on Wikimedia Commons. Once that is clarified, I will proceed either with Commons upload and full Index/Page integration, or with an alternative structure if required.Mortal Ken (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. By the way, it may be helpful to note that a simple scan of a public domain work is also in the public domain, even if the institution who made the scan claims to own the copyright; see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

To add, the user translations should be placed in Translation space, not in the main space - so those two need to be moved. -- Beardo (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Done - and I've left {{dated soft redirect}}s so as not to disrupt this discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

1926 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer

All project disclaimers were deprecated a few years ago, with the previous ones being grandfathered to Wikisource:Project disclaimers. As this was made well after, should this be deleted? Nighfidelity (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Post-2013 Bible translations with no scan on the appropriate language Wikisource

The following books included in WS:WikiProject Wiki Bible were created after 2013, and lack a scan (or sometimes any page at all) in the appropriate language Wikisource; and as such they violate WS:T and should be deleted.

• Translation:2 Kings (2018)
• Translation:2 Chronicles (2018)
• Translation:Nehemiah (2018)
• Translation:Hosea (2019)
• Translation:Jonah (2015)
• Translation:Nahum (2022)
• Translation:Zephaniah (2014)
• Translation:Malachi (2024)
• Translation:Letter of Jeremiah (2016)
• Translation:Prayer of Manasseh (2016)
• Translation:Psalms (Greek) (2017)
• Translation:1 Meqabyan (2023)
• Translation:2 Meqabyan (2026)
• Translation:3 Meqabyan (2026)
• Translation:Psalms (Syriac) (2017)
• Translation:Prayer of Solomon (2024)
• Translation:1 Clement (2018)

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I am explicitly ignoring the question of incompleteness, either now or in 2013. Some of these are complete, some are barely started; and some that were barely started in 2013 are excluded as meriting a separate discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, how about adding a scan in the appropriate language Wikisource? I do not know whether scans are already available on Commons, but I found this scan on Internet Archiveː 2 Kings 2 Chronicles Nehemiah Hosea Jonah Nahum Zephaniah Malachi. I am willing to work on adding the scans to Hebrew Wikisource, but I would need some guidance in how to do so. Thanks in advance, Sije (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You can see our documentation on setting up a scan here: Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I uploaded the scan at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bibliahebraicaad00hahn.pdf Sije (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

PSː Any help from other users would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Sije (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: the original Hebrew needs to be scan-backed at heWS (he:מפתח:Bibliahebraicaad00hahn.pdf), before the translation can be hosted here on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I began to work on that as well. Sije (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete 1 Clement, as the Translations page is mostly notes and references, with only the header line to the book being any kind of actual translation. There is a Loeb volume from 1919 [18] that could be transcribed at Greek Wikisource, but this is an outdated edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE)

Webpage copy, and that content doesn't especially have any coherence as a work. — Alien  3
3 3 16:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Constitution of South Vietnam (1967)

Compilation of the official translation and a user translation. See the note in the header. Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The main change I see is going from "Lower House" and "Upper House" to "House of Representatives" and "Senate". That hardly counts as a compilation with a new translation that merits deletion, just scan back against the original sourced text and call it a day. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: The provided link to the original version does not work, did you find it anywhere else? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The link to a scan was provided in the CV discussion to verify the lack of claimed copyright for {{PD-US-no-notice}} MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

it is also available in the IA Wayback Machine [19] MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sure plenty of other non-scan backed works had the editor when entering it here decide to make similar "improvements" to the source text without disclosing that they did so, or copied from second-hand sources that did so, hence why we prefer scan-backing, but this is certainly close enough no one would consider it not redundant to the source text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not acceptable of course, so whenever we come across something like that and find it out we should either undo it or delete the work. If your suspicion that it is a wide problem with non-scan backed works is true, it would be another argument supporting the view we should start accepting only scan-backed works whenever possible. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting a page because they 15 years ago entered "today" instead" of "to-day" or "Leipzig" instead of "Leipsic" or something like that isn't at all what that provision is for. I would find it highly abusive of that if I came back here in 15 years and a work I spent hours proofreading was deleted because I transcribed to-day as today and someone decided that meant it is a compilation with a new work so delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a few more differences I spotted after a brief glance (besides what you have already mentioned):

• Viet-nam x Vietnam (introducing modern spelling)
• Every activity designed to propagandize or carry out communism is prohibited. x Every activity designed to propagate or execute communism is prohibited.
• protect freedom, the lives, property and honor of every citizen x protect the freedom, lives, property and honor of every citizen
• Accused persons will be considered innocent until sentence recognizing his guilt is... x ...will be considered innocent until sentence recognizing their guilt is... (introducing politically correct speech)

So, after this brief glance I suspect there are more like these and unless somebody is willing to go through thte text and correct it, I suggest its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I am opposed to the interpretation that someone changing Vietnam to Viet-nam merits deletion of a work. Also, when saying "introducing politically correct speech" is that based on opinion or based on a knowledge of the Vietnamese language and looking at the original? As I said, these changes are all within the scope of what I see people doing all the time to works, adding "for clarity" and then they get reverted, etc. I have never seen the claim that tweaking grammar or spelling makes it "a compilation" and "a new work" in fact this level of change is often done within a print run of a edition and not considered a new edition. It is certainly possible to look at two different printings of the same edition where someone decided to reset the type to be more grammatical. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not only Viet-nam, there are many cases of user's interference in all spelling, grammar and vocabulary. And because we claim that it is an official translation published in the Vietnam Newsletter in 1967, readers get a false impression of that translation. We do not host documents only because of their contents, but also because they tell us of their time, of their publishers and of their authors. Such changes destroy this message. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Any transcription pulled from secondary sources / entered in is liable to have minor editorial changes, and it sets up for an endless mire of arguments e.g. whether a one word change punctuation or grammatical fix coming from say a Gutenberg transcription is the result of a minor variation within an edition done by the publisher (eligible) vs. a user-created compilation standard (ineligible). I think it is bad precedent to set, especially if we start encourage find the typo, delete the non-scan-backed work as a way around the precedent we have set about keeping works around. Someone that in good faith entered "protect freedom, the lives, property and honor of every citizen" vs "protect the freedom, lives, property and honor of every citizen" or "propagandize" vs. "propagate" doesn't merit deletion because they made an entry error typing up a 300 page book. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not one word change, there are many "improvements". It would be a bad precedent to accept such contributions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The solution is someone either makes a validation pass and fixes the differences back to the source, or reproof via scan-backing, the current status of a he vs. their, Viet-nam vs. Vietnam, minor word reordering is well within the bounds of what proofread texts have as errors that we correct all the time. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jan here. This is not a 300 page book, and it looks like the changes are intentional.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The proper way to address the editor's intent is via Wikisource:Annotations. Following the annotation policy does not make a "compilation of the official translation and a user translation" and hence ineligible for inclusion as a "compilation", it's an annotated version of the same work.

The problems all highlighted are because we didn't have/enforce clear policies on style (chapter headings, modernized spelling, correction of typographical and grammatical errors), clear policies on annotations, clear policies on requiring strict fidelity to the original published versions (as opposed to second-hand editions). All of those are the actual issues, and they are addressed for any new work, the problem is that this is in our legacy pile. Saying don't delete a PG work in our legacy pile doesn't mean we are setting a precedent that new PG works are acceptable. I am far more concerned about setting new precedents for new works based on legacy issues than legacy issues that will go away when this work is brought up to current vs. 2015 standards. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep as it's now transcluded to the original scan, rendering the nominator's reasons moot. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Nighfidelity. And thanks for bringing it up to our standards! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Dawn (Haggard)

This page is just a title page and an empty TOC. I would consider it speediable under WS:CSD G1 "No meaningful content or history"—except that a previous attempt to flag it for speedy deletion was reverted by an administrator on the grounds that it contains links, is disambiguated, and has a wikidata item. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete as abandoned and incomplete, though I'd disagree about the G1. It has a title page already; that's meaningful content even though not enough for us to keep a page for it. G1 IMO means more than imcomplete. — Alien  3
3 3 12:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I found a scan from Google Books of the 1887 edition. Could I scan back it? Nighfidelity (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why not. -- Beardo (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language

This fails one of our speedy deletion criteria: Work-based categories: Categories solely intended to contain pages within a particular work (instead, provide a table of contents on the work's main page).

However, this can't be nominated for speedy deletion because of the nearly 5000 entry pages listed in the category, and those entries will have to be edited to remove the category.

There is also a subcategory Category:Annotated entries in Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language for the Annotated edition of the same dictionary, which also has nearly 5000 pages in the category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:A Dictionary of the English Language

This fails one of our speedy deletion criteria: Work-based categories: Categories solely intended to contain pages within a particular work (instead, provide a table of contents on the work's main page).

However, this can't be nominated for speedy deletion because of the pages listed in the category, and those entries will have to be edited to remove the category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Energizer Bunny commercial debut

Per [20] the source video was deleted at Commons. We should either host a local copy (if someone disagrees with the rationale) or delete this page and Index:Energizer Bunny commercial (1988).webm so we don't have an orphaned page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The 1981 rule regarding advertisements clearly means that this could be copyrighted, in such a way that we have no reasonable way to disprove. I don’t think that the Eveready Battery decision controls, though; the question of notice was not presented to the court or disputed by the parties. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. It seems that it would be almost impossible to prove that it was PD.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

History of Russia

Incomplete and abandoned for more than 20 years. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment IA does have good scans for Vol. I and Vol. II of the 1898 edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Index:Performing Without a Stage - The Art of Literary Translation - by Robert Wechsler.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Commons file restored

The Commons file has been deleted. Per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Performing Without a Stage - The Art of Literary Translation - by Robert Wechsler.pdf the work is now under a non-compatible license. -- Beardo (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I left a comment on Commons, so I would say to wait for a bit. Also if deleted, one should not forget all the pages. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, noted. And yes - it was all those pages appearing as orphaned which led me to this. (Oddly, they only appeared as orphaned quite recently). -- Beardo (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The file has been restored in Commons. Ankry (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Deletion proposal withdrawn. -- Beardo (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Beardo (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Author:Ibn Abi al-'Izz

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per WS:D#G9

No public-domain English translations. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Portal:Bath Georgian newspaper

This seems to be an arbitrary collection of articles from unknown Georgian-era newspapers. The link (archived) is just to the home page of the database. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Delete. The database is now located here. The portal appears to be a list of descriptions of various articles in the Bath Chronicle that discuss the Somerset coal canal; there is no actual content of the articles themselves. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Pre-Prophetic Cinema: The Complete Glossary

Self-published work. Nighfidelity (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)