Wikisource:Proposed deletions

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

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



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

Subpages of works migrated to Translation namespace[edit]

Some works have been moved to the Translation: for about 5 months now. Where these pages are subpages of works, I would like to think that we can now remove the soft redirects that are the subpages, and just retain the the overarching redirect for the parent work.

Examples of works are

I believe that we can have any deletion message point to the pertinent page that it replaces and act as a de facto pointer. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I was hoping we'd get to resolving some of that maintenance & tracking overhang myself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There does not seem to any opposition to this suggestion. All involved have the tools to make the modifications. Either can make the changes, and close this discussion when completed. Jeepday (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

(And pages)

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

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


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

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

Index:Siouan Sociology.djvu[edit]

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

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

This is dated 1949 so IS PD-Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It really depends on whether the differences between the editions amount to the addition of copyrightable material. If the only changes are typo fixes or minor wording changes, the new work does not enter into a new copyright. BD2412 T 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In 1925, wouldn't the copyright have needed to be formally registered in order to be valid? If the 1925 edition lists only the 1922 copyright (see here), that suggests to me that the publisher didn't go to the trouble and expense to seek out a new copyright in 1925. So even if the amendments were copyrightable, could it be that they were never copyrighted, and thus in the public domain due to PD-1923? -Pete (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean no-notice? That is indeed plausible if the edits were minor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The Nelson version is pre-1923, vide another copy at Index:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk1.djvu. However, may consider the illustrator's life span [Richard Henry Brock (British, 1871-1943)]. Hrishikes (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Nihon Shoki[edit]

This is an incomplete copy of a self-published translation licensed under the GFDL 1.2. A suitable published translation by William George Aston exists and is being digitized here. One of the contributors to that project expressed interest in this being deleted and made to redirect there. Prosody (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The DjVu for the Aston translation is missing many of its pages, and so it's not altogether clear whether we've got the full text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The Aston translation problem has been resolved. By not having the full text, do you mean the Wikidot translation? If so, you're correct, what we have is a partial copy. Prosody (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Luton Baptismal Records - 1864[edit]

We have a historical record (2 page spread of an English baptismal record) for which one transcription has been entered. I am not disputing the accuracy of the record or the probable source of the information, though I will dispute that it was in the handwriting of the father, these were traditionally done by the parish priest. The record and information while relevant, should be on the talk page of the author, however, as it is just an excerpt of a register, I don't think that it fits within WS:WWIbillinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Birth Register is similar. If we could have the whole works that these are excerpted from, they could stay (and be brilliant resources) I reckon. I guess that's less likely.

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Code:  —  = hairspace + em-dash + hairspace

I would like to propose that we dispense with Template:—, it seems unnecessary for our work, it reports that it is problematic with some Epub exports due to the hair spaces, and I would think that everything that we do should be compatible with epub exports. Hair spaces a a typographic nicety and not identified with the authors work, and are basically redundant for our work and a complicating feature. If someone can do an emdash, why do we wish to wrap it inside a template? I would proposed that we convert from {{}} to a simple emdash (—). — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I support that. Hesperian 00:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, get rid of it I say. I think I've used it, and {{--}}, in the past but now just do dashes directly (unspaced always). I don’t think the problem is with epub support though, but perhaps some ereaders can't handle it. Kobos seem to without any problem (although the don't know what to do with a bar!). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove. If they can handle — but can't handle {{}} then, {{}} should be removed. Accessibility is essential. I can't see how an e-reader couldn't handle a simple dash. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support—Some books are impossible to read on my ereader because of the thin spaces not rendering. The thin spaces are also sometimes preventing line breaking at the em-dash (I can't give examples of this as I change them when I notice). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Good point about breaking. I wonder if there’s a thin nonbreaking space? (Not that we should use it!) What ereader do you use by the way? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sony PRS-T1 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- although I've always felt the "honest" transcription of what to the eye in print resembles
  • a bit of space before and after a separator line longer than a dash should have been spacebar + eN-dash + spacebar; and
  • a separator line longer than a dash 'touching' the last letter of the word preceding it and the first letter of the word following it should have just been an eM-dash,
... all this time, I still consider implementing this proposal better than what's been done 'till now.

Note that the current usage of this template runs into the thousands – complicated by duplications due to transclusion from Page: to main – I recommend a well thought out approach for BOT runs be developed beforehand. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This looks to be pretty simple replacement with AWB, it is {{—}} to . If there is nothing to replace, then AWB can be told to skip, and we can check again once the cache run has finished. I have done a test run from my general account, and it seemed fine from ~50 replacements. Looks like 11+k pages needing replacements in Page: ns, and shows a total nearly 16k pages total. I would expect that there will be a mix of main ns with text, and a larger percentage with transclusions.

Is there any reason to not close this with a proviso of replacements to be done first? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Need alternative. I've done a lot of transcription of EB1911 pages, and used the template for all dashs. An unspaced em-dash touching an adjacent character is frankly ugly, and the original seems to always have some breathing room (although in most cases the end of the dash seems to be vertically aligned with a serif, so the middle of the adjacent character doesn't touch anyway; my browser uses a sans-serif font). Are there other HTML elements that could be used to provide a small margin without breaking ereaders? And a note: the code that pre-populates the page header in EB1911 Page Space should change if this template is deprecated; I don't know who maintains that. DavidBrooks (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    An example of EB1911 page is Page:EB1911 - Volume_01.djvu/118. I have scraped the two versions of the text and you can see them at Special:PermanentLink/5181808. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Propose to close and start the replacement process. Speak now if that is not the believed consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Replacement of {{}} to underway. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I trust you are keeping any eye upon the outputs of your bot run. The edit to—for example: Help:Templates—let us say lacked a certain elegance. Hacked, in other words, by the proverbial blind woodsman? AuFCL (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
There (a|we)re 20k uses of the template. It is predominantly a simple replacement (meaning not a complex coded and conditional replacement) and there will be a few like the example given, though hopefully nothing in the complex space. Though, yes, I am looking and listening, and hopefully the community is watching and assisting as they can. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In other words (do I detect a defensive tone?) you concede some of these edits are, naturally, a little too mechanical? Perhaps allowing the automated process to wander into the Help: name space might have been in hindsight a little too brave? (Whilst on the topic of brave bearing in mind a certain minor edit war in 2010 over the headline template. A balanced stance?)

Don't get me wrong: on the whole the clean-up appears a positive exercise but as in everything else could have perhaps have done with a little more apparent careful planning? AuFCL (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Explanatory. Nothing for which to be defensive; you asked, and I responded. If you would prefer no response, then please say so.

I said that it is a list of 20000 lines of where the template is transcluded, from all nss. I scrolled the down list and obviously didn't notice one from the Help: ns where it was used in an exemplary sense, rather than a use. I purposefully didn't remove namespaces from the cleaning as leaving a red linked template seems worse than a replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So noted (please indicate if any of the following points are incorrect):
  1. You want credit for this bot run (otherwise why else draw attention to it here?).
  2. You do not want feedback regarding peculiarities of its behaviour.
  3. Per Rule 1 (quoted in full; highlighting drawn from source) "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes."
I shall let you "win" this time if that makes you happy as I really do not care for anything this particular "run" is doing. I withhold the right to make more of a nuisance of myself should this final constraint be violated. Have a nice day (the last asserted with expected level of sincerity. Usual costs upon respect per standing orders.) AuFCL (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, now progressed
Depreceated, and uploaders should be using whatever Commons now has.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, we started the Pd/1923 and Pd/1996 series, and it was migrated to Commons by the author of the templates. Kudos to the initial idea, and we can happily cull the old template. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Index:Felisberto narraciones dp.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: non-English work, no value in transwiki as Commons files
Non English work, Transwikit to es or pt? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
yes, looks like Spanish to me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to Pi[edit]

This is an unsourced work, which is identical to the sourced work The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the new work should have just been transcluded over the old page, to maintain history. Now I do not know what is the best way forward.--Mpaa (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would have done that, but User:Billinghurst suggested that I leave both of them up, and then post the discussion here—see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-01#What to do with a work that has no source scan, when a sourced copy is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I lost that.--Mpaa (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is whether we wish to have two versions or not, one unsourced. It probably needs a prod of the original uploader, and a light comparison of the text prior to just deleting. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Biblical figures who are not authors[edit]

The following Biblical figures have author pages, and I am quite certain that no works have ever been ascribed to them:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discovered the Book of Enoch attributed to Enoch; that's one down. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The Jewish Virtual Library says "Books were attributed to pagan authors, and names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah." Wikipedia has articles on w:Apocalypse of Elijah, w:Apocalypse of Adam, w:Testament of Isaac, w:Testament of Abraham, and a bunch more in w:Category:Old Testament Apocrypha. "Quite certain" seems way overconfident here. (As a side-note, w:Lamech is a disambiguation page to two Biblical fellows, and Author:Lamech says nothing about which it's meant to cover.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Without specifically 're-investigating', my understanding of biblical history is that the book of Enoch is actually considered to be of his authorship, but that the others are not reliably attributed to the named person, but instead later anonymous writings. Revent (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah? Let's just say that belief in his existence is a minority position and in his authorship even more so. IMO, works attributed to an author should be found on their page, particularly if we have no better authorship information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, my comment (like I noted, without re-investigating) can be take as an expression of dubiousness toward the other rather than of advocating that one in particular. Revent (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
To make it more clear.... my understanding is that the 'authorship' of Enoch is the best supported of them all, not that it is itself particularly well-supported. Revent (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Even more clarity... I an not claiming that the Book of Enoch is the work of a person named "Enoch", or even of a individual author, merely that my impression is that of all of the named works, it is the most likely to be of truly ancient authorship, and thus the most reasonable to describe as the work of a single 'truly anonymous' author. Revent (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It is my opinion that if a work is traditionally attributed to a certain historical or semi-historical figure, then that figure should have an Author page linking to the work, even as an attribution. See, for example, Author:Moses, who is listed as the attributed author of the Pentateuch even though he certainly did not write them. Similarly, Author:Paul of Tarsus makes reference to apocryphal works supposedly by Paul, and mention of Hebrews which is no longer believed to have been written by him. It should be clear that these are attributions, but they should still be listed. Thus: the Book of Enoch is actually attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. Whether he was actually the author or whether he even existed seems moot to me; he is named as the author and should be mentioned as such.
The other works, however: maybe some of them are attributed to their namesakes, but others aren't. For example, the Book of Ruth is attributed to Author:Samuel, not to Ruth herself. Similarly, the Apocalypse of Elijah is about Elijah, but it doesn't seem to be commonly or traditionally attributed to him, at least not from what I got from Wikipedia or a quick Google search. More research would need to be done to ascertain whether any books are actually supposed or attributed to be written by these people. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You explain it better than I did... the Book of Enoch was almost certainly not the work of 'Noah's grandfather Enoch', but has been traditionally attributed to him since ancient times by the Jewish tradition and both the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, and Enoch is quoted by name in the Epistle of Jude, which itself dates to the first century. It seems reasonable to thus 'attribute' it to him, with possibly some kind of notation that the "Enoch" the work is attributed to is believed to actually be multiple unknown authors using that name. Revent (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this. Without getting too far into encyclopedic territory, we should do our best to explain the scholarly consensus as to the authorship of works like these, and can use the author pages for the "traditional" authors to do so. BD2412 T 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Early Jewish on the Apocalypse of Elijah: "It is wise to be hesitant in identifying this quotation with the Apocalypse of Elijah since it is not found in the Coptic or Hebrew texts, and because there were other compositions pseudonymously attributed to Elijah, although some are now lost." I fail to see the value in nitpicking every last point; do you really honestly believe there's no work in the world that's attributed only to Elijah? If you think that more research would be needed, then withdraw this and go and do it. Until the research is done, I repeat my quote above: "Books were attributed to ... names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah." For the majority of the names you brought up, there's no reason to doubt that there's works attributed to them from anonymous authors. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, Author:Lamech refers to w:Lamech (father of Noah), as evidenced by those texts linking to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
All of these "authors" (and several more New Testament characters found in Category:Biblical figures are definitely notable w.r.t to local criteria. So none should be deleted (but it does not mean that creation of pages for every biblical character should be encouraged!!!) The more relevant question (should not be raised here, though:) is in which namespace these characters should reside. I don't think it is possible to draw the hard line here, unfortunately. For Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), maybe keep prophets and minor prophets as authors and the rest as portals. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
I am starting to feel like a broken record here. As a special case of "(any) figures who are not authors" we need to reserve some kind of method of recording the fact that somebody has undertaken the research to establish that a given entity produced no published works...even if only to save the next poor sap going through the same exercise over and over again just because some "purist" decided to delete the prior record. If this is a plea to deaf ears then knock yourselves out in pointless busy-work. Author space is beginning to seem unwanted; yet Wikidata remains in flux and is not as simple a "replacement" as propaganda would like it to seen to be. AuFCL (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the defining point should be whether they have authorship or not (and traditional attribution should count for this, as discussed above re: Enoch). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And just because we can create a Portal doesn't mean that we should. There should be a definite value in having the Portal, such as having actual content. A page that is content-free is not a Portal simply because it resides in that namespace. Creating a lot of Portals with no information merely cheapens the value of Wikisource, as users will follow a link here only to discover there is no content. When that happens, people are less likely to follow links in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Figures who have no authorship, and are also not particularly noteable (e.g. Barjesus) have no business being in a portal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
With respect several of the above arguments only work from a "perfect hindsight" perspective. Remembering that WS is a wiki one should in fairness apply wiki-principles to the evolution of a position as well.

To expand imagine a casual proofreader or validator of a given work coming across a piece of text stating "Fred Jones, M.A. Cambridge" was an important influence to that work. Not knowing anything whatsoever about "Fred Jones" does the proofreader (A) stop to research them; (B) ignore them because "policy" or (C) make some kind of link?

Option (A) disrupts proofreading flow; (B) loses an opportunity to make connections; and (C) might turn out to be blue (and still might link to the wrong place! There might be multiple "Fred Jones"'?) Are such links only to be applied retrospectively by designated trusted curators (and where do they get their hints as to fertile areas for maintenence?). If so officially declare (B) policy and be done with the whole mess.

Finally if the fact has been established that "Fred Jones" was a nobody unworthy of further effort: isn't it completely counter-productive not to record that somewhere so that future repetitions of this debacle do not recur? Right at present I find the potential for endless churn without overall quality improvement is simply depressing.

My last word on this issue is that if anybody takes the effort to note something as potentially worth following up the community owes it to that person to treat their notation with respect. Improve the notation by all means but equally condemn deleting or hiding that notation as an irresponsible act. (Per the old sad joke: "This matter does not concern you, erase your initials and initial your erasure.") AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that we are not talking about "nobodies" here, but (at least) notable literary characters. If someone were to come to Wikisource looking for The Dynamics of an Asteroid by Professor James Moriarty, we might like to let them know that although this book would certainly be in the public domain if it existed, it does not exist, and was in fact a device invented by Arthur Conan Doyle for his Sherlock Holmes series. BD2412 T 13:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: AuFCL: If the "casual proofreader" has created the link because they did not bother to do any research, and someone then does the research, it would be irresponsible and wasteful to then not make use of that research. This has nothing to do with whether a person / character / publisher is a "nobody", but whether there are any works at all that were either written by or attributed to the figure in question. If no such works exist, nor have ever been described, nor are likely to, then there is absolutely zero value is setting up and maintaining an Author page. In fact, less than zero because it misleads and disappoints readers following links to such pages, only to find a "we have no works". The person then decides to "help" by adding such works and begins looking for them on IA, Hathi, etc., only to end up duplicating the work already done that determined there were no such works in existence. An empty author page is like a "coming soon" sign for a Starbucks that will never, ever be built, and posting such signs is both cruel and irresponsible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Suppose, rather than creating individual author pages for these subjects, we were to create a single "Biblical authors" page noting that no one knows who wrote the book, but that these are people to whom individual stories are attributed, and redirect all these names there. BD2412 T 15:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good idea. There are many works in existence, not just Biblical, whose authorship is somewhere between completely unknown and completely certain, and yet the attributed authors are still listed. I think this would be a significant and yet counter-intuitive and ultimately pointless shift in the way Wikisource operates currently. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412:To whom are you addressing this remark? It does not follow from what I said. I am fine with having an author page for someone to whom an extant work is attributed. I am opposed to having an authorship page for someone with no known works in existence, nor any attributed works in existence, nor any collected published fragments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My remark was addressed generally. Rather than having individual pages for errantly or traditionally attributed non-authors, it is better, I think, to condense the attributions where possible. BD2412 T 17:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
How does that improve usability? If you're looking for a work by Enoch and you go to the Author:Enoch page, it does not make it easier to be redirected to a much larger page. If you're looking for a work said to be to be Daniel Defoe (and there is a lot of debate on the subject as to what he actually wrote), there's no value in having a Works by Anonymous 18th Century English Writers page to search when we could actually just put it on the Daniel Defoe page. If people know that Joe Shmoe wrote a work, going to Joe Shmoe's page should generally get you to that work, particularly when the best we could do otherwise is some sort of collect-all page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I agree with this entirely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Cub Scout and Brownie Law[edit]

There's no source, no license, and the translation looks like Google Translate level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — I feel like this kind of stuff shouldn't have to have a consensus for deletion. But I guess better safe than sorry. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to add 4.0 CC-BY, because it's my own translation from Polish, but I don't know how looks like an suitable Template. Superjurek (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As I know wikisourcers' translations are accepted. Superjurek (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
First, we strongly encourage us having a scanned source for translations, or at least a transcribed copy of the original. Secondly, we need to know the copyright status of the original. Lastly, I'm not sure you should be translating into English; it's not a good fluent translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well – first, the original text is here. Secondly law acts published by ZHP are in Public Domain, simillary to government's acts in USA. Lastly, I am surprised that 6 sentenceses could be translated influently... Probably I don't know English, then you might indicate me the lacks of fluidity. Superjurek (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Superjurek, how are ZHP texts public domain? They are not laws of the land, which apply to everyone and are often given exemptions in copyright law, and they are not created in USA. Some part of Polish Copyright Law must provide an exemption for this type of work...? Otherwise we need to delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Superjurek: We need to the legal background to the claim that the identified pages are in the common domain. Without support for that claim, all we can do is apply the known legal argument of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu[edit]

This appears to be an exact duplicate of Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu, which has a slightly better source file and more image work completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

They are both proofread, I hesitate a lot to delete, especially as both have different levels of proofread status on different pages. They do look to be the same edition, so there is no apparent reason to keep both. (What a shame). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

When the People Rule[edit]

This page has not had a license for almost seven years. The author is still alive so we can't make a guess of PD status. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any vagaries for copyright for Cuba, Castro v the US? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Both the US and Cuba are part of the Berne Convention, and the UCC Geneva before it. They're no different in this respect then the UK is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In that case it looks like deletebillinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Between the Danube and the Black Sea or Five Years in Bulgaria[edit]

This work has the preface only added and it is unsupported by scans. The work is abandoned, of next to no value, and the main and subpage should be deleted, and we can restart if the text is wanted. It does not seem otherwise worthy of recovery. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing it is easy: and Hrishikes (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't the issue. At the moment it is an excerpt of the preface, and it cannot be said to being worked upon, or available for others to pick it up and work upon it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Diplomacy and the War[edit]

The work is a long copy and paste of an OCR text with headers and footers. It is ugly and has not changed in its context in 8 years. I see little value in retaining works like this when they are not maintained, and pretty well have no hope of being maintained. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible to improve it by adding the djvu from Hrishikes (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and if someone takes on that responsibility, and steps through the process, then that would overtake a deletion discussion. That hasn't happened since the OCR was copy and pasted, and there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Index:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf[edit]

No license on underlying work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked PRONI to better identify the issue? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

T3541 1782-1799 Parks and Caldwell papers N
Repository : Public Record Office for Northern Ireland
PRONI Reference : T3541
Level : Fond
Access :
Title : Parks and Caldwell papers
Dates : 1782-1799
Description : Bundle of c.30 documents comprising typescript copies of letters, 1798-1799, from John Parks, Dublin and Harmony Hill, near Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, to his father-in-law, John Caldwell Snr, linen merchant, in New York State, USA, and his brother-in-law, John Caldwell; including also an autobiographical account by John Caldwell Jnr outlining the circumstances of the family's emigration; a rent roll, 1782, and valuation of John Caldwell's property at Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, 1798.

Thanks - Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
However, whilst the original Transcript may be PD-Old, There's still the issue of the annotations.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, request withdrawn
Out of scope?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
How? How is it different from the other works of the same nature? If you are going to nominate things, please come up with a reasoned statement against WS:WWI
See Category:Comics and review our scope about published works. Also see Category:Film. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Defence of Francis V excerpt[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: random or selected sections of a larger work
This long-hosted excerpt seems to be outside of our scope and explicitly excluded as it is a smaller portion of a bigger work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Deutsche Pomologie/Birnen/Baronsbirn[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: text not in English, random or selected sections of a larger work
An isolated page of a work that is unsupported by a scan. The work has no root page, and apparently has been abandoned as it ha snot progressed in years. It is currently just an excerpt. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to delete it as an excerpt, as it is entirely possible for someone to take over and add the rest. However, it's in German, so belongs on German Wikisource, and therefore ought to be deleted regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk)

Census reports Tenth census. June 1, 1880, Volume 4[edit]

This is a transcription that was started 4 years ago, and for which we have no source document. It isn't clear whether it is part of a census or the intent of the work. To me looking at it, I believe that it is stalled and moribund, and with no source, and in poor condition that we would be better to delete it and let a source be found if it is to be resurrected. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Here is a snippet view. It may be possible to obtain a workable copy through the expenditure of arduous time more productively spent elsewhere. BD2412 T 14:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Purpose Driven Church[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
1995 book, no content. Captain Nemo (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The underlying work is ©1995, and therefore outside our scope. BD2412 T 01:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd say it is in our scope, as a work of some notability. However, any content would be a copyright infringement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I thought works under copyright were outside our scope. BD2412 T 12:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Where does WS:SCOPE say that? WS:COPY says "All works on Wikisource must be in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition.", which seems to be our rules on the matter. If this were released under the CC-BY-SA license or something similar, the copyright would not be a problem. (There are other issues of scope, that aren't worth arguing IMO given that we don't have a free license.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
        • In other words, WS:COPY puts those works outside our scope. BD2412 T 22:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I would not agree that WS:COPY is a statement of scope, but that definitional argument aside, WS:COPY specifically says that works under copyright can be on Wikisource: "works on Wikisource must be ... or released under a license compatible with the free content definition." You can't release a work not under copyright under a license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary[edit]

I am trying to work out what we can do with An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary / Special:PrefixIndex/An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary. The pages have not been touched for six year, they are very incomplete, and transclude numbers of little pages of which I cannot locate, and as such the pages are full of red links, and make the pages unapproachable. If we cannot repair/resurrect this work, then maybe we can delete it, as I cannot see anyone else taking on this as a project, — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Author:Zeno brothers[edit]

Separate pages for each brother are created. No works written jointly. All their output is number of their letters (the first set contains letters from Nicolò to Antonio, the second are letters from Antonio to their brother Carlo) and map were published in the year 1558 by one of their descendants, Nicolò Zeno. Thank you, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Prefer that it is converted to a disambiguation page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with billinghurstallixpeeke (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Author:Gelon II of Syracuse[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: keep, convert to portal
No works. The only claim to fame (and reason the page was created here): Archimedes' "Psammite" is dedicated to him. So there is no point in converting him to portal either. The only existing link here to be converted into link to wikipedia. --- Captain Nemo (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Polybius and Livy both wrote about him, in addition to Archimedes' dedication. Not worthy of a portal? Hesperian 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Help:Author pages suggests creating portal if a person "is "highly notable", the subject of one or more works". Gelo is only mentioned by Livy, who literally mentions 1000s of people. That doesn't necessarily mean Wikisource should have a portal for each, no? What about every person mentioned in "Dictionary of National Biography"? --- Captain Nemo (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would like that when Joe Public types "Gelon II" into our search box, they are taken straight to a useful summary of textual material relevant to "Gelon II". I hold this opinion regardless of how notable or obscure "Gelon II" is. Hesperian 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point (and to some extent sympathetic). But why do you care only about "Gelon II". What if Joe Public types "Hieron" or "Mennes", or "Sister Annunciata"? To follow your logic, every person mentioned in every book that is hosted (or could be hosted) here must have author or portal page. And, every person mentioned in every book hosted should have on their page back links to every mention of them in every book hosted here (or at least summary of all books that mention them). That is a discussion that belongs somewhere else, I think. I thought this page is the place to discuss deletion with respect to currently existing policies. And my claim is that Mr. Gelo having portal page seems not to be directly supported by current policies, hence nomination for deletion. --- Captain Nemo (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
In that case I oppose deletion because it is a tiny step in the wrong direction. Hesperian 06:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
But it's a big step in ignoring existing policies:) (Sorry, could not abstain from this silly joke). Captain Nemo (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(I don't think I shall ever be able to forgive you for wedging me in a decision where I find I have to agree with Hesperian) but in this particular instance I do. If a contributor has gone to the effort of researching and keying in an Author: page I consider that dedication alone raises the bar for deleting it again very high. Deletion is easy and thus should not be taken lightly. There is an argument for not creating this entry and advising a new editor against doing so but now that it is done leave it alone. I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this deletion also.

Quite aside from the above, if you are so keen to delete this entry why did you perform four edits upon it (not counting this deletion request) over the last year or so? Why the sudden desire to expunge? AuFCL (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I retract my proposal. Will convert poor Gelo to portal. @AuFCL: my previous edits have been part of AWB-assisted maintenance (add PD-old template, rm sister links, etc) when I haven't paid much attention to actual content of the page. But now I am on the mission, cleaning category:ancient authors. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Pascal's Thoughts (a fine work!) from this scan are transcluded 3(!) times in the mainspace: 1) as Pensées, 2) in bulk as Blaise Pascal/Thoughts, generous 315 pages on one page, and 3) in sections as Blaise Pascal/Thoughts/Section 1 to Blaise Pascal/Thoughts/Section 14. Any thoughts (des pensées) on which pensées to dispense with? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

If I recall this project was in an awkward transition from inline text (the (1) case) to scan-backed transcription (cases (2) and (3)) and what you are looking at is the awkward result of the completion of the transition whilst still pending validation. As I was somewhat involved with the (2) & (3) cases I vote to delete both of them as having served their purposes (whatever that may have been?) and to keep case (1) 'Pensées' AuFCL (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safety[edit]

Own work (as per data on user page). No source, no license, no history of previous publication given. Hrishikes (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be keep. We do not discriminate based on whether own work or not, and instead on whether it is published work, and whether it is in the public domain. The publication detail was listed, and when I reformatted the work, I extracted it separately. We do need a licence for the work, and we should have an OTRS approval be submitted; and we should confirm that the work was published. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not what WS:SCOPE says. We're not real clear here, but "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls;" and "Scientific research is acceptable to include in Wikisource if the work has verifiable scholarly peer review from a trusted entity." The publication detail is poorly listed; I don't know exactly how to cite it, but it's the ICSSS 2015 Proceedings, a work not held by any of the libraries in WorldCat. It's published by "Information Engineering Research Institute", which a websearch reveals to be not an entity I trust.
Ultimately, we can sidestep the scope argument. The proceedings, available from that page, say "All rights reserved. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the Information Engineering Research Institute, USA."--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Authorship categories[edit]

User:Perry Middlemiss has been actively creating authorship categories such as Category:Henry Kendall poetry and Category:Banjo Paterson poetry. These will need to be depopulated and deleted, unless we choose not to reaffirm our practice of not having authorship categories. In many of these cases, the original categories will need to be restored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect all this sort of discussion will one day be solved with Wikidata, but until then I'm not quite sure what the argument is. These categories in particular seem slightly odd in that they're not just author, but author-type and so have additional redundancy. However, I can't really see what the problem is... (For author categories in general it does seem that it'd be quite an easy addition to {{header}}, in very much the way that date-based categories work.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there value in having the categories would be my question? We chose not to have works added like that as they were already listed on the author page, and then listing them on an author page and then having them in a matching category didn't appear to add value. Our reason for having them on the author page rather than in a category is that categories do not display well as subpages of books, and they cannot be curated.

Throwing in a ping to Perry @Perry Middlemiss: as their opinion would be of value. One for whether our guidance exists or is poor; 2) how they feel that it adds value. My one clear thought on why that have been added is that the overarching works are listed on the author pages, however, the individual poems may not. This is independent of whether we do this from wikidata or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh look I think it's a very good point: why have the categories? My only answer is really that I never use categories at all and so don't need them! :) Actually, that was only true until I thought it'd be fun to try and write scripts to pull info about books out of Wikisource, and then I realised that it's tricky to, for example, get a list of all the poetry written by Henry Kendall. So one should create a category, yes! :) But no, then I want to find out all the poetry written by Mr Kendall in 1865... so a new category? Nah. There would be too many! :) Hmm... so categories over on WP represent defining characteristics — do we treat them as such here? For subject/genre we do, perhaps? But date, author, country? Not sure. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's why we use Author pages. You can find all the works of an author there, arranged by format of work and/or date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and I use them for exactly those things, and they work well. They're not machine-readable though. (That'll come once we have full Wikidata integration, I hope.) I think I just really like the rich category system at Commons! :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I must state up front that I am quite a fan of categories, which partially explains my introduction of the Kendall, Lawson and Paterson categories, and I have found that sub-categories (in this case of the parent Australian poetry category) make it easier to find and track entries. I came to this conclusion after adding a number of Kendall poems to Wikisource under the Australian poetry category, and then realising that the main category page was going to become flooded with new entries, and hard to use, very quickly. I am not so wedded to the idea of author sub-categories that I will defend it at all costs, and am happy to abide by whatever decision is made here. I just find the navigation process much easier with them than without them. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Our category structure is intended to match that used by major library catalogs, especially the Library of Congress (USA). Mixed categories like "works of author" don't exist in these systems. Yes, we do have large categories, but that's not a bad thing; over-categorization can be just as much of a problem.
The approach we've taken to aid readers in cases such as the one you're struggling with is the creation of Portals, which allow for freer content with structured arrangement to assist readers. See for example Portal:Ancient Greek drama or Portal:English literature or Portal:Poetry. Each of these portals covers works of a particular sort, but each has taken a format suitable for its specific needs, and they are all a bit different (but with the same LoC header structure for linking). If you'd care to launch a portal for Australian poetry, with links to major works and poets, and with some sort of logical arrangement, that would be wonderful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that there already exists a Portal for Australian poetry so it's best if I concentrate my efforts there. I'll aim to remove the Author categories I've created and find a way to include their intended purpose into the Portal. Thanks for the advice. 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Henry Lawson poetry[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted, now progressed
In accordance with recent discussions under the topic "Authorship categories" I request that this Category be deleted as not being in line with current Wikisource editing policies. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted.— Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Undelete: Joint Meeting to Hear an Address by Pope Francis of the Holy See[edit]

Should at the very least fall under "it was significantly rewritten in a manner that calls into question the deletion reason" per WS:CSD — the deletionist probably contends that earlier versions of Pope Francis's Address to a Joint Session of Congress is the same thing; but I'd contend, frankly, that no real prior to this article, which otherwise comports to all our policies, ever truly existed. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How about we cloud this request with fact, and not rhetoric nor wishful thinking. I deleted the work, which makes me the deleter, and not the label of deletionist. [Noting that the work has been deleted twice.]

The work was deleted on the grounds that it is not in the public domain as per the criteria provided at Wikisource:Copyright policy. The work was originally added with the reasoning that with it being printed in Congressional Record was therefore able to be brought here with the licence of {{PD-USGov}}. There was no evidence that the work is of the Federal US Gov, as the Pope is clearly not an employee. The work is available via the Vatican's website, and has a licence that claims copyright. On my talk page that the work had been reproduced in newspapers, and the like, though none of that is a release to the public domain, nor an open licence for re-use. If the contributor can point at legal or respected opinion that reproduction in CR releases the work to public domain, or they have release from the author or the office of the author then I believe that the work should (unfortunately) remain deleted within the expressed and existing policy framework. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Did Green Eggs and Ham fall into the Public Domain simply because Senator. Ted Cruz (a Federal employee to boot) had read aloud (performed) the entire work while he 'had' the Senate Floor -- which was then subsequently printed in full in the Congressional Record for that session as a result?
  • Of course not. Same thing when comes to the speech the Pope a.) finally put to paper and/or; the b.) the presentation of said speech regardless of the fact if it contained a word-for-word execution of his written content or not; the Copyright protection is automatic upon creation.

    Unless the Vatican Publishing Office/Agent further "releases" the work in a way that meets our requirements, the work cannot be hosted here per Billinghurst's rationale. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same work, @Billinghurst:. A different title plus a different author equals a different work. Furthermore this is but one chapter in a multi-volume work entitled the Congressional Record which is in the public domain because it is the work of the Federal Government. Author:Ted Cruz's words spoken in Congress are certainly part of the same public record; again, this is the law Congress itself created. I object to works of the Federal Government being deleted unilaterally and without discussion. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
So, you maintain that the United States Government Publishing Office is the author of the speech given by Pope Francis? No, the USGPO were simply a publisher of the speech, not the author. Nor is Pope Francis a member of Congress; nor did he give the speech to fulfill duties of the US government. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus Kendrick7 side-stepped the point in the Cruz example. It was Dr. Suess's words taken from his book Green Eggs and Ham that Sen. Cruz "spoke[en] in Congress" so for starters they are not his creation and not a work of the federal government. Yes those words appear in the Congressional Record and yes that is considered a public domain work only in thanks to the law stating it cannot receive copyright protections. At the same time, the GPO is indemnified from liability introduced by any such inadvertent copyright infringement - we are not however; and that is the problem here.

In short, works normally protected under copyright that appear without pre-permission in the CR can't be $ued over or $ettled against by the copyright holder (THAT is the only law Congress "created" in the matter at hand btw; exemption from any liability).


Proposed saving clause

Section 8 of the statute now in effect includes a saving clause intended to make clear that the copyright protection of a private work is not affected if the work is published by the Government. This provision serves a real purpose in the present law because of the ambiguity of the undefined term “any publication of the United States Government.” Section 105 of the bill, however, uses the operative term “work of the United States Government” and defines it in such a way that privately written works are clearly excluded from the prohibition; accordingly, a saving clause becomes superfluous.

Retention of a saving clause has been urged on the ground that the present statutory provision is frequently cited, and that having the provision expressly stated in the law would avoid questions and explanations. The committee here observes: (1) there is nothing in section 105 that would relieve the Government of its obligation to secure permission in order to publish a copyrighted work; and (2) publication or other use by the Government of a private work would not affect its copyright protection in any way. The question of use of copyrighted material in documents published by the Congress and its Committees is discussed below in connection with section 107.

Plus there is no law defining what is or is not in the public domain either; the copyright law only dictates what and/or who + how long copyright protections should be extended for. As for Sen. Cruz, he is not liable for his violation of the Dr.'s copyright rights under the debate clause of the Constitution -- which still does not strip a protected work so that it can fall into the public domain. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Kendrick7 at the moment you have only spoken your opinion. While I have spoken my opinion, I have also reflected on our general approach/position. In this page's archives there is discussion about McCaththyist-period of works that were evidence in Congressional hearings that were presented as evidence, and appeared in their entirety in CR. We have omitted such works when the committee's minutes have been reproduced. IMO to shift this discussion it is going to require an informed/expert opinion that demonstrates that the reproduction overrides the copyright of the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect tagging templates[edit]

The following templates were imported from enWP, I don't see the point or the value of these templates nor the point of the categorisation. They are infrequently used and are an added complexity for this no determined value.

I feel that the templates should be removed from where they are added, and then deleted following this removal. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, happy to help with clean-up if deletion is approved. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, delete. Hesperian 09:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. And the corresponding tracking Categories as well.— Mpaa (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
And one more template from the same series (with the same rationale for deletion)

Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also to note the pertinent section at Help:Redirectsbillinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirects that are subpages[edit]

Whenever someone moves a work with subpages, a heap of unneeded redirects are made. For example, back in December 2013 I moved The American to The American (unsourced edition), and then converted the former to a versions page. Nearly two years later, that versions page still has 25 "subpages", all redirects of the form The American/Chapter I --> The American (unsourced edition)/Chapter I. Obviously these need to be deleted.

For years now I have from time to time gone on a subpage redirect deletion blitz, deleting on sight all subpage redirects that have no incoming links. I'm in a blitz now.

But I have discovered that recently, in a few pockets of Wikisource, people have directly created—i.e. not as a side effect of a move—many, many subpage redirects. For example, have a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Bonifacio Jozé d'Andrada e Sylva:— 73 subpage redirects of the form "Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Some Permutation of the Name"!

Bearing in mind that Joe Public has no notion of of our slash-based subpage nomenclature, these redirects have no potential to aid in any navigation or search ever. They simply serve no purpose. Further, I believe that the subpage space of a work should be reserved for the work itself. These redirects are not part of the work; they are editorial value-add, but masquerading as "in" the work.

I would like to roll on with my blitz, nuking them along with all the others. However there are 3340 of these redirects in Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition subspace alone, so I am pausing to seek community input. <ping LlywelynII />

Hesperian 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that although redirects are cheap, the vast majority of these are not required because there are no incoming links to those alternate spellings. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree to kill them.— Mpaa (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (provisos) If they are _manually/directly created_, not as a result of moves, not essay names to chapter numbers or v.v. (or some logical alternative) and sitting within biographical works, then I fine with the suggestion. If the redirects are names from an index that are "see (redirect)" then I would prefer they are kept as they will appear when the indices are prepared. I think the specific typical scenarios/cases need to be exemplified.

    I do not feel that redirects play no part in main namespace, and there is a whole series of complexity with redirects/subpages etc. that is increased with the advent of Wikidata. We do need to revisit Help:Redirects and how and what we do things. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Project disclaimers[edit]

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

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

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

Hesperian 10:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Prince[edit]

I don't see the point for having a versions page for The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli. If you go to the author's page, I have listed the versions of the texts there (instead of being on the versions page). I did this because different versions of works by the same author were already there, and it was just a bit unclear as to why the work titled The Prince was linked to a separate list. This is why I wish to delete a now unnecessary versions page. Aphillipsmusique (talk) 4:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I support having versions pages for works in preference to listing versions on author pages. Hesperian 05:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Wikisource supports Versions pages for several reasons. For one, it is the anchor point for wikipedia links here from their article about the work, as well as for the Wikidata item about The Prince. The author page for Machiavelli has a separate data item, so the only way to be certain users on other language Wikisources know that we have English translations is to have that common anchor point for the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose also. Versions pages are how we do this. I've even cleaned up the versions page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • opppose there is sense to our having disambiguation pages, and of three types — different works, different versions, different translations. It provides something in the main (or pertinent) namespace to anchor and to search, and it is a standard, and it enables flexibility to listings. We know that with Chekov that the translations lengthen. Also with links from Wikidata, that would be the page to which we link for the general work rather than the individual editions, so it is a pivotal page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @Beleg Tâl: @Hesperian: @EncycloPetey: Then does this mean that some of Niccolò Machiavelli's other works, which include The Art of War and Discourses on Livy need a versions or translations page as well? Aphillipsmusique (talk) 1:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 01:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hesperian: If I create interwiki links for translations pages on Niccolò Machiavelli's other works The Art of War and Discourses on Livy, they already have links to disambiguation pages or actual translations themselves. Do I create a translations page for The Art of War with this interwiki link: The Art of War (translations)? I know this is not a request to be made on this wiki page, but is it possible to move the current work displayed on the interwiki link Discourses on Livy to Discourses on Livy (Neville)? Aphillipsmusique (talk) 5:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You would need to move The Art of War (Machiavelli) to something else, say The Art of War (Neville), then make The Art of War (Machiavelli) be the translations page. However, as far as I can tell Neville's translation is the only translation of this work currently on Wikisource, so I don't see any reason to move it at the moment. The interwiki link would be to it:Dell'arte della guerra. The same goes for Discourses on Livy. If you don't know how to move a page, see mw:Help:Moving a page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Henry Kendall poetry[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy deleted non-controversial request. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with recent discussions under the topic "Authorship categories" I request that this Category be deleted as not being in line with current Wikisource editing policies. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Banjo Paterson poetry[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Speedy deleted non-controversial request. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with recent discussions here regarding specific author categories I request that this empty category now be deleted. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

World Calorie Currency[edit]

Publication added by author. The original paper was at Commons (though not as scan) and has been deleted as self-published. there is no evidence that the work has been published and presumably should be deleted as not complying to WS:WWI. I looked at the deleted file at Commons, and there is no evidence of published work, and only has three references which would be well under the mark for a referred paper. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)