Wikisource:Proposed deletions

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

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

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.



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

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

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

It's not a scan of an old work, so there's no way to tell its originality without checking against an older source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The book itself is historically significant, so it is something we should have. BD2412 T 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    What is known about translations? While the work is of an age to be kept, the translation has no provenance. Do we know if it was translated early enough? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Another concern has arisen see w:Josephine Mutzenbacher which is the Wikipedia article on the work, namely that according to the Wikipedia article it contains highly controversial themes which mean the book may be considered illegal in the US or UK under obscenity laws. Perhaps this is one to ask WMF legal about? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is very rare for a purely textual narrative work to run afoul of obscenity laws in this century. In any case, literary and historical value are both defenses against obscenity. BD2412 T 16:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no strong argument presented for the deletion of the work for being contrary to WS:WWI. I am indicating that I will close this as kept. We would still do well to seek a scan as that becomes more definitive. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the obscenity charges, but there's no concrete evidence of a pre-1923 translation and Carl Lindberg, at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-05#File:The_Life_Story_of_a_Viennese_Whore.2C_as_Told_by_Herself.pdf, has been unable to trace the provenance of it. This could very well be a modern Internet translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete According to this article, it looks like the first English translation was published anonymously in New York in 1931. Another English translation, again from the USA, was made in 1967 by Hilary E. Holt under the pseudonym Rudolf Schleifer. I'm not sure which one this is, but both translations would be under copyright anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1931 translation is out of copyright as far as I can tell. It probably wasn't filed for copyright (probably couldn't be filed for copyright) and I find no renewal in the renewal databases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I should have read further in that article; it has an excerpt of the two translations. The Holt translation is nothing like the one we have. The 1931 edition is also not entirely the same as the one we have. There is a 1970 "translation" by Paul J. Gillette which is a paraphrase of a previous translation so my guess is that this is the one we have. There's a scan of the 1931 translation here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
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)

See Author:John Bunyan for many freely available versions of this book. Outlier59 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This list includes a children's edition Index:The_pilgrim's_progress_by_John_Bunyan_every_child_can_read_(1909).djvu which has been fully validated.
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete let's get this taken care of —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted Nohon Shoki (Felt) as out of scope (self-published) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
In my opinion, if the wikidot translation is complete, we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The incompleteness is not a problem as it is not a difficult task to complete it. However, since the wikidot translation is not published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", and contains many typographical errors and omissions, I think that deletion would be appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safety[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
It does appear to be copyvio per the Information Engineering Research Institute website. The author has offered to provide information at Talk:Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safetyBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The author's provided information does not show that this work is not copyvio. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The license information provided by the author is as follows. I am quoting it here because I am deleting the talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,My name is Bin Yu.This paper is one of my works.I would like to provide the license information if someone could tell me how to provide.Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, October 19, 2016‎

Hi Bin Yu! That's great. What license is it released under? Do you have a link to where this paper is published online, where the license is specified? Thanks! —Sam Wilson 02:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sam!Thank you for the advice.There are two links below that could show further information about this paper.The first one is about academic index information.The second one is about the conference where this paper was published.
The first link is
The second link is
Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2016‎
These links do not show that the text is available under a free license. However, I found the publication online here (page 323). The publication explicitly states "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." Such licensing terms are not compatible with Wikisource:Copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Project disclaimers[edit]

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

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

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

Hesperian 10:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Page redirects to Translation namespace — where to now?[edit]

I am wondering whether we can update or delete the older uses of {{translation redirect}}. where the pages have been moved for over a year, and a big majority of those are now the case, eg. Rainstorm on Nov. 4. These sit in the main ns as not particularly informative redirects. We could make them into something akin to Template:Wikilivres and give some more information about these as moved works. Or we could convert them to {{tl|dated soft redirects that the bot can link clean and remove; or we can delete the links, or leave them as they are; or we could create an exception to the non x-namespace redirects. I think that we can do a range of things to make them more effective, and to take them out of the maintenance categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that we have situations where we have subpage redirects that pair with the parent work redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Erasmo Barresi: might have something to say. A note was left on my talk page about this a couple of years ago: User_talk:Mpaa/Archives/2014#Translation_redirects.— Mpaa (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa: Sorry for the delay. Personally, I would reduce the first two lines in the template to "This page has been moved" as the current wording is quite redundant and leave it at that. I am open to different approaches, of course. However, I'd prefer that those pages not be just deleted, for the reason I explained in Mpaa's talk page.
(Departing from the immediate issue and entering utopia) URLs follow different patterns across websites. While Wikisource and most other Wikimedia projects use pagenames in their URLs, Wikidata has tried a different approach as it uses unique numeric identifiers; pages can still be found by searching for their "labels" and "aliases". This is probably what everyone should do, but I doubt Wikimedia users would accept such a radical change, at least in the foreseeable future.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for deletion, possible support for update depending on the solution. I agree with User:Erasmo Barresi that redirects from mainspace to translation space should be preserved. I don't known whether the current form of {{translation redirect}} is the best way to do this, but I would oppose deleting them outright. I wouldn't object to a regular redirect as an exception to the cross-namespace rule, or a regular permanent soft redirect. I don't see the benefit of the template linking by pageid instead of using a regular wikilink. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it further, I think that works with titles (books etc.) should have translation redirects from the title in mainspace to the work in Translation namespace. This would be presumably be the title by which it is best known in English, and/or its original title in its original language. However, works without titles (letters, ephemera, etc) shouldn't have redirects from mainspace, since there is no title from which to link them. (In my recent moves from mainspace to Translations ns, I've been using this system, with {{translation redirect}} for the former and {{dated soft redirect}} for the latter.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Beyond the Wall of Sleep (Dagon Bytes)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
A new version of H. P. Lovecraft's tale Beyond the Wall of Sleep was uploaded and proofread by User:AdamBMorgan in August/September 2012. This was scanned and transcribed from the 1938 edition of Weird Tales and is a well-sourced text. Unfortunately, instead of simply transcluding over the previous version of the story on Wikisource (sourced from the "Dagon Bytes" website [1]) he moved the old page to Beyond the Wall of Sleep (Dagon Bytes). This "Dagon Bytes" sourced text seems redundant now: it comes from a poor source (internet-sourced Lovecraft texts are never in great shape), and is surely superseded by the scanned version. Pasicles (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. There does not seem to be any point in keeping the unscanned version in this and similar cases. On the other hand it doesn't really matter. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Original Old English translations under Biblioþēce[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted "Forme Bōc Petrus"; kept the rest
These texts:

are apparently original translations by User:Gott wisst. We already have an original translation of the Bible at Translation:Bible. Also I don't know if we're suited for hosting original translations into Old English. Prosody (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a conversation with a determination years ago (2008/9???) that works in Old English belonged at English Wikisource, as there was no other site and they are a variant of English. These are such works and fall within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Further to this, the policy that states that "there should only be a single translation to English per original language work" also states that "works existing & accepted prior to July 2013 (or after significant policy updates) which somehow no longer meet the new/current criteria for inclusion in moving forward - some degree of reasonable accommodation to keep & grandfather-in such works should be sought after first and foremost whenever possible."
Unless there is already a system in place for OE works that I am not aware of, I would bring this project into conformity with usual practice as follows: I would move all of these from Biblioþēce/Olde Englishe Booke to Translation:Olde Englishe Booke and redirect Biblioþēce to Bible, leaving the individual books as separate works (which is what they are). Perhaps it would be useful to have an index of Old English Judeo-Christian scriptural works at Translation:Biblioþēce the way we have for Modern English at Translation:BibleBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Works in Old English do belong here, but I don't see how modern translations into Old English are really in scope; they're not peer-reviewed and do nothing to make the writings of the world more available. There is probably no one fluent in Old English who is not fluent in English, and certainly no one fluent in Old English who does not have a translation of the Bible available to them in a language they're fluent in. These are most akin to the personal writings that we don't accept on Wikisource.
I'm willing to write a formal proposal and put it up for vote if you think that's necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
They may not be "really in scope", but they're not really out of scope either. I agree that it's not really useful, and if you want to modify WS:T (or create a separate proposal) I'd probably support it, but note that the "grandfather rule" as it currently stands would suggest to keep the above listed translations regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Even under the "grandfather rule", we don't keep incomplete works. Biblioþēce/Forme Bōc Petrus is incomplete, though none of the others show obvious signs of being incomplete. We could argue they are only part of a larger work, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case, Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Biblioþēce/Forme Bōc Petrus and Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Update: the works in question are now located at:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted Translation:Forme Bōc Petrus which has consensus; the rest do not have consensus so I'm keeping them for now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some really poor quality scans[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed the file. Pages 256-257 of the book were missing, and have been added. Fresh pagelisting required. @ShakespeareFan00: Hrishikes (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that hard to download a book from them as a collection of images; just take a page;seq=7;width=1190, up the width so you make sure you're getting all the detail, say to 3000 and replace the seq value with a variable and get all the pages; i.e. on Unix: for i in `seq 1 36`; do wget -O $i.png ";seq=$i;width=3000"; done. (The value 36 is the number of the last page in the internal system.) It will make JPEGs with a .png extension, so if that will gum up whatever you're processing them with or you're uploading the images straight to Commons, you'll have find the problem files (e.g. with file) and rename them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can u pse give a Windows-specific instruction? Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Download Cygwin and install Wget on it. Do the above. Someone with more Windows knowledge could probably tell you to download wget and run some similar pattern in Windows Command Line, but I don't know Windows in that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The DownThemAll addon that User:Jpez shared at the Scriptorium might also be a good option for this kind of task? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only thumbnails can be downloaded with this tool, because they show up together on the screen. Bigger images have to be opened separately, so cannot be downloaded together with this tool, as far as I could see. Hrishikes (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added plenty of books from there myself. Go to the last page of the book, right click it and pick "copy image location". Open downthemall and add a new download. Copy the link there. In the link you pasted change the width (I've found 2000 is good enough) as mentioned above, width=2000, and change seq= to seq=[first page number:last page number] exactly as is with the square brackets. For example seq=[1:200] if the last page is 200. Start the download and downthemall will download all the pages in image format. Then they may need some cleaning up and they'll need ocr. Jpez (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deprecated templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: most deleted; some kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've found some more templates that are no longer needed. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it suggested to delete all 33 templates in this category? Is there any reason we wouldn't want to do that? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
IMO, they can go. One comment about {{edition}} when it points to a Talk Page of the Page where it is used. E.g. see National Geographic Magazine/Volume 31/Number 6/Our State Flowers/The Apple Blossom. Shall we don't care and generate all the talk pages?— Mpaa (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would generate all the talk pages... or just assume that information is inherited from parent page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I will start preparing deletion of the following pages:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I cannot say that I noticed this discussion, or paid much heed to it as just a title without the listing of the templates specifically. Can I recommend for the future that we should be explicit about templates being deleted. @Beleg Tâl: it is my belief that the removals as a clump should not have occurred. The initial discussion around these xwiki templates and their moving to {{plain sister}} was that they should have been retained as they widely expected to be used crosswiki, and we left them with guiding text. I also think that they were deprecated rather than deleted with good cause, and enough cause for them to have been discussed individually, not as a clump. Thing that there was also quite a reasonable discussion for {{blank line}} too at that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to propose undeletion, do what you must. In the meantime I'll delete no more of them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Without consensus to delete the rest, I'm closing this out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Undelete Portrait of a Spy[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: It's marginal, but there's been no discussion for a month, and the last discussion leaned on keeping. Being a bit bold, but hopefully no one sees this as a major issue. Undeleted.
For technical reasons, typing "S: Portrait of a Spy", which is the real title of this novel, directs you to wikisource, so this soft redirect page is helpful. I created this page yesterday, and it was incorrectly deleted by @EncycloPetey: as having no content. Pppery (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The book is not in the public domain. We cannot host it on Wikisource. We do not create cross-project redirects for works that we do not host and will not host for the forseeable future. It was therefore deleted correctly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. While a cross-project redirect would be useful to counter the technical issues facing this title, we don't do that sort of thing here. On the other hand, if a free or public domain work exists that is called "Portrait of a Spy", the page could be created and a small note added to it... for example, this work by Ernest Temple Thurston might be PD by now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Any link to enWS that is at another wiki should be deleted if it lands on a deleted work/dead page. If you are unable to make that edit then please identify where the incoming link is located, and we can see what we can do. With regard to (re)creating faux pages in lieu of a work, the community has had that discussion previously and it was determined that we are not the encyclopaedia, and we have no means to provide landing pages for works that are not here though could be here, either now or when copyright has expired sometime into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, you wanted to link from us to enWP with a soft redirect. Umm, no. Please see WS:WWI

What is the value for this site? Or for those looking for the actual work? Nudely pointing to an encyclopaedic article is not the purpose enWS, and if we tried the reverse at enWP it would be deleted out of hand as out of scope too. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: The reason I created this soft redirect is not because of links from enwiki, but because actually typing the title of this book on enwiki directs you to wikisource because S: is an interwiki prefix for wikisource, as I said in my initial undeletion request. Pppery (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Pppery: Ah, now I understand, that was a page that you were trying to create at enWP. One of the downsides of wikis is imperfection, you are out of luck, and they cover that at w:Wikipedia:Page name. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you're still misunderstanding, billinghurst. I was not trying to create a page on enwiki for this book (the relevant page already exists as Wikipedia:S – Portrait of a Spy]), but rather making it easier to find that page for people who type the actual title of the book with a colon and get sent to Wikisource due to the S: interwiki prefix. Pppery (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with this. It costs us little, and may make some things easier for users of other Wikimedia sites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
What value is there is having a soft redirect from Wikisource to a Wikipedia article about the work we don't have (and won't have)? The whole point of having separate projects is that each project does different things. Blurring that line of distinction costs us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
+1. We follow WS:WWI, and where would it stop? How would it be managed? Smells ugly and full of battles especially where titles are not unique. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The value is that when people enter S: Portrait of a Spy on Wikipedia, it sends them to a reasonable place. We're compensating for a quirk in Wikimedia. It would stop when we run out of titles prefixed with "S:"; that seems like a really short list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Same view as Prosfilaes.— Mpaa (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum[edit]

As a non-English text, this doesn't belong on English Wikisource. If Latin Wikisource wants pseudo-Latin gibberish it should be moved there; otherwise it probably belongs on Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This text isn't in any language at all. It is nonsense, just as Jabberwocky or some other works of nonsense are not in English. Further, the "lorem ipsum" text was developed in English-speaking countries for the purposes of publishing layout. We utilize the text ourselves to demonstrate page layout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Jabberwocky is English nonsense however, and part of an English work (Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There). Lorem ipsum is not English nonsense, it's (pseudo-) Latin nonsense. Anyway, multilingual Wikisource is for texts that don't belong to a specific language, so it belongs there. The fact that we use the text ourselves is irrelevant; the text can be included in the code for {{lorem ipsum}} without being hosted as a purportedly English-language work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete If we can find an usable English text that includes Lorem ipsum, I have no problem hosting it here. I don't believe in fragmenting single works. But we have no source for this, and looking at w:Lorem ipsum, it's not clear there is a hostable source for this. If an editor from another Wikisource wants to copy it over, they're welcome to, but as it is, I think we should delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. If we do find such a text, it would probably be something along the lines of File:A Specimen by William Caslon.jpg, which again should probably go on Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with the delete proposal though on the grounds of it is not compliant with WS:WWI as it is neither published nor peer-reviewed. What is the purpose of us hosting non-authored, non-verifiable text in faux pidgin Latin. I would like to see more discussion before giving my version of my more definitive opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Unpublished is less important in my opinion; lorem ipsum has definitely been used in published texts before, even accidentally. It's a pretty important bit of text. This is why I suggested to migrate to the appropriate Wikisource, rather than delete outright. Unsourced is a concern though. I have no idea where the current text at Lorem ipsum comes from; as far as I can tell only the first paragraph is common in versions of the text pre-PageMaker. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is a single-sheet published typeface sample using Lorem ipsum, issued by Letraset. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There is no use for this whatsoever. — Ineuw talk 02:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree, no point in it being here as a text. But please don't delete the {{lorem ipsum}} template. Jpez (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment—This "work" has been nominated for deletion twice and closed as non-consensus both times. The first was April 2006 (doesn't appear to have been posted here). The second was 2011). I note in the 2011 discussion that the work was one of our high use pages, is that still the case? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be number four in Sep 2016 (ugh!)
billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I find it interesting that at least 2 of the 6 "keep" votes in the last discussion mentioned moving to oldWS as an acceptable solution. The text will still be present, it will just be in a different place. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, I should point out that mul:Lorem ipsum does exist already and has existed since 2007. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
oldWS has a much, much lower internet profile than we do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep a good gimmick.— Mpaa (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted. I found a website with that text, had no idea what it was, googled it and came here and found out. It could probably use some formatting and editing though.unsigned comment by (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2016.

pls dont delete. lorem ipsum is my lyfe. :) unsigned comment by (talk) .


See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UK-EdictGov. – Kaihsu (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm, our discussions should be standalone, not solely pointing at another discussion, and definitely no subsidiary to another site.

That said, the licence has been deleted at Commons, and checking the works that we had, they have been licensed as to being {{OGL}}. So it is not an issue for us to delete the template with some tidying up.

On that note I see that there is now OGL1 and OGL2 for the UK, and we should probably look at and update here as appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WS:Works-A, WS:Works-B, and WS:Works-C[edit]

I think these pages should be deleted for the following reasons:

  1. They are woefully incomplete; only a fraction of works appear on these pages, and WS:Works-D through WS:Works-Z don't exist.
  2. Despite that, they are enormous pages, and take a long time to load to make changes.
  3. Furthermore, they aren't linked from anywhere else and don't seem to be part of the usual structure here.

Thoughts? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: If we were able to get them automatically generated out of Wikidata, and either manually applied, or even better bot applied, then what would be your thoughts? What data would be considered useful? Or are we at the stage that this is a pointless compilation? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If these pages can be populated and maintained automatically I think they could be useful in the same way WS:Authors-* are, though I don't know how useful those pages are either. In which case, my thoughts are:
  • The pages might need to be broken up, e.g. WS:Works-Aa, WS:Works-Ab, &c; as each page becomes enormous.
  • The formatting should be revisited: authorship and date are more important than categorization IMO.
  • If WS:Works-* can be maintained automatically, it might be worth seeing if WS:Authors-* can be maintained automatically also.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikisource News.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
25px An image created locally for news, though never used. After 10 years it is probably time to delete and move on. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Aw, but it's flamey and cool. ;-) (No, you're quite right, if we create some sort of regular newsletter one day, we can make some new logo then.) Sam Wilson 05:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hiihdon lajiosa[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
A book written c.1979 by Mauri Repo, that has the claim that it is an excerpt from Marui Repo's "Hiihdon lajiosa" 1979-89, translated from Finnish. It depicts the very first academically credible and verifiable instance of of the word "sauvakävely" (trans. pole walking = nordic walking) and its training methods.

This work

  • has no licence
  • there no clear indication that it is in the poublic domain either for the original or on the translation
  • is an excerpt

billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete , looks pretty clear cut —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Statutes Revised[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This work is without scans, and has the foreword alone for two sections without any of the legislation. It would appear to be abandoned. The work is within scope, though I would think that it would have a better chance of being added to if scans were made available. The amount that is there is not really worth redeeming in my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I couldn't find any available scans to replace it with. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Complete Basho Haiku in Japanese[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted
Not in English and therefore beyond scope. If it's not wanted at Japanese Wikisource it probably belongs at Wikibooks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to User:CES1596 and User:Dmitrismirnov for taking care of this. The work was ineligible for move to jaWS due to Japanese copyright laws in force there; a PD version has been uploaded instead at ja:芭蕉俳句全集. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Missing form[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The template seems to form the process of simply having a non-proofread page, and no other real value. It would seem that there is no special ability to do forms, and if they are specific, we can just use images to represent. This template behaves in a less than pleasant means when transcluded, and I think that we would be better to just have a page left as red, it isn't problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see the value of having a placeholder for a missing form; there can be more element positioning involved than an inexperienced proofreader may be comfortable setting up (the same reasoning as {{missing table}}). On the other hand, I notice that this template is used literally nowhere, so I would not object to deletion in this case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Selamat Hari Malaysia ke-50[edit]

Is in Malay, needs to be migrated to Malay WS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That or delete. We should check the copyright status of works of Malaysian heads of government. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete in that case; I don't see anything in theCopyright Act to suggest that the king is exempt from copyright in Malaysia, and it certainly isn't copyright in the US as it's not an edict of government. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The City of God and On Christian Doctrine[edit]

These are redundant copies of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine. Since both versions are from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, any differences will be on the part of the transcription. Alternatively to deletion, the files could be moved/migrated to Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu and other volumes, though I can't speak to differences in this version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing what differences there are in the works I am tending to the conservative approach of disambiguate as versions and keep. If someone can dig some more on the publication dates and places, I am prepared to review these thoughts. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst. A second copy of a translation, even by the same author, may have undergone revision by the author and/or editorial changes. So, unless we are sure these two copies are the same edition from the same publication, I'd lean towards keeping both and disambiguating them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
While you are right, of course, in this case I may not have made myself perfectly clear. Both versions of both works are from the 1885 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I; specifically, both are copied from (see Talk:The City of God, Talk:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I, and Special:Permalink/6437514). Hence, they cannot but be identical. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Change the plain titles to redirects/disambiguations to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers pages. My reasoning for this, is that that's what I'm doing with anything that's a duplicate of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library / Ante-Nicene Fathers (two different editions of the same works). I was anticipating carrying that work on into the two series of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. The transcription of (badly named) Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu should be used to replace the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers copy. Before doing the redirects, all the sub-pages of both works need to be gone through and all wikilinks redirected. I know I've linked to subpages without realising that they were in the Fathers as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the title pages should be turned into redirects. I don't think using Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu instead of the Nicene Fathers rather than in addition to is advisable for the reasons outlined above by billinghurst and EncycloPetey. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I assumed that it was the same as this copy, but I see that Schaff has edited one and not the other. I knew there was a mess with the Ante-Nicene Christian Library being pirated and republished as the Ante-Nicene Fathers (I'm working on the proofreading the earlier and just tidying up the the text dump of the latter—I really can't face proofreading it all twice). I understood that the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers had been done collaboratively, but it would appear that there are multiple editions of this as well. The copy of City of God under Nicene is the 1887 Schaff edition of Marcus Dod's translation. Which edition is the copy at City of God? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It's from the same edition; i.e. the one from Tâl (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Any last words before I delete these and point them to Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I? Again, noting that I have confirmed that they are exactly the same edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Living author pages with no works[edit]

Working through the list of author pages missing licenses, I keep running into author pages with no listed works, who are still living, and who will likely never have any works listed.


I would like to propose these pages for deletion as unmaintanable bloat. (These specifically, and others of a similar nature.) Should one of them actually author a PD work, then fine, give them an author page. But if they're not a PD author, and still alive today, they will likely not have a work hosted here on WS within any of our lifetimes. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Other authors who fit this criteria: Canadian and Australian politicians. Works they wrote in office are under crown copyright for 50 years, so those politicians in office in the past decades won't have their works released any time soon. Examples:
Etc. There's a lot. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I remember when we had batches of Canadian politician pages, and we agreed to their deletion at the time (it will be in the archives of this page). So ... if there is no chance of works in the public domain, AND they won't be reasonably having incoming links then I have no issue in deleting such pages. (noting that it is now reasonably easy to locate any links from the {{wikisource author ...}} templates at enWP). So we should have the principle to delete them if they meet such criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I came here to nominate a few I’ve ran across myself:
Seems my nominations were all added by the same IP user:, don’t have time to check rest of the user’s history to see if that was all of them Marjoleinkl (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, there's waaaaay more. A lot of them are (were) in the list of author pages without licenses. At this point I think you can look at the intersection of the categories Canadian politicians and Authors with no works: this PetScan lists 109 of them. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: I suggest build a list, look to use the output method wiki, or give a specific query and an admin to do a bulk grab and feed them into mass delete, and resolve them with ease, and a permalink to this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If we decide to delete living authors with no hostable works, there are a number of high-profile authors to remove as well:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
We may as well go through the list of everyone who has the {{populate}} and {{copyright author}} templates. Or even just the {{copyright author}} template....
The high profile/famous authors like J. K. Rowling and Stephen King I could see keeping as copyvio flags/warnings against naive additions by new users (which is why I think JKR is still here.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 So we adapt my initial statement to include high profile authors we retain for management actions (ie. where we are using {{copyright until}} like statements, and other dissuading statements. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 High profile authors are worth retaining to monitor for copyvio additions by inexperienced users, and as a place to display our policy against adding copyrighted works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Preparing a list of candidates for deletion here if anyone wants to contribute. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got a lot on there that aren't still living. Are we expanding the criteria here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would feel think that we might be more focusing on those who won't have work in the public domain, so I was thinking a cutoff from something like death 1947-1950 (in addition to the other criteria).
  • I would agree with that, but the list of proposed candidates for deletion contains many people who have been dead for more than a century. I would hesitate to delete any author who died that long ago, unless it is confirmed that no works by them exist, and they are not sufficiently notable to move to Portal space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Also a note: it is common practice for authors with no works to move them to Portal namespace using {{person}}, rather than to delete them outright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For all author pages we decide to delete, we should check the corresponding article on Wikipedia for any template pointers here, and remove them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: "wikisource author" and "wikisource author-inline" at enWP both now have tracking to do this (note in maintenance section there). I need to further refine it after tidyng up 2k worth of usage, but that is now the easy task. Noting that in time this should also allow for us to identify which do not have the template and look to add it.
It looks like we have consensus to delete the following author pages, listed under "Politicians (Canadian or otherwise)" and "Other people not likely to have PD works in English" at User:Mukkakukaku/Sandbox3:
Any last comments before I start deleting? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well... some of those have works listed that we're currently hosting, such as Author:Stephen Harper and Author:Justin Trudeau. Are you proposing we delete those author pages, but somehow keep their works independently of an author page? I don't think we're ready to delete anything, if these pages haven't been checked yet for content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are no hosted works by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper does have works here but they appear to be of doubtful copyright, not being withing the purview of "edicts of government". I agree, that if there are works hosted by an author, I will skip deleting it and put a separate deletion discussion for them. (Observe: I have already removed Harper from the list.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you have missed my point. If there is content in author pages on this list, then the list has not been properly vetted before proposing deletion. It is therefore premature to offer it for discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I've vetted all the ones on this list now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

This is a bit different from other cases where a long work is abandoned. In this case this appears to be an anthology (of letters) of which some are present in full and others are missing. I think that in such cases it may be worth keeping the whole for the sake of the existing letters. However, I acknowledge that this may not be the best solution. Either way, if the existing sections are in fact full letters, these need to be kept even if the anthology itself is deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Tennessee Code Annotated/2011[edit]

A work that has been abandoned, with very little progress. It is unsupported by scans, and it is very much a point in time work that I doubt that would bring many to come and complete for 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Winter (Beebe)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy kept
A work assigned to John W. Beebe, an otherwise unknown author, of an unknown period. The work has no source, nor a licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
sourceBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

This work is self-published, and has been reproduced here. I do not see that it fits within the scope as described at WS:WWI in being a peer-reviewed work. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Documentary sources -> "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events." --1Veertje (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@1Veertje: This is not a documentary source, it is opinion or essay. A documentary source would be something like birth or death certificate, probate, land records, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with reason mentioned by billinghurst as well as the precendent that original contributions are not in scope Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete {{{1}}}Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete well outside WS:WWI criteria. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In a sense it was re-published in the latest episode of the WeThePeople LIVE podcast (not a small podcast [2]) where the author was interviewed, making it not just self-published. This is not just some nobody on the internet. He has also written for The Guardian [3] --1Veertje (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) It was also re-published in the Huffington Post 1Veertje (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaning delete. The Huffington Post is interesting, but it's in their blog section. And the only license I see is "P.S. You’re welcome to repost/reblog/republish this if you like." which is not clearly a free license; there's no explicit right to make derivative works. There is no link to a source for the work (fixable, yes) and no source for the PD license we have on there right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
keep, pending a source and an appropriate license (as per Prosfilaes above). This is not an original contribution by a 'self-published' author, it is a text by a notable senior editor at a major news service, hosted, so presumably reviewed, by Huff'n'puff and others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Infesto sancti joanis baptista.pdf[edit]

This is not in English. It looks like it may be Portuguese or Galician.

If no work had been done, I would simply delete this, but since there is no text layer, and some work has been done, I am starting this conversation to provide the creator with time to move his work to a suitable location before deleting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's Chinantecan, so mulWS would be the place for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: can you import this to mulWS? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have asked Yann if he knows how to do that. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus, @Yann: through mul:Special:Import? I cannot remember whether enWS is on your import list. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Propose we delete Index:The Time Machine.djvu and the work done there. This is a reprint of the 1895 Holt edition—not a new edition—and we have already completed and validated the Holt first edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Author:Stephen Harper and his works[edit]

The works of Stephen Harper are, as far as I can tell, still under copyright in Canada, and, if I understand rightly, they would only be PD in the USA if they are {{PD-EdictGov}} |(i.e., "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents"), which none of his hosted works appear to be. Thus I propose the deletion of the following pages:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I See Dead People[edit]

In the spirit of the discussion #Living author pages with no works above, there is a discussion regarding dead people with no hostable works at the following page: User:Mukkakukaku/I See Dead People.

The author pages under discussion are:

The most interesting discussion, imo, is that of Author:Leonard Simon Nimoy. As the subject of many hosted works, he probably deserves a page; as an author of some works, that page ought to be in Author namespace, but none of his works are hostable, so perhaps others will disagree with me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think they have no hostable works? The politicians who were active before 1923 almost certainly have hostable works. Many of the Americans are quite possible; Harvey Milk wrote for his college newspaper in pre-1963 US, which is probably all PD now. Shel Silverstein has quite a number of stuff done while he was in the military and for the college newspaper that are probably PD. I'm not seeing the value of messing with them.
Author:Che Guevara seems quite important to have as a place to notice and stop copyrighted uploads.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The cutoff is based on User:Billinghurst's suggestion in the previous discussion: "I would feel think that we might be more focusing on those who won't have work in the public domain, so I was thinking a cutoff from something like death 1947-1950 (in addition to the other criteria)." If you can identify works by specific authors, you can populate the author pages and cross them off the list. As you can see at the discussion page, I have already done this with about half a dozen authors. I don't think it's worth bothering for recently-dead authors though, since it will be easier to recreate one author page if a work is added, then to research 50 author pages on the possibility of keeping one or two. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Long dead people I would keep (and I note that there are politicians in the above list), especially as they can be mentioned through "Linked to". Our primary concern with living authors, and recently dead is that people will add works that are in copyright, plus it is a case of misleading viewers with pages where we are not going to have works for tens of years. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but what do you mean by "long-dead"? I have sorted the proposals into deaths pre-1916 ({{PD-old}}), 1916-1950 (likely {{PD-1923}}), and post-1950. The first group I would keep as a whole, for the same reasons as you state. The second group could also be considered "long-dead", but I have identified several who appear to not have any PD works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Author:Jacques Chirac and Speech of the French President for the World Summit on sustainable development[edit]

Speech of the French President for the World Summit on sustainable development has no license, isn't an edict of government, and is probably copyvio. Chirac has no other hosted works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I would think that there would need to be a clearer indication of free licence to keep the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Author:Shriram Sharma Acharya and his works[edit]

Indian mystic, d. 1990. Has two works missing licenses, published 2006-ish, of dubious copyright status. Pages proposed for deletion are:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

For "Glimpse of the Golden Future" (2006) the scan at the website says "for free distribution" though has no other indication of a free license. So to me that doesn't give a clear indication that it can be reproduced here with one of our licenses. It pre-dates much of the modern creative commons licensing so its Naive licensing is not unexpected, though not particularly helpful. The modern site is silent on all matters copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


This seems to be a duplicate of The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World . If that content of the single book exists twice, the one with the weaker/incomplete edits should be removed. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is not scan-backed. There are two options:
In neither case should Index:15 decisive battles of the world Vol 2 (London).djvu be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Beleg Tâl, it is another edition — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. This scan appears to be the second half of the work (chapter 7/The Battle of Hastings and onward). I'm not convinced it's a different edition, however; I spot checked a few pages at random and the text and footnotes are the same. (The formatting is different, but that is to be expected for a non-scan-backed work.) Do we know the provenance of the mainspace work? eg. which printing or edition, or even where it came from? Because it seems possible that it's the same edition. (For what it's worth, the DJVU of part one is actually hosted here as well, but is missing two pages so is marked for fixing.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica[edit]

This is a long held, and long forgotten work. It is OCR scanned (poor quality) and pasted text; and it is an ugly mess and not of the standard that we profess as our desired quality. No useful proofreading will happen with the current text to progress its preparation and improvement as it is simply too hard. Wile the work is in scope, in its current state of distress, I believe that it should be dumped in its current form, and if it is to be resurrected then it should only be from scan-supported text which can be proofread. I doubt any of it is particularly worthwhile to rescue back to a scan, though if someone wanted to and did that, it may be somewhat recoverable. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This work was on my list of non-scan backed for investigation anyway, so I've just done so. I note that it has 139 fairly long subpages and a WikiProject. The subpaging appears to be arbitrary. No serious work via the WikiProject has been done since 2009. A random flick through the articles indicate that the text is taken from the Internet Archive OCR of the text. This means that it is not a match and split candidate per the guidance at H:MS. The only tenable keep solution would be one where side-by-side proofreading takes place and then transcluded over the top of the current text. If this is done the current presentation needs to be scrapped and changed to 1 article to 1 subpage, which will make it more practical to use and reference. This means that we might as well scrap what we've got now and start again when an interested wikisourceror has the energy and mind-space. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Author:Matthieu Felt[edit]

I just deleted his only hosted work due to another discussion on this page. Not likely to have any other hostable works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree Marjoleinkl (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Very unlikely to have any works published PD, except maybe his thesis when he finishes his PHD. Looks like that delete work is, to date, his only non-academic publication. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)