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).

Nominations[edit]

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



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

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

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

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)

See Author:John Bunyan for many freely available versions of this book. Outlier59 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2016 (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)

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)
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)

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]

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)

Original Old English translations under Biblioþēce[edit]

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)

Some really poor quality scans[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed the file. Pages 256-257 of the book were missing, and have been added. Fresh pagelisting required. @ShakespeareFan00: Hrishikes (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that hard to download a book from them as a collection of images; just take a page https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;seq=7;width=1190, up the width so you make sure you're getting all the detail, say to 3000 and replace the seq value with a variable and get all the pages; i.e. on Unix: for i in `seq 1 36`; do wget -O $i.png "https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;seq=$i;width=3000"; done. (The value 36 is the number of the last page in the internal system.) It will make JPEGs with a .png extension, so if that will gum up whatever you're processing them with or you're uploading the images straight to Commons, you'll have find the problem files (e.g. with file) and rename them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can u pse give a Windows-specific instruction? Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Download Cygwin and install Wget on it. Do the above. Someone with more Windows knowledge could probably tell you to download wget and run some similar pattern in Windows Command Line, but I don't know Windows in that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The DownThemAll addon that User:Jpez shared at the Scriptorium might also be a good option for this kind of task? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only thumbnails can be downloaded with this tool, because they show up together on the screen. Bigger images have to be opened separately, so cannot be downloaded together with this tool, as far as I could see. Hrishikes (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added plenty of books from there myself. Go to the last page of the book, right click it and pick "copy image location". Open downthemall and add a new download. Copy the link there. In the link you pasted change the width (I've found 2000 is good enough) as mentioned above, width=2000, and change seq= to seq=[first page number:last page number] exactly as is with the square brackets. For example seq=[1:200] if the last page is 200. Start the download and downthemall will download all the pages in image format. Then they may need some cleaning up and they'll need ocr. Jpez (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deprecated templates[edit]

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)

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)

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 71.178.41.60 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2016.


Template:PD-UK-EdictGov[edit]

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]

Wikisource News.png 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)

Hiihdon lajiosa[edit]

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)

The Statutes Revised[edit]

and

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)

Complete Basho Haiku in Japanese[edit]

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)

Template:Missing form[edit]

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)