Wikisource:Proposed deletions

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

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



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

Subpages of works migrated to Translation namespace[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Some works have been moved to the Translation: for about 5 months now. Where these pages are subpages of works, I would like to think that we can now remove the soft redirects that are the subpages, and just retain the the overarching redirect for the parent work.

Examples of works are

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

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I was hoping we'd get to resolving some of that maintenance & tracking overhang myself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There does not seem to any opposition to this suggestion. All involved have the tools to make the modifications. Either can make the changes, and close this discussion when completed. Jeepday (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: keep and replace —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
(And pages)

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

Reasonable replacement file available at IA. Therefore, Keep and replace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted on Commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Concern here is the new material at the start of the work, the original work is clearly PD.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be PD to me; it includes work from the German edition of 1925 by Freud, which the URAA returned to copyright, as Freud's work were in copyright in Germany at the time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Siouan Sociology.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept as within scope, license to be updated at Commons —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Secondary sourced, wrong license at Commons (it's under the Project Gutenberg license included in the scans.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing is not ideal, though not a grounds for deletion. Incorrect licence again is not a ground for deletion, and the licence should be updated. This is a work of the US government. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

This is dated 1949 so IS PD-Australia.

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

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

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

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

It's not a scan of an old work, so there's no way to tell its originality without checking against an older source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 golden bough; a study in magic and religion (1922).djvu[edit]

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

It really depends on whether the differences between the editions amount to the addition of copyrightable material. If the only changes are typo fixes or minor wording changes, the new work does not enter into a new copyright. BD2412 T 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In 1925, wouldn't the copyright have needed to be formally registered in order to be valid? If the 1925 edition lists only the 1922 copyright (see here), that suggests to me that the publisher didn't go to the trouble and expense to seek out a new copyright in 1925. So even if the amendments were copyrightable, could it be that they were never copyrighted, and thus in the public domain due to PD-1923? -Pete (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean no-notice? That is indeed plausible if the edits were minor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That a story is abridged by another person, who isn't the author, they are unlikely to be able to have copyright on another's work, only components that are their work. It is my understanding that the author could reissue an abridged version and have copyright on that version on substantial difference, though it would need to be covered by the legal requirements of the time of the publication, as mentioned above. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Stanford and UPenn linked searches from WS:CV don't show anything in their components. The original is 1922 UK published, the second is US abridged publication though says copyringht 1922, whether by the author or not is unclear, though presumably yes. So it is in that murky space.
We would be better (my preference) to see if the original unabridged version of the work is available, IMO which we know is fuller, and definitely pre 1923. If we are staying with this version, I would say Symbol keep vote.svg Keep though not very boldly, just balance of probability. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It looks like this is a 1925 reprint of a 1922 abridgment, not a 1925 abridgment of a 1922 expanded original. Note that the preface, in which Frazer describes that this is his own abridgmenet of his own work, is dated 1922. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 18 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)

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

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

Migrate to the appropriate wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 8 February 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)

Luton Baptismal Records - 1864[edit]

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

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete both as excerpts —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted per consensus —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Code:  —  = hairspace + em-dash + hairspace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All uses of {{}} in works have been removed; any last words before the template disappears? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: withdrawn —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an unsourced work, which is identical to the sourced work The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the new work should have just been transcluded over the old page, to maintain history. Now I do not know what is the best way forward.--Mpaa (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would have done that, but User:Billinghurst suggested that I leave both of them up, and then post the discussion here—see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-01#What to do with a work that has no source scan, when a sourced copy is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I lost that.--Mpaa (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is whether we wish to have two versions or not, one unsourced. It probably needs a prod of the original uploader, and a light comparison of the text prior to just deleting. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Light comparison is done; a couple of words are different ("a Christmas pie" vs. "his Christmas pie"), most differences are in formatting, punctuation (esp. quotes), capitalization, etc. Not enough to be actually different. The original uploader is User:Shii. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
withdrawn. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

They are both proofread, I hesitate a lot to delete, especially as both have different levels of proofread status on different pages. They do look to be the same edition, so there is no apparent reason to keep both. (What a shame). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu is now completely validated, so unless anyone opposes I will delete Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu in the near future. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


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

If I recall this project was in an awkward transition from inline text (the (1) case) to scan-backed transcription (cases (2) and (3)) and what you are looking at is the awkward result of the completion of the transition whilst still pending validation. As I was somewhat involved with the (2) & (3) cases I vote to delete both of them as having served their purposes (whatever that may have been?) and to keep case (1) 'Pensées' AuFCL (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleted (2) and (3).Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm reopening this because I realized some of my deletions were part of a proofread work (Index:Blaise Pascal works.djvu). I still believe in deleting (2) but I think we should keep (3) and delete (1). Number (1) is only a portion of the entire book Blaise Pascal so it really should be listed as a subpage, not as a stand-along work with a different title than its underlying source. Also, I propose deleting Blaise Pascal/Letters and Blaise Pascal/Minor Works which are large dumps similar to (3) above.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with this: Blaise Pascal is a single published volume and its contents can be kept as subpages, so delete (1) and keep (3). I don't think there is any benefit to keeping Blaise Pascal/Letters and Blaise Pascal/Minor Works, as these are just section headers within the volume so delete those too.
I wonder, however, whether it might be beneficial to keep a page at Blaise Pascal/Thoughts though, since Thoughts is a work per se. If I want to link to Pascal's Thoughts, right now I could link to the full collected works volume, or to the first section of the work. I'm not sure what the page would contain though, maybe another copy of the TOC for just this work? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2016 (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)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: not undeleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Should at the very least fall under "it was significantly rewritten in a manner that calls into question the deletion reason" per WS:CSD — the deletionist probably contends that earlier versions of Pope Francis's Address to a Joint Session of Congress is the same thing; but I'd contend, frankly, that no real prior to this article, which otherwise comports to all our policies, ever truly existed. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
How about we cloud this request with fact, and not rhetoric nor wishful thinking. I deleted the work, which makes me the deleter, and not the label of deletionist. [Noting that the work has been deleted twice.]

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

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

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

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

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


Proposed saving clause

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

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

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

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

Redirect tagging templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The following templates were imported from enWP, I don't see the point or the value of these templates nor the point of the categorisation. They are infrequently used and are an added complexity for this no determined value.

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

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

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

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

Are all templates in Category:Redirect_templates to be deleted? I am going to start soon.— Mpaa (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done , but there are still more to do. If there's no objection I'll do the rest after one month:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirects that are subpages[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: delete on sight —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Whenever someone moves a work with subpages, a heap of unneeded redirects are made. For example, back in December 2013 I moved The American to The American (unsourced edition), and then converted the former to a versions page. Nearly two years later, that versions page still has 25 "subpages", all redirects of the form The American/Chapter I --> The American (unsourced edition)/Chapter I. Obviously these need to be deleted.

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

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

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

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

Hesperian 04:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Project disclaimers[edit]

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

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

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

Hesperian 10:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: g7 author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Per comments at Scriptorum, this template should be deprecated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Template now out of use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: g7 author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Per comments at Scriptorum, this template should be deprecated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Template now out of use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Statute table/titles/footer[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: unused template —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Per comments elsewhere, wrapper solution looking for a problem, carefulyl subst usages and delete :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please get the usages replaced with whatever is appropriate first (do this through a Bot Request). Then, and only then, mark the template for speedy deletion as unused. There is no need for a full deletion discussion for a single user template. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Per above template is now out of use, all uses were substituted appropriately.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2016 (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)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted unsourced excerpt; sourced versions remain —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an old addition that doesn't seem to fit within our scope of a published work. The page seems to be semi-encyclopaedic, some recitations of what may occur in the part of the church service. It is not a clear reproduction of a published work. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We have a sourced copy on Wikisource at Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)/The Daily Office/Compline. The order of Compline is not out of scope per se, although considering this one is unsourced and also an excerpt of a larger work (the Book of Common Prayer), this particular article may possibly be worthy of deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact, I've found a few standalone Orders of Compline, which I am now in the process of uploading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An update: the page under discussion is now at Compline (unsourced), which appears to be an excerpt of a larger work (i.e. a Book of Common Prayer) and as such I vote Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Author:Diego Grez-Cañete[edit]

It is a selfpromotion page, it is not a notable author, and he doesn't have created notable works to be here. --Warko (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He has a publication in a peer-reviewed work that has been uploaded to Commons and es.Wikisource. He translated it at It's a Beautiful Day (currently under discussion at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#Re.:_It.27s_a_Beautiful_Day). Our requirement is not notability; it's peer review, and as far as I can tell, "9° Interescolar de Cuentos en español (in Spanish). Santiago, Chile: Universidad Andrés Bello y la Sociedad Chilena de Escritores. p. 54–55. ISBN 978-956-7247-69-1." meets that requirement. If that work is undeleted, it's clear that he should have an author page here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The undeletion of the short story was denied so that there is no need in keeping the author's page. Андрей Романенко (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. We do allow Author pages for authors with no hosted works (Author:J. K. Rowling is an obvious example). We've determined that Grez-Cañete has written works that have been published, so there is no reason why he cannot have an Author page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Vishweshwaran1915/The Underwater World Part 1[edit]

The user's only edits on this wiki are to add this story. It does not seem to be published, and thus is out of scope, even in user space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Maybe blank the page, and leave them a message on their talk page. Seems to be education is needed. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

Rightous Lord (Serbian version) and Rightous Lord (Republika Srpska version)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
After splitting these versions off God of Justice, I noticed that the cited author is a WS editor, and that the only difference between these translations and those by Author:Elizabeth Christich are the first two words. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Unsourced, no discussion page. Outlier59 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of source and discussion page is not a reason to delete; the best action in that case is to find a source and add it. In this case the issue is that the translations are neither published (being modified by a WS editor) nor original WS translations (being only different by two words) and therefore I am not sure whether it satisfies WS:WWI. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Whatever, nobody's opposed the proposal; Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

United Reformed Church Lion Walk Colchester Act 1980[edit]

This work was added from a poor OCR, and has not been edited in over four years. It is in poor condition, and there is little value in its retention in its current state. There is no specific set of legislation that we are pulling apart with a deletion. If there is a decent scan then it can be resurrected in Page: namespace and transcluded when ready. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 25 March 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)

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)

Cyclopædia of American Biographies (1903)[edit]

I have found this small set of biographies that are subpages of the subject line, however, it seems that the work is actually The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans by John Henry Brown, and it looks to be well 10 volumes to the set. From IA, I see this text ...Published in 1900-1903 under the title "Lamb's biographical dictionary of the United States," 7 v. and in 1897-1903 under the title "The cyclopædia of American biography," 7 v. both edited by John Howard Brown. I cannot find the CAB version, though I can find the Lamb's version.

As the work has not progressed in all these years, and it is not supported by a scan, I think that it should be culled. Not to say that if someone wishes to resurrect the work with scans then it can re-exist if they can pull together the set of volumes for whichever rendition they so choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete While I don't think it is necessary to delete all stalled incomplete works, this one is a tiny excerpt of a huge work and therefore I really don't see any benefit of keeping it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

MVEL Language Guide[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Exported to b:Transwiki:MVEL Language Guide--Jusjih (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a reference guide for some sort of minor programming language. I can't find any instance of its being published, and I don't think it would be of any particular historical interest. Prosody (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Formerly at (archive), copied to Wikipedia for some reason when Codehaus went under, and then moved to WS per this W:AFD discussion. The MVEL GitHub page (which appears to be its official website) links to WS for its documentation. The original website claims copyright so I believe the original author would have to be contacted to release it under a free license. Even then I don't know if it's within scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see how it would be in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
It is a minor programming language, but it's concepts are emulated across others. It's used in Datorama, and this is the only extant reference. mrhartwick (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Even if this were the only extant reference (which it isn't, as I posted the Internet Archive link above), this is moot if the work itself doesn't fit Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and Wikisource:Copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
MVEL is the principal embedded programming language for writing rules for the DROOLS expert system, and is running thousands of sites on the Internet. Granted, it's not as common as Perl or Python, but it is most definitely being used in real applications serving real customers right this moment. Regarding licensing, MVEL is copyrighted but is licensed under the Apache license. --Egreen99 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Further to this, the Apache license appears to cover documentation (i.e. the work in question) as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It sounds like the MVEL Language Guide should be primarily posted on github or somewhere else, not initially and solely here. After it's on github (or somewhere else), we can consider hosting a copy -- if the Language Guide's copyright allows us to do that. Outlier59 (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like it could be a good fit for Wikibooks (assuming it is freely licenced?). Sam Wilson 01:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with this page deletion since it's a very useful lecture for those who need to understand MVEL capabilities and syntax. It helped me a lot when I had to learn and create expressions for MVEL, and I'm pretty sure it can help a lot of other people too. Please undo this deletion proposal. unsigned comment by (talk) .
As discussed above, this is irrelevant; WS does not keep/delete works based on if they are "very useful" or "can help a lot of other people". The decision will be made based on existing policy at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and Wikisource:Copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think this falls under WS:OR: "Works created by Wikisource users or otherwise not published in a verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum do not belong at Wikisource." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked on Wikibooks whether this would be welcome there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
They say it "seems pretty compatible" for hosting at WB. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This language is used by JBoss Rules and is one of the few references. I would recommend keeping. unsigned comment by Tjphall (talk) .
Again, irrelevant. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This work has been transwikied to Wikibooks.Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource:Protection requests[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Soft redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I am proposing that we delete the page "Wikisource:Protection requests" and redirect that page to a section with Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard. The archives can either be moved to be subsidiary to that same page, or left where they are and a link put in place that points to them. We have next to no requests for protections, and they would be better handled in our simple place for admin requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, too. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Outlier59 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done with dated soft redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Index:Taverner Bible.djvu[edit]

Very poor scan with no text layer. Outlier59 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fraktur/Gothic. Are you saying the scan is too poor to determine the forms?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can decipher a few words here and there, but nowhere near enough to proof a page. Also, see for example, Page:Taverner Bible.djvu/138, sidenotes cut off. Outlier59 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, two pages of the original printing are scanned as one page here. Outlier59 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I chose a couple of pages at random and magnified them a long way through the [+] button and the result was still problematic. OCR was useless If it is to be done, then a better scan will be required. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The problem of two pages per page, in combination with the illegible scans, and missing text layer mean that this qualifies as a valueless copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Ouch. Agreed. has better scans, and apparently one can request a copy of the full PDF from them, if one doesn't want to mess with downloading the individual pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that looks like the same scan as we have here, but in pdf format. It has 2 pages per page, and that site links to the file. Outlier59 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
A coloured scan of the 1551 edition, albeit double-page, available here. Can be downloaded by going for the print option page-by-page. Hrishikes (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


I have severe doubts of the need to template a period and two non-breaking spaces. Surely we can undertake such actions manually. To me this sort of template becomes template bloat, especially when it gets used multiple times on a Page: and then transcluded into main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that the additional templates to which @Beeswaxcandle: mentions are:
if there are others, then please mention which. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 10 July 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;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)

Bible (Douay-Rheims Original)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. None of the underlying text is ready for presentation to the reading public.
  2. It's debatable whether this is an original text. The modern website watermark suggests it's a copy -- with unknown modifications.
  3. "Original" is NOT a good name. Year or author is better.
Outlier59 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we please separate out the naming versus a deletion discussion. This is a published work, so the work should not be deleted as it is within scope. The naming of the transcluded work is an interesting conversation, and that may be appropriate though probably not on this page. I would suggest initially on the contributor's talk page. To whether it should be transcluded yet ... well that is always a debate, while I may not do it, there are always exceptions, so for me so long as it is labelled as {{incomplete}}; the pages are being transcribed and transcluded properly; and it is transcluded a chapter at a time (so no red linked empty pages), I am can have a level of comfort. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep same reasoning as User:Billinghurst. I have no problem with transcluding incomplete works as you go; I do it all the time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
An unneeded template as this sort of thing is now handled globally by better developed tools, and not relying on the thumping of templates in places. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:49, 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)

Poem in a straight line[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted as copyvio
It is unclear what Pessoa's poem is translated here and who is the translator. No sources are provided. The copyright of the translator might be violated. Андрей Романенко (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete looks like this translation by Edwin Honig and Susan M. Brown, copyright 1986. (PS, WS:Copyright discussions is probably a better place for this kind of discussion.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Index:Sax Rohmer - Fire Tongue.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy kept; published in 1922 in NY, file moved to enWS
Please delete or (preferably) move to Wikisource from Commons. The author, Sax Rohmer, was English and died in 1959. For some reason I insist on thinking of him as an American author. I realised (remembered) the fact only after creating a few pages.Sorry —Akme 15:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Akme: I have moved the file to enWS and deleted it at Commons. It would be great if you could tidy up the file locally, and add {{do not move to Commons}} to the file and to use the expiry = parameter. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do what you've suggested -- as soon as I read about and understand how to do it [Edit: read -- and understood!] I'm sorry about the mess I made. —Akme 14:07, 6 August 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)

Index:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London-Volume 7-pages 263–288 Obituary Notices of Deceased Fellows.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy closed; merged work — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Part of Index:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Vol 7.djvu. Pages should be moved to the whole. Hrishikes (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't know what I was thinking at the time when I created that as a disambiguation. Best that I can think is that I was trying to think of things as a starting word with the search functionality. It was a rubbish decision now that I look at it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Outlier59 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy delete A1 transwikied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This file has already been moved to Wikimedia Commons, so it can be deleted on Wikisource.Wetitpig0 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it might still be on Wikisource. Outlier59 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Transwiki'd View or restore 7 deleted edits? if you seeing anything it is the image at Commons or in your cache. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: From a non-administrative point of view checking the file history is also illustrative. (Hint: also look for the Commons-logo.svg logo(s)—there will be two of them when viewing the default page.) KapitalV2C1.jpg is most definitely now at Commons. AuFCL (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry about that. I see it now in the file history. Outlier59 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Civil and Commercial Code[edit]

This is a translation that is incomplete and after seven years I doubt that it will ever be complete, with less than a sixth being present. There is also a full version from the root page, If the first promulgated version appeared, then we should be having it as a separated version anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I take that back, the whole work is incomplete. It is abandoned and we should delete it. If someone wants it we can undelete for them as required. If kept it needs to be moved the Translation: namespace, relative links introduced, and other tidying. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Outlier59 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:In progress[edit]

We do not need another pointless template that has no realistic hope of being used, especially when we don't use the existing templates already for a similar purpose. Experienced editors should be able to identify when a work is currently under the early throes of construction. Experienced editors should also be able to hold off their editing or otherwise enquire with the contributing editor about the situation. There is situational awareness that can be used here without a next-to-useless template. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying this is a duplicate for an existing template, then Delete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there are 3 quite similar templates Template:In progress, Template:Inuse, and Template:Under construction. Inuse looks like it would be useful when a lot of editors are busy here. In progress looks good for discouraging other editors from jumping in on a work without coordinating with another active editor of the work. I once recommended Under construction to an editor because I didn't know about In progress. If I'd known about that, I would've suggested that.
Is there anywhere we explicitly ask editors to check the Index talk page (or edit history, or Portal talk page, or whatever applies) for an active editor before making changes? Outlier59 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, as others have pointed out above, contributors are expected to not be mindless automotans that need tags to exercise what should be common sense courtesy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: "In progress" was newly created, hence why I wished to circumvent further forking. We have less need for "under construction" and "in use" with transcluded pages where the work is done prior to works appearing in main namespace, and where we have incomplete works, we have {{incomplete}}. If you want to see who may be editing a work, look at the Related Changes link (Special:RecentChangesLinked)from the index, it will show editors from the Recent Changes history. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You can keep or delete this, but I wanted to say that I find this useful, am using it, and will make a version for myself in userspace if this is deleted. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It is basically a duplicate. I would delete it. If you like the phrase so much, we could find a suitable compromise between {{In progress}} and {{Inuse}}.— Mpaa (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Mujtuba[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, Perhaps the uploader intended to create this at Wikipedia instead? If so transwiki to that wiki if it meets w:en:WP:GNG? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation:Blossoms of the Spring[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted as copyvio
Incomplete, source link is a 404, original not hosted on hewikisource, and the document is almost certainly copuvio regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

George the Monk[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This page only contains two lines of the work, and is a ws translation of a work that isn't hosted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • preliminary Symbol delete vote.svg Delete though we should ping the contributor for the active status of their translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I think we can spare the courtesy. It is untouched since 2013 ... Does not sound so eager to continue.— Mpaa (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Rene Joly v Pelletier and others[edit]

This work is only a few lines of a Canadian court case and has never progressed. The information would be on enWP, so without further expansion, it is worthless. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteMpaa (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a short document; I'll happily finish it if we can determine its copyright status. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I've transcluded it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Record of Oregon Sales Tax Increase from 0 to 25%: A Receipt[edit]

This is a receipt, apparently added to demonstrate that the tax on cannabis in Oregon increased from 0 to 25% in 2016. I do not see how this falls in Wikisource's remit. (I asked the uploader/transcriber about this a few weeks back, and received no response.) -Pete (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, could possibly be speedied as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)