Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2016-10

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 October 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


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

The following discussion is closed: 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)

Index:Siouan Sociology.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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)

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

The following discussion is closed: withdrawn —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)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)

Bible (Douay-Rheims Original)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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)

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

The following discussion is closed: 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)

Rene Joly v Pelletier and others[edit]

The following discussion is closed: no longer incomplete; deletion rationale no longer applies —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
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)


Subpages of works migrated to Translation namespace[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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)


The following discussion is closed: 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)


The following discussion is closed: 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)

Redirect tagging templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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: 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)


The following discussion is closed: 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: 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: 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)


The following discussion is closed: 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)

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

The following discussion is closed: 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)

MVEL Language Guide[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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)


The following discussion is closed: 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)

Poem in a straight line[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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:Proceedings of the Royal Society of London-Volume 7-pages 263–288 Obituary Notices of Deceased Fellows.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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: 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: 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)

Ahmed Mujtuba[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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: 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: 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)

Portal:Judicial Yuan Interpretations[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported to b:Annotated Republic of China Case Law, b:Annotated Republic of China Case Law/Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 1, b:Annotated Republic of China Case Law/Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499
I am exporting this portal, Translation:Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 1 and Translation:Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499 to Wikibooks, to be named "Annotated Republic of China Case Laws" (judicial) to parallel with b:Annotated Republic of China Laws (legislative) and b:Annotated Republic of China Regulations (executive), unless anyone has good reason to keep them here.--Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Do we not normally keep unannotated versions here even if annotated versions are on Wikibooks? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
If they are unannotated then should be here. If they have interwoven annotations, then it was problematic for both us and WB (previous conversations with WB recorded here). Without knowing what was the original, I cannot offer an opinion on what should happen in this case. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I am abandoning this project here because:
  1. Translations marked with private translators are copyright-restricted for long term while not governmental, thus no good here.
  2. I have trouble making my own translations when many texts are too complex to go through.
  3. Few if any other users are interested in this project, so keeping the almost empty portal makes no sense.
  4. As Chinese Wikipedia has just very few articles about these interpretations, I do not consider all of them notable to warrant articles on English Wikipedia.
  5. Once exported to Wikibooks, I plan to write about each interpretation in the form of instructional book to describe its background, interpretation, reasoning, and effect in my own words. This will be much easier than trying to translate.
  6. If anyone still has doubts on my thought, I will first export a few pages to Wikibooks to show my idea to have a much easier way to review the case laws.--Jusjih (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


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

The following discussion is closed: 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)

Wikisource:Protection requests[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 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)