Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2017

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 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



Winter (Beebe)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy kept
A work assigned to John W. Beebe, an otherwise unknown author, of an unknown period. The work has no source, nor a licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
sourceBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Short Titles Act 1896[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn and kept
For reasons that are too long to go into here for yet another time, various portions of this use different assembly/transclusion methods.

This means that when a relatively minor template cleanup was done, the whole thing came unstuck. At this point it's easier to "just blow up the mainspace effort" and for someone else better qualified to start again with a single approach that is KNOWN to work, rather than a myraid of clever half-fix soloutions (for which I am sadly responsible.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn - After someone sat quietly down and talked me through it, the problem can be resolved. :)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn
Since it's creation this template has only been used on two works, both of which were my efforts. From the documentation it seems this template was intended to be a means of assisting with figuring out how to transclude tables over multiple pages.

I've reverted the usage of this on one usage, and will look to do so on the others.

As I can't understand what the template is supposed to be doing, and as views have been expressed that overly complex template aren't necessarily the answer to mediawiki limitations, I have brought this template here for a further discussion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn Found a more experienced contributor to explain it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-paragraph and family[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This was an attempt to implement limited support for sidetitles/sidenotes. However subsequent experience has proved it be incompatible with a large number of other nominally "standard" templates. It was however used extensively by myself, so I am bringing it to WS:PD because sdelete would cause a massive breakage.

I've marked it as depreciated in any event.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you think the massive breakage will be avoided by posting it here? Since you know the template, you could propose as well how to remove/replace it in order to minimise the damage.— Mpaa (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It was brought here so some more experienced users could come up with a migration strategy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sidetitled works SHOULD according to documentation elsewhere be done using {{sidenotes begin}}..{{Outside X}} ... {{X sidenote}} ...{{sidenotes end}}. So in effect CL-act-paragrpah could be re-written to use those existing templates. For a scan backed work, this will work very nicely, but for something like Witnesses Act 1806 which was entered directly into Mainspace, dynamic layouts aren't yet supported, so an alternative mechanism would need to be found.
The basic point is that Cl-act-paragraph is essentialy a clunky over-technalisation of something that will eventually become un-necessary ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you could indicate how to replace different members of the Cl-act-paragraph, one could maybe attempt to write a bot, that at least would go as close as possible to the desired outcome.— Mpaa (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Cl-act-paragraph is called from some higher level templates that wrap paramaters so it's not a straightfoward bot replacement task, it will need people to examine the usage carefully.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
And I've managed to produce an alternative version in the sandbox, which I am currently trialing. I think we can say Withdrawn pending the outcome of the sandboxed version.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This is using an experimental template {{sn-paragraph}} (see previous nom for the deletion of that template.) which has got sufficiently complex that it's not necessarily understandable. I've reverted my attempts to fix the content pages back to the previous contributors attempt. I am of the view that someone ought to just nuke the incomplete effort and start again with an agreed approach for the sidenotes (even if it seems to sometimes be broken in page namespace display).

02:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - if the work is PD I see no reason to delete the Index; you can blank the pages or even leave them be and tag them Not Proofread, and/or leave a note on the talk page that the style guidelines for that work should take a different direction. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I made a start on trying to convert it over to something sensible, but hit a snag in the first few pages Page:An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.djvu/11 Page:An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.djvu/12, which I've been trying to get to do the follow reference properly for about an hour. If you can get it to format appropriately you are welcome to try.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're referring to the hardcoded width that is wider than the containing block, that's normal. It's only annoying in Page space though; you get used to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn and Speedy Kept, converted to standard sidenotes templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be a duplicate of The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World . If that content of the single book exists twice, the one with the weaker/incomplete edits should be removed. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is not scan-backed. There are two options:
In neither case should Index:15 decisive battles of the world Vol 2 (London).djvu be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Beleg Tâl, it is another edition — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. This scan appears to be the second half of the work (chapter 7/The Battle of Hastings and onward). I'm not convinced it's a different edition, however; I spot checked a few pages at random and the text and footnotes are the same. (The formatting is different, but that is to be expected for a non-scan-backed work.) Do we know the provenance of the mainspace work? eg. which printing or edition, or even where it came from? Because it seems possible that it's the same edition. (For what it's worth, the DJVU of part one is actually hosted here as well, but is missing two pages so is marked for fixing.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As a non-English text, this doesn't belong on English Wikisource. If Latin Wikisource wants pseudo-Latin gibberish it should be moved there; otherwise it probably belongs on Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This text isn't in any language at all. It is nonsense, just as Jabberwocky or some other works of nonsense are not in English. Further, the "lorem ipsum" text was developed in English-speaking countries for the purposes of publishing layout. We utilize the text ourselves to demonstrate page layout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Jabberwocky is English nonsense however, and part of an English work (Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There). Lorem ipsum is not English nonsense, it's (pseudo-) Latin nonsense. Anyway, multilingual Wikisource is for texts that don't belong to a specific language, so it belongs there. The fact that we use the text ourselves is irrelevant; the text can be included in the code for {{lorem ipsum}} without being hosted as a purportedly English-language work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete If we can find an usable English text that includes Lorem ipsum, I have no problem hosting it here. I don't believe in fragmenting single works. But we have no source for this, and looking at w:Lorem ipsum, it's not clear there is a hostable source for this. If an editor from another Wikisource wants to copy it over, they're welcome to, but as it is, I think we should delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. If we do find such a text, it would probably be something along the lines of File:A Specimen by William Caslon.jpg, which again should probably go on Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with the delete proposal though on the grounds of it is not compliant with WS:WWI as it is neither published nor peer-reviewed. What is the purpose of us hosting non-authored, non-verifiable text in faux pidgin Latin. I would like to see more discussion before giving my version of my more definitive opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Unpublished is less important in my opinion; lorem ipsum has definitely been used in published texts before, even accidentally. It's a pretty important bit of text. This is why I suggested to migrate to the appropriate Wikisource, rather than delete outright. Unsourced is a concern though. I have no idea where the current text at Lorem ipsum comes from; as far as I can tell only the first paragraph is common in versions of the text pre-PageMaker. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is a single-sheet published typeface sample using Lorem ipsum, issued by Letraset. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There is no use for this whatsoever. — Ineuw talk 02:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree, no point in it being here as a text. But please don't delete the {{lorem ipsum}} template. Jpez (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment—This "work" has been nominated for deletion twice and closed as non-consensus both times. The first was April 2006 (doesn't appear to have been posted here). The second was 2011). I note in the 2011 discussion that the work was one of our high use pages, is that still the case? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be number four in Sep 2016 (ugh!)
billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I find it interesting that at least 2 of the 6 "keep" votes in the last discussion mentioned moving to oldWS as an acceptable solution. The text will still be present, it will just be in a different place. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, I should point out that mul:Lorem ipsum does exist already and has existed since 2007. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
oldWS has a much, much lower internet profile than we do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep a good gimmick.— Mpaa (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete but I would suggest leaving behind some sort of protected placeholder page/soft redirect to mul:Lorem ipsum. Or oldWS. It's not English, so it's not in scope on enWS without a translation regardless of the sourcing issue. (The original Cicero would be a much better candidate for translation anyway.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep constantly a high rating work, and for that mercenary reason alone. If it draws in users, that many find it usable, and it presents us to others has to be a good thing, whether it is clearly within scope or borderline, or out. — billinghurst sDrewth

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks like there isn't going to be consensus for deletion, so at this point I may well withdraw the proposal. But before I do that, I think three steps are important in order to keep it here:

  1. WS:WWI needs to be updated to explicitly state that consensus overrides policy, thus allowing such works as Lorem ipsum to remain despite failing WS:WWI.
  2. This discussion needs to happen regularly. It's had 3 proposed deletions including this one but the proposals should be raised every so often until the work is either deleted or the scope of enWS allows for it; this will ensure that the consensus or lack of it remains current.
  3. Finally, the text of Lorem ipsum needs to be updated to something that is published in a verifiable forum and preferably scan-backed. This has already been done at mul:Lorem ipsum so we can just clone that one here.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I found this very use full. I came across the text and this page helped me. unsigned comment by (talk) .

Helped you... how? It's a wall of nonsense, vaguely-latin-like text. The Wikipedia article is good, I'll grant, but that's not what this discussion is about. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This should not be deleted. While tho this is a placeholder it is an important placeholder. unsigned comment by 2600:1:9288:cb38:39de:b7bf:5bf7:d0c6 (talk) .

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Author:Kenji Hatanaka[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The only hosted work was deleted due to copyright violition of a translation. It’s very unlikely there are any hostable works to be added in the future. Marjoleinkl (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Japan is a life+50 nation, and he died in 1945, so his works were PD in Japan in 1996, and thus likely all his works are PD in the US. I don't see any reason to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but are any existing translations PD? Because while we could, in theory, translate our own, we don't appear to have an active Japanese translation community (or one at all, but I could be wrong.) I think that should someone come along and decide to add such a translation, he can have an Author page, but until then Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's a waste of time to delete author pages for authors that have PD works that people might be interested in adding to Wikisource. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is supposedly a transcript of the original document ja:近作命甲第五八四號 (we deleted translation for copyright reasons), though I do not see an author page for Hatanaka at jaWS. @Sakoppi, @Vigorous action: can you possibly tell us whether there is a local author page, or potential for such a page?

    If there is a local jaWS author page, then definitely keep, if not, then I still favour keep with links to work at jaWS (in some form). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I also vote Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, since they are an author with PD works regardless of existing translations or existing pages at jaWS (for one, user translations are welcome at any time). Is it normal to link directly from author pages to works on other language WS? besides the usual interwiki? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, the work deleted was a government work. It was a military order signed by this author as a military commander. Being a government work, it was obviously drafted by some clerical staff and then corrected and signed by the commander. It is doubtful whether this author actually authored any work in his private time. Probably that's why, Japanese WS does not have any author page for him, and the WP article is linked from the author name for this work in jaWS. Hrishikes (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd still keep it on that account. There are myriads of ghostwritten documents on this site, and I'd have an author page for both the actual author if known and for the person in whose name the document was written. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nihil novi[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, was a misunderstanding —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A small exerpt of a much longer work; as a user translation not touched since 2009 it is not likely to be expanded on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Um. No, that is actually the complete decree. The source you've linked to is a collection of all of that king's decrees issued in the year 1505 (and numbered sequentially). This work on its own is the complete text of the Nihil novi decree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: kept, no consensus to delete, though further discussion of this template's usage is welcome at the Scriptorium and/or at Template talk:Translation redirectBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
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 {{dated soft redirects}} that the bot can link clean and remove; or we can delete the links, or leave them as they are; or we could create an exception to the non x-namespace redirects. I think that we can do a range of things to make them more effective, and to take them out of the maintenance categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Also noting that we have situations where we have subpage redirects that pair with the parent work redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Erasmo Barresi: might have something to say. A note was left on my talk page about this a couple of years ago: User_talk:Mpaa/Archives/2014#Translation_redirects.— Mpaa (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa: Sorry for the delay. Personally, I would reduce the first two lines in the template to "This page has been moved" as the current wording is quite redundant and leave it at that. I am open to different approaches, of course. However, I'd prefer that those pages not be just deleted, for the reason I explained in Mpaa's talk page.
(Departing from the immediate issue and entering utopia) URLs follow different patterns across websites. While Wikisource and most other Wikimedia projects use pagenames in their URLs, Wikidata has tried a different approach as it uses unique numeric identifiers; pages can still be found by searching for their "labels" and "aliases". This is probably what everyone should do, but I doubt Wikimedia users would accept such a radical change, at least in the foreseeable future.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for deletion, possible support for update depending on the solution. I agree with User:Erasmo Barresi that redirects from mainspace to translation space should be preserved. I don't known whether the current form of {{translation redirect}} is the best way to do this, but I would oppose deleting them outright. I wouldn't object to a regular redirect as an exception to the cross-namespace rule, or a regular permanent soft redirect. I don't see the benefit of the template linking by pageid instead of using a regular wikilink. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it further, I think that works with titles (books etc.) should have translation redirects from the title in mainspace to the work in Translation namespace. This would be presumably be the title by which it is best known in English, and/or its original title in its original language. However, works without titles (letters, ephemera, etc) shouldn't have redirects from mainspace, since there is no title from which to link them. (In my recent moves from mainspace to Translations ns, I've been using this system, with {{translation redirect}} for the former and {{dated soft redirect}} for the latter.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: kept for now, but should be bot-maintained in future —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think these pages should be deleted for the following reasons:
  1. They are woefully incomplete; only a fraction of works appear on these pages, and WS:Works-D through WS:Works-Z don't exist.
  2. Despite that, they are enormous pages, and take a long time to load to make changes.
  3. Furthermore, they aren't linked from anywhere else and don't seem to be part of the usual structure here.

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

@Beleg Tâl: If we were able to get them automatically generated out of Wikidata, and either manually applied, or even better bot applied, then what would be your thoughts? What data would be considered useful? Or are we at the stage that this is a pointless compilation? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If these pages can be populated and maintained automatically I think they could be useful in the same way WS:Authors-* are, though I don't know how useful those pages are either. In which case, my thoughts are:
  • The pages might need to be broken up, e.g. WS:Works-Aa, WS:Works-Ab, &c; as each page becomes enormous.
  • The formatting should be revisited: authorship and date are more important than categorization IMO.
  • If WS:Works-* can be maintained automatically, it might be worth seeing if WS:Authors-* can be maintained automatically also.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: kept, no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an incomplete work and it has been abandoned with less than 10% available. There are no images available and the work appears to have been published in 1972. So it seems that we won't get further with the work. I see little value in retaining in the form that we have. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a bit different from other cases where a long work is abandoned. In this case this appears to be an anthology (of letters) of which some are present in full and others are missing. I think that in such cases it may be worth keeping the whole for the sake of the existing letters. However, I acknowledge that this may not be the best solution. Either way, if the existing sections are in fact full letters, these need to be kept even if the anthology itself is deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor in another discussion made the point that the list and order of PD works can be copyrighted by an anothology publisher. However, in this case, this is just a list of all his letters in chronological order, right? In which case Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as a whole. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Bible (Douay-Rheims Original)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, within scope, no consensus to delete, scan is available — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess this should be done here since it survived a previous proposed deletion. The concern that the AFAICT only substantial contributor has is that the facsimile being used to back it is so hopelessly low quality as to be useless, and probably no other facsimiles of this edition are forthcoming, it being a rare book and all. This issue wasn't raised in the previous discussion. Prosody (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your reasons for proposing deletion. If this is the best scan we are likely to get of a rare and important book, then why would we delete it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The editor in question has moved on to Bible (Douay-Rheims, 1633-1635), a later but not substantially different publication with a better scan. The problem with the original one is that the best scan we have is missing chunks of pages, and the text is in many places illegible; see Page:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu/313. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the OCR may be garbage but I can read the text in the scan, so "illegible" is a bit strong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- same reasons it was kept the last time, plus above commentor (rare & important book) Lx 121 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The only reasons put forward for deletion are (a) the contributor is working on something else now, and (b) some people have trouble reading the text in the scan. Neither of these seems a valid reason to delete this work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bible (World English)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, no discussion for one month —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
While I do not necessarily want this work to be deleted, I can't help but noticing that it fails the WS:WWI evolving works criteria: "works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." So, I just want to start a discussion to check the following:
  1. That there is consensus to keep the work despite its evolving nature
  2. That perhaps we can identify a specific version to validate our version against

Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, different editions —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to retain this poor scan version when the 1855 edition

Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2 - 1855.djvu is already present on wikisource in better quality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are the two identical? Is the scan so poor as to be unusable? If the edition is different, and the scan is usable, I see no reason to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Different editions. The subject titled is 6th (1882) and the 1855 is fifth ed. The 6th has a note about revision +++ so it seems to be a keep, though a better scan would be worthwhile. Probably also worth adding note about other editions if we wish contributor efforts. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Three letters from the President[edit]

Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States Regarding the notice about Belarus[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kiraroshi1976: these appear to be in scope, why are you proposing their deletion? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: They were merged into the notices because they might not ever be published in the Federal Register. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. Trump sends a letter to Congress, which is in scope, but we should delete it because the letter is part of a notice that may or may not be published in a journal in the future? I am very unfamiliar with the American political system, but I don't understand how this is any rationale for a deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Letters from the President to Congress are government documents in the public domain. We are free to do with them what we want. BD2412 T 03:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Letter from the President to the President of the Senate[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as PD-USGov--Jusjih (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please delete. This was included with the notice. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand the reasoning given for their deletions, and would like that explained better. That said, they definitely need to be moved and the titles deleted, they are far too generic for our use. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Franklin to Benjamin Webb[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, proposal withdrawn —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This article does not appear in the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's collection of Benjamin Franklin's papers (The Franklin Papers). Also, I can find no other reference to this "letter" online. Haxwell (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
It took me about five seconds to find it on, as part of Franklin's autobiography. Our edition doesn't seem to have the letter, but it's clearly published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I also found another source at the Library for the American Philosophical Society. I rescind this proposal. My bad. :/ Haxwell (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Project disclaimers[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept due to no consensus —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
* 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer

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.
@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)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Some really poor quality scans[edit]

The following discussion is closed: all kept, better scans are what is needed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
* Index:A History of the Knights of Malta, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.djvu and corresponding pages (@Jpez:) replaced source file

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)
Has Index:Chicago manual of style 1911.djvu been improved? There are a couple of copies on The print is alright so I presume it is the image quality that is the issue? Would like to work on this. Is it alright to get images from another, identical copy or is that cheating? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no real attachment to Index:International Library of Technology, Volume 53.djvu, as you say, it's a particularly nasty Google scan. I can't recall why that particular volume seemed like the one to make an index for. Sadly, I still can't find a better version, though it looks like the publisher recycled a lot of content for A textbook on architecture and building construction (digitised by in 2016) - the first section looks the same, then it diverges a bit. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: That is a copy from the University of Michigan. The copy from the University of California is available here. Hrishikes (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Great! I didn't think to check HathiTrust. That's actually Vol. 53B, but they have Vol. 53 too (from Wisconsin). Interestingly when you search for "International library of technology 53B", the UC volume doesn't come up at all! Even when searching "Geometrial drawing projection" (using the topic list, which is how 53 is catalogued there), I don't see it. Out of interest, what search terms did you use to find 53B?
The annoying thing now is that the UoW copy is 3 several pages offset forwards relative to the Commons file (e.g UoW title page is p.9, at Commons it's p. 6), which means a straight replace wont work, even with padding the new file, so I guess a bot needs to move everything 3 pages up if the file is replaced?
One last dumb question: how to get a book from HathiTrust to IA for Djvu conversion and readiness for ia-upload to do its thing? The BUB tool seems to be stalled since September. I feel like I may have had scraper scripts once upon a time, but times have been a-changing since then! I see that's still the way, looking higher up this thread. BUB would be nice though! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I found it by searching for International Library of Technology. Additional parameters don't work. It can be downloaded with DownThemAll of Firefox (page rename parameters to be applied) or with the Hathi Download Helper (freeware, but slow; no remame required). Then djvu with ocr can be created offline, which is my preferred method. Or, the work can be converted to pdf and uploaded to IA. Djvu will be created at the time of shifting to Commons. If it is offset by three pages, three blanks can be removed while creating djvu offline. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: kept, though no real consensus —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
I have posted a discussion at el:Βικιθήκη:Γραμματεία#en:Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion on one wiki, I post my answer here, and not in elWS. ElWS has this index (el:Βιβλίο:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu) since 2008, mostly untranscribed. Looking at a sample of pages, I fail to see why it can’t be hosted in both elWS and enWS. The introduction is in english and certainly shouldn’t be transcribed in elWS. So if the greek part is transcribed in elWS (where we host ancient greek, koine greek and modern greek texts), the english introduction will stay untranscribed if no other WS accepts it, and it seems to me weird an english text to be hosted in mulWS. I am not accustomed to the standard enWS practice, but for example, in elWS, an edition of Plato’s works where the text is in greek and the introduction in latin (a common practice for 19th century or earlier editions) will be transcribed both in elWS and laWS. (el:Βιβλίο:Platonis opera, ed. Burnet, tomus I.djvu & la:Liber:Platonis opera, ed. Burnet, tomus I.djvu and el:Απολογία Σωκράτους (Πλάτων) with preface hosted in laWS la:Praefatio (Platonis Opera, Tomus I).—Ah3kal (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @EncycloPetey: @Prosfilaes: Hosting a work cross-wiki in this fashion isn't unusual here on enWS (examples from my own contributions: 1, 2, 3), and it sounds like it's normal practice on other wikisources as well. Does this deletion proposal suggest that a) this is not an appropriate approach in general, or does it suggest rather that b) Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu is unusually unsuited for this kind of approach? If the former, I agree with Ah3kal; I also fail to see why cross-wiki hosting is a problem. If the latter, I would like to hear further discussion regarding where the line is drawn, and why this work is not appropriate for cross-wiki hosting. I will note that the English introduction is substantial, and much longer and more valuable than many articles hosted uncontroversially on enWS. To sum up: unless I hear more convincing arguments to the contrary, I think that this text should continue to be hosted primarily on elWS, but with the introduction (and any other English sections if they exist) on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the practice of cross-wiki hosting; it certainly seems better than moving it to mulWS. I'm not a fan of the Plato examples; I'd rather short introductions even in one language stay on the main language. E.g. a English text with a couple pages of French introduction and some glossary and short notes for French students should stay wholly on the English WS, with possibly a cross link from the French WS. In this case, there's enough English text to make it worth keeping here, and also the desires of the editors working on the volume to handle it cross-wiki. (As for the Plato examples, I work on neither the Latin nor Greek WSes, so my opinion there is irrelevant.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion except to say that our current methods for handling such works is a confusing mess and could be improved with clear choices and clearer guidelines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Farewell address[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, issue resolved —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Unsourced.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It is a 2004 transferral from enWP, and it is labelled {{unsourced}}. While I would much prefer that we had a source, we don't. It is within scope, and I don't think that we hae a reason to delete. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced it with the New York Times version. Ours had a lead-in that the Times didn't; I'd like to see a source for that before restoring it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


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

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Per a recent Scriptorium thread, it was found that 'new material' in this book might not be free, as the edition is post 1923, (although the original text of Pilgrims Progress itself clearly is public domain.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted Nohon Shoki (Felt) as out of scope (self-published) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an incomplete copy of a self-published translation licensed under the GFDL 1.2. A suitable published translation by William George Aston exists and is being digitized here. One of the contributors to that project expressed interest in this being deleted and made to redirect there. Prosody (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. The DjVu for the Aston translation is missing many of its pages, and so it's not altogether clear whether we've got the full text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The Aston translation problem has been resolved. By not having the full text, do you mean the Wikidot translation? If so, you're correct, what we have is a partial copy. Prosody (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, if the wikidot translation is complete, we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The incompleteness is not a problem as it is not a difficult task to complete it. However, since the wikidot translation is not published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", and contains many typographical errors and omissions, I think that deletion would be appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safety[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Own work (as per data on user page). No source, no license, no history of previous publication given. Hrishikes (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be keep. We do not discriminate based on whether own work or not, and instead on whether it is published work, and whether it is in the public domain. The publication detail was listed, and when I reformatted the work, I extracted it separately. We do need a licence for the work, and we should have an OTRS approval be submitted; and we should confirm that the work was published. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not what WS:SCOPE says. We're not real clear here, but "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls;" and "Scientific research is acceptable to include in Wikisource if the work has verifiable scholarly peer review from a trusted entity." The publication detail is poorly listed; I don't know exactly how to cite it, but it's the ICSSS 2015 Proceedings, a work not held by any of the libraries in WorldCat. It's published by "Information Engineering Research Institute", which a websearch reveals to be not an entity I trust.
Ultimately, we can sidestep the scope argument. The proceedings, available from that page, say "All rights reserved. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the Information Engineering Research Institute, USA."--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It does appear to be copyvio per the Information Engineering Research Institute website. The author has offered to provide information at Talk:Running security mechanisms for acceptable Generalized safetyBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The author's provided information does not show that this work is not copyvio. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The license information provided by the author is as follows. I am quoting it here because I am deleting the talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi Bin Yu! That's great. What license is it released under? Do you have a link to where this paper is published online, where the license is specified? Thanks! —Sam Wilson 02:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sam!Thank you for the advice.There are two links below that could show further information about this paper.The first one is about academic index information.The second one is about the conference where this paper was published.
The first link is
The second link is
Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2016‎
These links do not show that the text is available under a free license. However, I found the publication online here (page 323). The publication explicitly states "Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the Information Engineering Research Institute, USA." Such licensing terms are not compatible with Wikisource:Copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Statutes Revised[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I couldn't find any available scans to replace it with. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Selamat Hari Malaysia ke-50[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Is in Malay, needs to be migrated to Malay WS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
That or delete. We should check the copyright status of works of Malaysian heads of government. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete in that case; I don't see anything in theCopyright Act to suggest that the king is exempt from copyright in Malaysia, and it certainly isn't copyright in the US as it's not an edict of government. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The City of God and On Christian Doctrine[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted— Mpaa (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
These are redundant copies of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine. Since both versions are from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, any differences will be on the part of the transcription. Alternatively to deletion, the files could be moved/migrated to Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu and other volumes, though I can't speak to differences in this version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Without knowing what differences there are in the works I am tending to the conservative approach of disambiguate as versions and keep. If someone can dig some more on the publication dates and places, I am prepared to review these thoughts. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst. A second copy of a translation, even by the same author, may have undergone revision by the author and/or editorial changes. So, unless we are sure these two copies are the same edition from the same publication, I'd lean towards keeping both and disambiguating them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
While you are right, of course, in this case I may not have made myself perfectly clear. Both versions of both works are from the 1885 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I; specifically, both are copied from (see Talk:The City of God, Talk:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I, and Special:Permalink/6437514). Hence, they cannot but be identical. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Change the plain titles to redirects/disambiguations to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers pages. My reasoning for this, is that that's what I'm doing with anything that's a duplicate of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library / Ante-Nicene Fathers (two different editions of the same works). I was anticipating carrying that work on into the two series of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. The transcription of (badly named) Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu should be used to replace the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers copy. Before doing the redirects, all the sub-pages of both works need to be gone through and all wikilinks redirected. I know I've linked to subpages without realising that they were in the Fathers as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the title pages should be turned into redirects. I don't think using Index:Cityofgodtransla01auguuoft.djvu instead of the Nicene Fathers rather than in addition to is advisable for the reasons outlined above by billinghurst and EncycloPetey. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I assumed that it was the same as this copy, but I see that Schaff has edited one and not the other. I knew there was a mess with the Ante-Nicene Christian Library being pirated and republished as the Ante-Nicene Fathers (I'm working on the proofreading the earlier and just tidying up the the text dump of the latter—I really can't face proofreading it all twice). I understood that the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers had been done collaboratively, but it would appear that there are multiple editions of this as well. The copy of City of God under Nicene is the 1887 Schaff edition of Marcus Dod's translation. Which edition is the copy at City of God? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It's from the same edition; i.e. the one from Tâl (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tennessee Code Annotated/2011[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
A work that has been abandoned, with very little progress. It is unsupported by scans, and it is very much a point in time work that I doubt that would bring many to come and complete for 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Speech of the French President for the World Summit on sustainable development has no license, isn't an edict of government, and is probably copyvio. Chirac has no other hosted works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I would think that there would need to be a clearer indication of free licence to keep the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UK-EdictGov. – Kaihsu (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Umm, our discussions should be standalone, not solely pointing at another discussion, and definitely no subsidiary to another site.

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

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

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. This template is not used for any works, and any future such works would all be covered by {{OGL}}, {{OGL2}}, and/or {{OGL3}} (and {{PD-EdictGov}}). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: deleted, no explicit free license, can be re-added if author agrees to a compatible license —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This work is self-published, and has been reproduced here. I do not see that it fits within the scope as described at WS:WWI in being a peer-reviewed work. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Documentary sources -> "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events." --1Veertje (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@1Veertje: This is not a documentary source, it is opinion or essay. A documentary source would be something like birth or death certificate, probate, land records, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with reason mentioned by billinghurst as well as the precendent that original contributions are not in scope Marjoleinkl (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete {{{1}}}Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete well outside WS:WWI criteria. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Leaning delete. The Huffington Post is interesting, but it's in their blog section. And the only license I see is "P.S. You’re welcome to repost/reblog/republish this if you like." which is not clearly a free license; there's no explicit right to make derivative works. There is no link to a source for the work (fixable, yes) and no source for the PD license we have on there right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
keep, pending a source and an appropriate license (as per Prosfilaes above). This is not an original contribution by a 'self-published' author, it is a text by a notable senior editor at a major news service, hosted, so presumably reviewed, by Huff'n'puff and others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that getting an appropriate license will require contacting Kovalev and doing some sort of OTRS thing. While I do think it can now be considered in scope because of its publication in the Huffington Post, it still doesn't have compatible licensing. Is there someone familiar with the OTRS process who can follow up with this? Otherwise my vote is still delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The licensing situation is plainly unsatisfactory and there has been no progress on that in three months. BethNaught (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: deleted, duplicate edition
Propose we delete Index:The Time Machine.djvu and the work done there. This is a reprint of the 1895 Holt edition—not a new edition—and we have already completed and validated the Holt first edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I spot checked a few pages and it not only seems to be word-for-word identical to the earlier edition by the same publisher, but even the pages line up exactly. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Shriram Sharma Acharya and his works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Indian mystic, d. 1990. Has two works missing licenses, published 2006-ish, of dubious copyright status. Pages proposed for deletion are:

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

For "Glimpse of the Golden Future" (2006) the scan at the website says "for free distribution" though has no other indication of a free license. So to me that doesn't give a clear indication that it can be reproduced here with one of our licenses. It pre-dates much of the modern creative commons licensing so its Naive licensing is not unexpected, though not particularly helpful. The modern site is silent on all matters copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted (speedy: author request) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
An overly complex template that's only known to have been used on two works, were it could be replaced with the existing sidenotes templates. Based on comments elsewhere, I've got no passion for retaining this overly complex "experimental" template, once the works using it can be rewritten to use a "standard" approach. I'm also of the view that perhaps cl-act-paragraph and it's dependents should also be deleted, once replaced.

I fully appreciate the removal of this template may initially break stuff, but it seems worth having some temporary hassle on works that are not yet validated ( I did check), then having the entire template come crashing down when someone (inlcuding me) tries to "tinker" with it to make it work properly.

Also affected {{sn-note}}, {{sn-paragraph/s}}, {{sn-paragraph/c}}, {{sn-paragraph/e}} ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking to replaces the usages of this in Bede, in the interests of standardising the approach used across that work.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And as it turned out it's incompatible with most other formatting on English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you still want it deleted, and you can replace it with existing sidenote templates for the sake of simplicity, then let me know once you have done so and I'll speedy it for you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Replaced, So nothing stopping it going unless someone wants to retain it to get it working in more compatible way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted all but {{sn-note}}, which is still in use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Only uses now are effectively sandbox or test pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a long held, and long forgotten work. It is OCR scanned (poor quality) and pasted text; and it is an ugly mess and not of the standard that we profess as our desired quality. No useful proofreading will happen with the current text to progress its preparation and improvement as it is simply too hard. Wile the work is in scope, in its current state of distress, I believe that it should be dumped in its current form, and if it is to be resurrected then it should only be from scan-supported text which can be proofread. I doubt any of it is particularly worthwhile to rescue back to a scan, though if someone wanted to and did that, it may be somewhat recoverable. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This work was on my list of non-scan backed for investigation anyway, so I've just done so. I note that it has 139 fairly long subpages and a WikiProject. The subpaging appears to be arbitrary. No serious work via the WikiProject has been done since 2009. A random flick through the articles indicate that the text is taken from the Internet Archive OCR of the text. This means that it is not a match and split candidate per the guidance at H:MS. The only tenable keep solution would be one where side-by-side proofreading takes place and then transcluded over the top of the current text. If this is done the current presentation needs to be scrapped and changed to 1 article to 1 subpage, which will make it more practical to use and reference. This means that we might as well scrap what we've got now and start again when an interested wikisourceror has the energy and mind-space. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to close this as "delete", any comments to the contrary? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Go for it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Go ahead; there seems to be no value to this, and it can be easily replaced from IA if needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Matthieu Felt[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, no free works available, or likely to be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I just deleted his only hosted work due to another discussion on this page. Not likely to have any other hostable works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree Marjoleinkl (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Very unlikely to have any works published PD, except maybe his thesis when he finishes his PHD. Looks like that delete work is, to date, his only non-academic publication. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord Buddha[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
No author, no source, no license. Created by combining extracts from the opinions of many living authors. Hrishikes (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Sabit Ince and Sevgileri Yarınlara Bırakma[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
To start off with, the work is attributed to w:Sabit İnce, a living Turkish poet. However it is at best a bad, unsourced, unlicensed, unattributed translation of one. The author page claims it's a 1999 work, which AFAICT would imply it cannot be public domain by the normal operation of law. However the author page also claims it's the Turkish anthem, which is false. The IP who created the author page probably did a botched copy-and-amend of Mehmet Akif Ersoy.

That said, I suggest deleting the work on copyright grounds and the author page because there will then be no hosted works and probably no hostable works. BethNaught (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pages with authority control by quantity[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
This category and subsidiary categories count the number of identifier links. I don't see that it provides any benefits, and just seems to be a superfluous category on an author page. With the AC data coming from WD and their identifier growing, it seems to be noise IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, looks pointless to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Voices of a People's History of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is closed: moot, is already deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Book published in 2004 by two authors, one of whom is still living, being a collection of source texts with introductions. This page does not attempt to reproduce the introductions, as they are still in copyright; it merely gives a list of links to WS versions of the source texts which were quoted. Under current copyright law there is practically no hope of us hosting a complete copy this century. I don't think this list page adds any value in itself or to the linked works. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a copyright issue here; the table of contents is copyrighted in and of itself, and assembling the anthology, or the pre-1923 part of it, is a copyright violation. On the other hand, there's no violation in holding the texts separately, and it's a useful list of things we might want to add. It should perhaps be pared down what we don't have and could and added to Wikisource:Requested texts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems spurious to me to think that the TOC would be copyvio; it's just a list of PD works; does it even meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? The only part of the TOC that's necessary to preserve in these cases is the order of sub-pages anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Anthologies are explicitly called out for copyrightability in the Copyright Acts. The threshold of originality seems clearly passed; nobody else would have produced a similar anthology. There's roughly a hundred entries on the PD part of the list, and I doubt anyone with a similar goal would have used a quarter of the same works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
In light of this: we should Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the anthology's page as copyvio, but Symbol keep vote.svg Keep all contained PD works by moving each to their own page with a note that they are sourced from Voices. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This is similar to #Young Winston’s wars; the original despatches of Winston S. Churchill, war correspondent, 1897-1900 above. It would be good to have consensus on how to deal with copyrighted anthologies of PD material in general. I personally think that hosting the anthology in the form used by Voices is fine; it keeps the PD material and excises the copyvio. I think that this is no worse than using {{image removed}} for works where the text is PD and the images are copyvio. That's just my opinion though and I'm willing to follow the opposite position if that's what others prefer. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, out of scope (not English) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete? Not English? Is sheet music is treated differently? Jpez (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sheet music isn't treated differently; this should be moved to dewikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
s:de:Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser already exists; they have four verses, but no sheet music. Interestingly their first verse is different to our "text" (it's just an image). Does anyone know what's going on? BethNaught (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Ours is the 1797 original by Lorenz Leopold Haschka; theirs is the 1826 revised version that was adopted as the national anthem of Austria. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted at de:WS:Skriptorium to see if they want to import it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize for only speaking English. The page :en:Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser is on English Wikisource, but it is in German. Is there someone here who would like to import it from English to German Wikisource? Thank you, Beleg Tâl (Diskussion) 04:44, 24. Mai 2017 (CEST)

The text didn't fit our qulaity criteria. There is no scan connected to the transcript. We can not import this to the german wikisource. Best Regards --THE IT (Diskussion) 16:19, 24. Mai 2017 (CEST)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The Law of Ukraine: On the Self-governing Special Administrative Territory of Transcarpathia, 1992 (draft)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a draft law, that has been contributed without a licence. It would not be {{PD-GovEdict}} as it is not law, and it is currently without a licence. @SirChesterton1: contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Psalms (Bible)#Translation comparison[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been translation comparisons kicking around the Bible project for a long time: Psalms (Bible)#Translation comparison is the biggest though Bible/Genesis/1 also exists as do a number of templates under Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Bible/. Since these kinds of works are listed as banned on Wikisource, and since some new users have started contributing to these pages again, I think it's time we move them to Wikibooks or delete them altogether. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There has previously been discussion about some of these pages, and they are probably in the archives of this page (otherwise WS:S archives), think it was when we did our last big upgrade to disambiguation and versions. The pages represent what we were at a point of time, for a short span of time. If the argument is coming around again, might be worth a summation of that discussion first. Personally, I have learnt to develop a blind spot, from avoiding the argument. I doubt that WB wants them. So it may be that we have to grandfather them, though that may mean moving them out of main ns and just let people hammer away on them but not encourage any similar such activity. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The previous discussions come from Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works, specifically #Comparisons. Consensus was that such pages are to be banned. I think they should not be grandfathered, since they're incomplete; we should either unban or remove, and I prefer the latter course. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a different situation to previous discussions, since the pages currently under discussion do not display parallel text. The current discussion covers pages that look more like versions pages for specific verses of the Bible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The purpose of these pages is to be "a comparison of various English translations" (source). Most of them are incomplete, which is the reason they don't always display parallel text the way one might expect. However, if they are truly disambiguation/versions pages, we have another problem: do we really want to allow individual disambiguation of individual verses of text? In past discussions, I've brought up the question of creating versions pages for excerpts from larger works, such as Our Father or Psalm 23, and the result of that discussion was that such pages are appropriate if those excerpts have been published as standalone works unto themselves. Do we really want to extend this, and allow versions pages for every single verse regardless of publication status or our policy on exerpts—noting that if it is permissible for Biblical works, then it should also be permissable for all other hosted works? Finally, I should point out that the list of versions on each of these pages in question, if fully completed, is identical to the whole work's version page (Psalms (Bible)) with the only addition being the translation comparison. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think these verse version pages can be very useful, not for being a way of comparison between translations but for the sole purpose of being able to be link for references. I've come along many works that reference a bible verse and I don't know which version to link to, so I don't and leave them as they were and it's a shame. These version pages could be a nice way to link to them and would let the end user choose which version suits them. It would be nice if they could be automatically populated also, as each transcription takes place. Also I don't see a problem with these verse version pages being used with other works which are heavily referenced and have multiple translations. Jpez (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I do admit that such pages would really be valuable for linking to individual verses without specifying the version (an improvement on the current {{bibleverse}}. I still think that such an effort belongs at Wikibooks more than here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the {{bibleverse}} template until now and have been explicitly linking. The obvious choice for most works we currently host is the KJV because this was the commonly available and used version throughout the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. With respect to the main topic of discussion, my comments in the 2013 discussion still stand. The pages are ugly, other sites do it better, I believe it's beyond our remit. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
+1 to Beeswaxcandle. Comparative versions are annotation versions, without real copies, and not supported by scans. They sit there ugly and untouched as no one knows what to do with them. I still favour deleting them, though know that will cause a ruckus. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Having pondered over this I vote delete. If it's not in our scope it shouldn't be here. If it can be hosted on wikibooks it would be a nice way to link for references, but as Beeswaxcandle mentioned KJV is the best option for this and is where I will be linking to from hereon, unless the work mentions otherwise. Jpez (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, for the Qur'an

I just noticed Qur'an/Al-Fatiha#Translation comparison also; if no one objects I'll clear it out with the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Basic Concepts of Iranian Constitution[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a redundant page, which is already covered here. Glide08 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, single chapter of the Iran constitution, which is already hosted as part of said constitution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Experimental long form Chronological Tables[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
* Portal:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom/Anne/6Ann

These appear to have been some attempts I made to combine the c. 1870's Crohnological Tables with the Short Titles and more recent repeals data from

As Wikisource doesn't have anything like the resources the latter mentioned site does, these are essentially unmaintained. I've got no objection to these being retained if someone wants to take on the large task of researching the relevant statutes so the Portal can be updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - these look like a lot of work to keep up, and in the absence of a willing editor I'd delete it, noting that a simple list of the Acts of Parliament should still be retained. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu suitably expanded using Short Titles Act 1896 and more recent data. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just keep Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes and Short Titles Act 1896 in that case, and leave it at that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize there were only the three pages; I was expecting a huge refactoring job. Pleasantly surprised. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:The poems of Emma Lazarus vol 1.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, speedied as clearly redundant and inferior —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
superseded by Index:The poems of Emma Lazarus volume 1.djvu; missing page. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Author:Tricia M. Whitehill[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This person is not listed as an author in the attributed work, Putting a Stop to Modern-Day Slavery and is only quoted. She has requested[3] on Wikipedia's BLP/N that this be rectified and ideally the page deleted. According to Help:Author pages, an author page is contra-indicated "Where a person is the subject of one or more works, but is not a creator of written work." DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. While I would oppose deletion if the only reason to delete were that Whitehill wants it deleted, in this case none of the works listed at Author:Tricia M. Whitehill have anything to do with her beyond a passing mention. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed: deleted as copyvio, no evidence that translation is free from copyright. Free translations are welcome. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
That appears to be merely an excerpt, it's only 32 pages.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kalevala (Crawford)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted with clear consensus, and help page updated accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category for the chapters of a specific translation of a particular saga. There is no purpose served in having such categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Actually it's a typical use of categories - to gather all pages of one kind together. Also it helps to remove them from Special:UncategorizedPages (are you even care about maintenance??). And there are no prohibition in Help:Categorization. --Infovarius (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's against established consensus though; the pages are accessible via Special:PrefixIndex. I will happily edit Help:Categorization to explicitly prohibit it if necessary. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I think it would be good if you (or anybody else) make such addition to WS rules. The point is that User:Infovarius, who did that categorizing, has come from the Russian WS (the same as me — I've come from Ru-WS as well), where such categorizing is applied and considered reasonable; so he just did here the same to which he had been accustomed in the Ru-WS. Thus, such clarification would be helpful for new-comers from the Russian WS (and other Wikisources where such categorizing is applied as well). And if you really add this, then I also propose to add a point about another categorization ban — as far as I know, in the En-WS making categories for works of particular author is banned as well, meanwhile it is (as for previous case) applied in the Ru-WS. And if you ultimately insert to rules those additions about those two bans (ban on categories for subpages of works, and ban on categories for collecting works of particular author), then it would be helpful for users from other Wikisources to get knowledge about categorizing cases which here, in the En-WS, are considered wrong though in their WSes those cases are considered correct. --Nigmont (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nigmont: Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the addition. Now I understand that English Wikisource is against such categories (and don't care about uncategorized pages and so on). P.S. German Wikisource uses such categories too: de:Kategorie:Kalewala, das National-Epos der Finnen. --Infovarius (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the main page has a table of contents, then there is no need for the category. All the pages of a single work should be available through that work's primary page in the Main namespace. If they're not available that way, then a Table of Contents should be added. The Help page lists four types of categories we use, and "chapters from a work" is not one of them. Just because a thing is not specifically prohibitted doesn't make it a good idea—categorizing for categorizing's sake is not beneficial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as nominator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Jpez (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, the category itself was deleted, but all the links to it are still there on all the pages from the work. Those links will also need to be removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

More Canadian politicians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
More Canadian politicians whose works are copyrighted.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to delete them, but should we also clear Category:Author-PD-none?--Jusjih (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Not automatically, no. Some of them were deliberately kept after a discussion on this page, with the rationale that they are sufficiently important that they are likely to be recreated if deleted (e.g. Che Guevara). Some of them actually have hosted works as well, such as Justin Trudeau whose works are generally copyrighted, but who also issued a couple of joint statements with Donald Trump that are freely licensed or PD in the USA. I agree that there are probably a good number of authors in that category that could go, however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Presidents of the United States 1789–1914 (Vol. 1).djvu and Page: pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted— Mpaa (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like everything has been migrated to Index:The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914, v. I.djvu.— Mpaa (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted along with User:Wei Guan improperly used with just minor differences.--Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is a mix of excerpts from w:Records of the Three Kingdoms, apparently translated by WS user User:Wei Guan, and excerpts from w:Zizhi Tongjian, translated by w:Rafe de Crespigny.

There has already been some discussion at Talk:Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian (about 10 years ago) regarding what to do with this page: the consensus at the time appears to have been to split the content between Translation:Records of the Three Kingdoms and Translation:Zizhi Tongjian. However, this was not done for some reason.

I suggest that the excerpts by User:Wei Guan be placed at Translation talk:Records of the Three Kingdoms/Volume 36/Guan Yu as an alternate rendering of Translation:Records of the Three Kingdoms/Volume 36/Guan Yu. I also suspect that the excerpts by Crespigny are copyvio so I suggest to just delete them outright. Either way there is no reason for the mixed page Guan Yu Sanguozhi Zizhi Tongjian to remain.

(Note: the page was previously proposed for deletion, but only as part of a long list of works marked with {{no license}}.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Author:Tome Egumenoski[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted'; unknown author with no biodata found upon search. May be pseudonym or hoax, but not notable nor published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Living author, or possibly a hoax. The book given under works may also be a hoax (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
IDK if it's a hoax, but if the work can't be hosted with a scan to back it then the author page shouldn't exist. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Judging from the linked discussions, the author is completely unknown, and may be a pseudonym or sock puppet in some fashion. Unless someone can find biographical data and notable publications, there is no reason to even consider an author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Pope and the Council[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted without prejudice--Jusjih (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This work is an ugly paste of a text with many OCR errors presumably from an scan, and it has page and references interspersed. It is my opinion that we should delete it without prejudice, until someone brings a scan-supported transcription. The current presentation and work brings no value in its current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Starting over with a scan will be easier than cleaning this up or migrating to scan. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Legislation Verses Of Quran[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be some sort of original synthesis of quotes from the Quran. If it's a conventional listing it should be tied to a publication. Prosody (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Two Years' Vacation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted, and not redirected per discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
A work that was started in 2013 and unsupported by a scan, with only parts of chapter 1 started and in a non-standard format. The work should be deleted without prejudice in its current form. When someone works from a scan, then that should be suitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
A scan-backed transcription is in progress at Index:Adrift in the Pacific, Sampson Low, 1889.djvu. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
So is that a delete, or leave? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a speedy Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as redundant, and turn into a redirect to the correct title. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I oppose a redirect; en:w:Two_Years'_Vacation says "In 1889 a two-volume English-language book titled A Two Year's Vacation was published by Munro in the United States. Later the same year, a single-volume abridged edition in the United Kingdom was released by Sampson Low under the title of Adrift in the Pacific." I don't see any need for an old unfinished copy that's not scan-backed, but it's a completely different (and probably better) edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice that However, considering only 4 paragraphs are present, and those 4 are the same in the abridged edition, I would still consider the Munro edition to be redundant in its current form and absolutely not worth keeping without a scan. And once the work is deleted (all 4 paragraphs of it), I do think a redirect could be appropriate, but I can also see the merit of not redirecting. Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Songs of The Doon School[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
While Songs of The Doon School does appear to be an actual book, the page is mostly just an unsourced table of contents and has been untouched for five years. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not an actual book. It is just a blurb-like description of the school songs, which matches w:The Doon School#School songs. Hrishikes (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was that the Doon School does issue actual books with these songs in them, and since the songs are numbered I assume they are in the same order. But you are correct, the information at Songs of The Doon School is just a blurb-like description of the song book's contents, and is of no value here whatsoever. As for the song book itself, without a scan available online we can't determine whether any parts of it are within our copyright policy or language scope, so we can't replace the blurb with actual content either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia- The Missing Manual[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia- The Missing Manual has sat here for a very long time, it consists of merely a table of contents of nothing but redlinks. There is no content here to host, nor any indication that anyone will ever complete the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The full work is here: w:Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Scan is here: The scan has copyright notice of 2008. As per the WP article w:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, it was released under free license in 2009. The TOC here is a copy of the TOC at w:Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, from where the work is downloadable as pdf. Hrishikes (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This work also falls under the discussion at WS:CV#Deletion of all GFDL-only worksBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So if Wikipedia already offers this publication as a book, then are we going to host it here as well, or not? If no one is going to work on this, then it should be deleted here. As I say, it's sat unedited as a redlink table of contents for years now. If someone wanted to upload a pdf to Commons and transcribe it, they could do so. But the current version is just a graveyard of dead links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This work is in scope aside from the unresolved question of GFDL-only works, but I agree with User:EncycloPetey that deleting now and possibly re-adding later is the best plan here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The WP version is an editable one, that means, Broughton's original has been improved upon by other WP editors. Readers can get this updated version from WP, so we need not bother with it here. The TOC here is of the WP version; we don't need it. But we can present to the readers the unadulterated first edition, so I have added the scan. Hrishikes (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the incomplete work, though will state that we would host the original public version if scan supported, or complete. We would not host an actively edited version per WS:WWI. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: delete, but only after all uses are replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this is at WS:PD, it's effectively a merge request.

This template currently calls {{table style/parse}}. There is nothing inherently wrong in this, but in doing some digging I found that independently someone had developed {{p}} which calls its own equivalent parse template, except for some very specific circumstances does the same thing as what this template was nominally intended for.

Therefore I am considering this template to in effect be a duplication, unless there are specifc uses that would require the direct use of a <div>...</div> combination over a conventional wiki paragraph.

I hope you don't mind me starting disscusions like this, but a reduction in complexity can only be a good thing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also the redirect which {{Ssc}} is.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
These look like duplicates to me, so I'm inclined to vote delete. Do you know if there is any reason for their existence as separate templates from {{ts}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably to differentiate their function, {{p}} handles paragphs vs table cells,and {{tf}} was obviously div based. {{ssc}} calls the table style parse thingy directly, and as I recall was shorthand for style-short-code. It would in the interests of reducing complexity to have ONE core version of the /parse portion aliased if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering that {{ts}} is just a generic style tag, it should work on any element provided that the CSS rules are applicable to that element. Maybe we could move {{table style}} to just {{style}} and then there won't be a need to add a new template for every type of element? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You'd need to merge/harmonise the various sets of format codes, I am not sure that {{p}} and {{ts}} use the same set of codes, but in principle I don't see why having a common core {{style/parse}} would be opposed. Or even something in Lua drawing on a "protected" page with code,expansion pairs, so that adding codes doesn't involve changing the whole template every time. (IIRC at present {{table style/parse}} is a big switch function...
Aside - {{P}} IIRC does some additional wrapping to creates a new <p> tag which I am not entirely happy with given the rows I've had with mediawiki about how it crunch-mangles content with mismatched tags on transcluion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not certain that all elements would work in <span> so making it too generic will not work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Author-based poem categories[edit]

This section was archived on a request by:  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This section has been concluded as "deleted", but deletion is still in progress because it's a long and annoying task. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The following author-based categories are of the sort that are usually deleted by consensus:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Categories that are <form> by <author> should not exist. These are two separate category trees on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two more in case of deletion: Category:Poems by Catullus + Category:Poems by John Donne.— Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree to remove, noting that they will need to be replaced with something like Category:Russian poetry]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
They are subcats of Category:Russian poetry, but yeah the pages in the categories will have to be moved there before the subcats are deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, there is Category:John Boyle O'Reilly poems‎ as well. Maybe we should get rid of Category:Poems by author entirely? The only item in that category that is worth categorizing as such is Category:Poems written by children. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Category:Poems written by children can exist without being a subcat of Category:Poems by author, which is a misleading supercat anyway, since "children" is a type of author, not a particular author. BD2412 T 13:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is it desirable to have a "Poems written by children" cat? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, but I think the point being made is that it does not run afoul of the particular issue under consideration in this thread, as that category name is not constructed in the same pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I found some more such categories.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Cat:Executive orders and also Proclamations I'm divided in opinion. These are effectively subcategories divided by governmental administrations. They could just as easily be said to be divided by years, and although they could be renamed that way, it is usually much more useful to have then identified by which US president headed that administration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you, even though they fit the same pattern. Do you think Presidential memoranda, determinations, radio addresses, notices, and possibly speeches should be kept for the same reason? If not, why? I'm not American and I'm not really familiar with US Presidential official writings. Also keeping in mind that if such American presidential categories are okay, then so are similar categories for presidents, monarchs, and other officials in any country whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that it's not the ruler that's the organizing principle here, but the administration, and a government is not always tied to a particular monarch. In the UK, older documents might indeed be organized by monarch, but only where there is a fixed and established set of official forms of documents to organize under such. But in modern UK, for example, it would not be suitable to have categories for George V, or Elizabeth II, as they are not the head of the UK government. Rather, UK administration is tied to the prime minister. So if we were to extend this principle, it would make more sense to organize by Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, etc. However, I'm not certain whether the PM of the UK issues executive decisions in the same way that a US president does, and certainly did not do so if you go back far enough.
I am not certain that radio addresses should be kept, even for US presidents, as they do not hold the weight found in executive orders or determinations. Those latter are both instruments of executive power, which a radio address is not. This issue is probably one that will need some discussion, some consensus, and a written guideline that we can then point to in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I only created the categories because there was no place to put them and other U.S. Presidents have some of the same categories. As for the U. K., I'd say it would be under the Prime Minister once they were head of the government. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


Living author pages with no works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Working through the list of author pages missing licenses, I keep running into author pages with no listed works, who are still living, and who will likely never have any works listed.


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

Other authors who fit this criteria: Canadian and Australian politicians. Works they wrote in office are under crown copyright for 50 years, so those politicians in office in the past decades won't have their works released any time soon. Examples:
Etc. There's a lot. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I remember when we had batches of Canadian politician pages, and we agreed to their deletion at the time (it will be in the archives of this page). So ... if there is no chance of works in the public domain, AND they won't be reasonably having incoming links then I have no issue in deleting such pages. (noting that it is now reasonably easy to locate any links from the {{wikisource author ...}} templates at enWP). So we should have the principle to delete them if they meet such criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I came here to nominate a few I’ve ran across myself:
Seems my nominations were all added by the same IP user:, don’t have time to check rest of the user’s history to see if that was all of them Marjoleinkl (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, there's waaaaay more. A lot of them are (were) in the list of author pages without licenses. At this point I think you can look at the intersection of the categories Canadian politicians and Authors with no works: this PetScan lists 109 of them. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: I suggest build a list, look to use the output method wiki, or give a specific query and an admin to do a bulk grab and feed them into mass delete, and resolve them with ease, and a permalink to this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If we decide to delete living authors with no hostable works, there are a number of high-profile authors to remove as well:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
We may as well go through the list of everyone who has the {{populate}} and {{copyright author}} templates. Or even just the {{copyright author}} template....
The high profile/famous authors like J. K. Rowling and Stephen King I could see keeping as copyvio flags/warnings against naive additions by new users (which is why I think JKR is still here.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 So we adapt my initial statement to include high profile authors we retain for management actions (ie. where we are using {{copyright until}} like statements, and other dissuading statements. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 High profile authors are worth retaining to monitor for copyvio additions by inexperienced users, and as a place to display our policy against adding copyrighted works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Preparing a list of candidates for deletion here if anyone wants to contribute. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got a lot on there that aren't still living. Are we expanding the criteria here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would feel think that we might be more focusing on those who won't have work in the public domain, so I was thinking a cutoff from something like death 1947-1950 (in addition to the other criteria).
  • I would agree with that, but the list of proposed candidates for deletion contains many people who have been dead for more than a century. I would hesitate to delete any author who died that long ago, unless it is confirmed that no works by them exist, and they are not sufficiently notable to move to Portal space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Also a note: it is common practice for authors with no works to move them to Portal namespace using {{person}}, rather than to delete them outright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For all author pages we decide to delete, we should check the corresponding article on Wikipedia for any template pointers here, and remove them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: "wikisource author" and "wikisource author-inline" at enWP both now have tracking to do this (note in maintenance section there). I need to further refine it after tidyng up 2k worth of usage, but that is now the easy task. Noting that in time this should also allow for us to identify which do not have the template and look to add it.
It looks like we have consensus to delete the following author pages, listed under "Politicians (Canadian or otherwise)" and "Other people not likely to have PD works in English" at User:Mukkakukaku/Sandbox3:
Any last comments before I start deleting? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well... some of those have works listed that we're currently hosting, such as Author:Stephen Harper and Author:Justin Trudeau. Are you proposing we delete those author pages, but somehow keep their works independently of an author page? I don't think we're ready to delete anything, if these pages haven't been checked yet for content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are no hosted works by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper does have works here but they appear to be of doubtful copyright, not being withing the purview of "edicts of government". I agree, that if there are works hosted by an author, I will skip deleting it and put a separate deletion discussion for them. (Observe: I have already removed Harper from the list.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you have missed my point. If there is content in author pages on this list, then the list has not been properly vetted before proposing deletion. It is therefore premature to offer it for discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I've vetted all the ones on this list now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Author:Stephen Harper and his works[edit]

The following discussion is closed: some deleted, some kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The works of Stephen Harper are, as far as I can tell, still under copyright in Canada, and, if I understand rightly, they would only be PD in the USA if they are {{PD-EdictGov}} (i.e., "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents"), which none of his hosted works appear to be. Thus I propose the deletion of the following pages:

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

I'm a little bit skeptical of 's claim that all hosted works are CC-BY unless otherwise stated; the press conference between Obama and Harper was issued in Canada and is authored in part by a Canadian, so I doubt the White House has the authority to make this release. However, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and keeping the page—and also using this as an excuse to host other stuff by Canadian authors that would otherwise be probably-copyrighted :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I See Dead People[edit]

The following discussion is closed: determination for how we would look to manage more recently deceased people with no evident hostable works — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of the discussion #Living author pages with no works above, there is a discussion regarding dead people with no hostable works at the following page: User:Mukkakukaku/I See Dead People.

The author pages under discussion are:

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

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

I've deleted all the items whose proposal was unchallenged. I suggest that all remaining authors be considered kept, and any further discussion moved to a new proposal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Can I reclaim my userspace page(s) or should they be archived? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Infesto sancti joanis baptista.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: already interwikied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not in English. It looks like it may be Portuguese or Galician.

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

It's Chinantecan, so mulWS would be the place for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: can you import this to mulWS? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have asked Yann if he knows how to do that. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus, @Yann: through mul:Special:Import? I cannot remember whether enWS is on your import list. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The life of Mohammed[edit]

The following discussion is closed: OCR deleted, transcription project uploaded in its place —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Whilst the work is within scope, it is an ugly copy and paste of OCR text, and it has been long abandoned. The work should be deleted, or replaced with a scan version. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
A scan is available at Tâl (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
If deleting we could import the scan, and set up an index page then delete the work, with active link to index. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The late war, between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815[edit]

The following discussion is closed: redirected to The Late WarBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Another bad OCR dump, and duplicate of The Late War. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari[edit]

The following discussion is closed: redirected to scan-based copy —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Another copy and pasted OCR text that is in no fit state. It should be deleted, and when someone feels willing to bring a scan and work upon it, they should. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Scan. Going from scan would essentially be starting from scratch, as the existing OCR is useless for proofreading. If you think it best to delete in the meantime, go for it. (Same with the life of Mohammad above.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If deleting we could import the scan, and set up an index page then delete the work, with active link to index. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hm. Not only does the scan already exist, but a scan-backed version of the text is also present. Upon investigating which, I see that it is entirely in Arabic except for the front matter and endnotes. In which case the text should be either exported to arWS or Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'll start a new discussion for this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about pasted OCRs: As we seem to have numbers of work like this, is there value in starting a more general discussion about our general practice for managing these, and allowing admins some latitude to work without repetitive, and unresponded DRs? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not covered under the Speedy deletion policy, unless we consider it "no meaningful content". How difficult is it to add "Abandoned and incomplete" to the list of speedy criteria? I assume there are a lot of deletion tools that would need to be updated. On the other hand, if nobody responds to or opposes your deletion proposals, I think you're safe to proceed with deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Chapter 4, pp. 48-57 (1890 ed.).pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted and moved as necessary; ready for match and split and proofread
Duplicated by Index:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu to which the relevant proofread text should be migrated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty confusing pile of indices. I agree, the partial scans should be replaced with the full book scan. Is there any proofreading done on any of the partial scans? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For Index:1890ed.GenHistP.MyersCh.1.pdf there is, and validated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For the others, the scans appear to have been manually entered in article space. This is going to need a LOT of cleanup, It may be easier to just start again with the KNOWN scan. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Could this be an opportunity to match and split? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Selections from the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Buḫārī[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted after interwiki export to oldwikisource
This work is in Arabic, except for the front matter and endnotes. If arWS doesn't want it, it should be deleted as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As a mixed language work, it may be something that sits at mulWS. @Zyephyrus:? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: can this be imported to there? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Try oldwikisource:Special:Import. I just imported a few, with more to be done.--Jusjih (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have exported Index:Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari (1906).djvu and all relevant pages, but missing some templates on Old Wikisource makes oldwikisource:Index:Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari (1906).djvu incomplete.--Jusjih (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I see Old Wikisource having much better display. If no other comments, the pages here will be deleted soon.--Jusjih (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The Decameron[edit]

The following discussion is closed: moved and disambiguated —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No specific spurce is indicated for our only copy of The Decameron. The header says that it is "translated by J. M. Rigg and John Payne", but those are two separate translations. Payne's translation was published in 1886, and the translation by J. M. Rigg in 1903. Further, our copy apparently also includes the Introduction by Edward Hutton from the 1930 Everyman's Library edition. So, the Introduction is probably still under copyright, and the text may be a hybrid of two different translations. Payne's translation is in PD in both the US and UK, as he died in 1916, but the Rigg translation is still under copyright in the UK.

In short, our only copy of this work is a total mess. This is a double shame since there is a little irreverent comedy film out now that is based on the Decameron. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Going solely on the information in the header templates, we have intro through Novel 5 by Rigg, and novels 6 through 10 by Payne. I'm loth to delete a large body of text that's otherwise in scope (especially since the text itself isn't poor quality like some OCR dumps we've seen) so my preferred approach would be to split it into the two translations and mark them both {{incomplete}}. The missing parts (Payne's 1-5 and Rigg's 6+) can be supplemented from Gutenberg or something, or we could look into a WS:PotM to provide a decent version of each. - Hutton's intro should, of course, be deleted if copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Gutenberg has copies of both translations, and I can find scans of both translations pretty easily. Since it looks like a good copy, or parts of two good copies, it's not something that needs deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
RE: Gutenberg: I've found a clean scan of Payne's translation at IA, and have added links to those scans from my user page for transcription. It's in three volumes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if people are sure that we can get a clean split, and have true texts, then I am comfortable with that approach. We may wish for some good notes on each item's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there any sort of mass-move tool, perhaps using AWB, that I can use to accomplish this? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've put in a request at WS:Bot requests#Bulk move parts of The DecameronBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

{{bad title}} versus red link[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted and protected as proposed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
At the moment the following works are labelled with template:bad title

with the purpose of guiding contributors to not create those pages. However, they are still linked to occasionally, and getting a blue link, rather than a red link is as problematic. [We are now also having those pages show up as existing and able to be linked through to Wikidata.] As we can protect those pages I would prefer that we delete and protect those pages against recreation, rather than utilise "bad title" template. If people think that guidance to users is required then we can also create custom guidance through an abuse filter to a list of page creations, as is done for headerless pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that blue links are likely problematic. I do think guidance to users would be helpful, if possible. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, sounds reasonable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, but I am making a note here that there are works on enWS called "Introduction" so Introduction has been converted to a protected disambig page instead of deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jana Gana Mana[edit]

The following discussion is closed: redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The only part of this page that is in English is identical to the first stanza of The Morning Song of India with line breaks added. Suggested to redirect Jana Gana Mana to The Morning Song of India and use the notes field for information regarding use of the first stanza as a national anthem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Don Juan in Hell[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted and redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
While it is technically a separate edition, this page is from an unhostable collection, non-scan-backed, and identical to The collected poems of James Elroy Flecker/Don Juan in Hell. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Messiah (oratorio)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted - moved to Wikibooks and replaced with scan-backed edition —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: The affected page has been moved to Messiah (MIT Chamber Choir). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This annotated version of the 2005 MIT Concert Choir Fall Concert does not belong on Wikisource. It might be a good candidate for Wikibooks. I have identified a scan of Messiah that will make for an excellent replacement here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I will see if I can contribute to transcribing that scan if needed. MattLongCT (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The scan index is at Index:Messiah - An Oratorio - As it is Perform’d at the Theatre-Royal in Covent-Garden.djvu. Just needs images and validation at this point. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Finished validation. Though, my edits need to be patrolled because I am new. Cheers!MattLongCT (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Because this proposal is non-controversial I'll begin the proposal at Wikibooks to see if they're interested. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Done the export to Wikibooks. Now delete the page and its talk here?--Jusjih (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)