Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2018

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


Kept

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand

The following discussion is closed:

kept, within scope —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I own a copy of the Constitution of Sealand, it is not what I saw in that article. I can't find precedent for deletion of articles that are inaccurate (weird), so I think we could debate that now. If someone was to prove they had copyright permissions, and possibly sourced it, they should start a new article rather than edit this one. Thank you all! MattLongCT (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What is different about it? I haven't looked very closely, but it looks similar to the 1975 constitution on the Sealand website.—The copyright issue is an interesting one though. The Sealand website says "This documentation is free for personal use", which is insufficient for hosting on Wikisource, and I would be surprised if {{PD-EdictGov}} covered works from states not recognized by the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Beleg Tâl, that makes a bit of sense. Piecing it together, this is a copy of the constitution of the rebel government. This would be an accurate copy of the Sealand Constitution availble for 10$ (You buy them.). Generally, when people are referring to the "Principality of Sealand" it isn't this rather obscure group (who have been sort of inactive for years and are only known about if you look up Sealand's history). As the Micronation of Sealand is run by the owners of the [sealandgov.org] website, having this hosted here as a portrayal of Sealand would just lead to confusion. Thanks! MattLongCT (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Short_Titles_Act_1896 and subpages...

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn by submitter —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion proposed as the approach used to generate this is for some reason a layout generation method that is apparently incompatible with the new parser. I'd rather focus on getting stuff that actually DOES work, then trying to maintain or update something that was largely experimental when originally transcluded.

That is unless someone is prepared to fully document how to do the layout for a document like this in a manner that works consistently in both Page namespace and when transcluded in sections, which are needed due to the size of the table(s) when transcluded.

It's a shame that a technical update will sadly mean the loss of something considerable effort was put into.

The actual underlying pages are probably okay to retain, and I had already simplified down the generation template with a view to having it subst en masse.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What's actually wrong with it? It appears to work for me with normal transclusion: <pages index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu" from=34 fromsection="59_Vict_14_Sch1_PreUnion" to=232 />. The problem I see is that the table is so long that it exceeds the Mediawiki software's configured limits, which is just how it is - 200 pages of dense tabulation is simply too long to be a single page. Why not just break it up artificially into sections? You could use the sessions by monarch, perhaps combining shorter ones to give manageable chunks. Say, "Edward III—Anne", "George I–George II", etc? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is the approach currently used... However the layout generation breaks because of how the new parser handles the {{nop}} in body needed to force a table row starting markup to a newline when rendering.. One the current parser this works. On the new parser because of changes in how HTML is cleaned up, the nop may be be moved outside of the generated table ( 'fostered content' error) which means the code it generates appears in the wrong place, causing incorrect rendering of some table rows regardless of them being templated or not. However, it is my understanding that a patch is being written for Mediwiki to address this situation. 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "next" link on that page, I thought that was it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you see it with a different parser? It doesn't look broken to me: which row are you concerned about? Linter errors are annoying but they're not breakage in my book. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, you are welcome to try to get a consistent layout out of this then... and the other work noted below... However so far it seems impossible to have a version that renders both Page: s and the transclusion on a clean manner than matches up with the scans consistently. Rather than continuing to thrash back and forth with "clever-fixes" that only partially adress the issue, it's better to start again with an approach that is KNOWN to work consistently in the first place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But what is the inconsistency between Page and Main namespaces? If its just the linter error with {{nop}}, that affects every multi-page table at WS, it doesn't affect the work's presentation visually, and there's a software fix on the way. Why not wait for that fix to land and then worry about fixing any linter errors if there are any and/or bot out the nops if no longer needed? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-paragraph and family

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn by nominator —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion on the grounds that whilst entirely well intentioned, this set of templates is a mess, and as some recent editing has shown there seem to be some obscure whitespace interactions that limit the effectiveness of the template.

Having seen this family of templates described as "fantasy" templates elsewhere has convinced me this template family can't be salvaged in it's current form. It's time to delete (breaking a few works sadly) and ask someone else to write a properly specified and maintainable version of this that renders consistently, can be used across Page: boundaries, and can cope with block level elements, and is not dependent on precise whitespace handling...

Simmilar issues arise with {{Numbered div}} and it's related templates.

It's unfortunate that an issue like this has had to be forced in this way (Sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Naturally any deletion as such can be stalled until there is a viable replacement. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The template {{Cl-act-paragraph}} seems to work ok in the works it's already used in, so I'd be hesitant to remove it unless you have already created a better alternative that can be easily swapped in. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The other concern is that some of it's functionality is 'broken' at present. Compare the output from https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:ShakespeareFan00/Cl-act-paragraph/testcases&oldid=7220475 vs User:ShakespeareFan00/Cl-act-paragraph/testcases&oldid=7220832. The output should be identical, there are also some unresolved issues with how it wraps some content. That's also partly why I have said at least twice it needed to be rewritten. Quite how the two different versions differ, is currently beyond me, indicating that my versions are simply too complex to maintain.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Having now attempted at least 4 TIMES to get this template's logic as intended, I'm having to throw in the towel on this because when I even attempt to change or repair the logic, somehow a comment or a bracket or some other bit of pedantically convoluted syntax breaks, continuing it at this point is pointless. It can't be salvaged in it's current from, and my patience with it has run out. Repair, Delete or Replace, but I've had enough of dealing with *&^%ing pedantic template markup and parser functions, needed, when even this was an attempt to get simplified down from the DIV based version used previously. That it even works currently is something of a miracle.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fellows, I have(as was asked of me by the proposing for deletion user) re-written this family of templates inside my user space. Only the section number formatting handler, {{cl-act-heading/1}}, and {{cl-act-heading/2}} I have not rewritten(unless I've miss'd something).

current template
rewritten template
{{cl-act-paragraph}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/x}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/x}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/1}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/1}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/1-2}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/1-2}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/2}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/2}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/3}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/3}}
{{cl-act-paragraph/4}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-p/4}}
{{cl-act-title}}
{{User:JustinCB/cl-act-h}}

Any feedback will be appreciated. JustinCB (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn - The current version has been stabilised sufficiently, until the new templates can be swaped in. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes

The following discussion is closed:

kept; no consensus for deletion

Same problem as above namely, an experimental layout that refuses to behave nicely when trying to tag match it so it behaves consistently. Delete and let's start again with ONE approach that works consistently in ALL namespaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a work with a scan back. I'd need a lot more reason to delete than a desire to standardize a layout approach. The best place for such a discussion is Index talk:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Framed page

The following discussion is closed:

kept, in use

Used to mark that a page has a frame, which isn't necessarily relevant to text transcription or web presentation. Could easily be automatically removed from tagged Pages: and deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Keep While some editors will skip some framing elements (and other typographic ornaments), there is no consensus that these elements are irrelevant—and sometimes they are definitely relevant (Example 1, Example 2). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:4test01.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn

Delete per WS:CSD#G1 as an obvious test page.MattLongCT (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)  Keep This is used to test changes to the proofreadpage. It is deliberately there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn MattLongCT (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Statute table templates..

I.e {{Statute table}} and various related linked sub-pages thereof, as well as page content which makes use of them.

These are proposed for deletion on the basis that they have become too complicated to be reasonably maintained or expanded upon. Nor can they be cleanly substed to improve performance. Only 2 works affected, both of which I contributed extensively (see relevant thread previously), and which I have no problems in also being deleted, given that the current level of complexity in how they are coded. These templates are also not necessarily compatible with the parser migration (and the replacement parser), and for these reasons it would be easier to start afresh with a "clean" version that's properly specified (and gives a consistent rendering across multiple namespaces), rather than having a number of pages break suddenly.

Despite the valid comments made elsewhere about retaining "broken layouts", In this instance I feel that starting again with a fresh approach would be the best course of action, given that it's unreasonable to expect overly complex templates to be supported.

Alternatively, if someone is prepared to loose their sanity trying to figure out all the interactions, I would have no objections to the template being simplified so it can be subst cleanly.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn per a previous decision about in-use templates.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Saint

The following discussion is closed:

kept, source added —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A work started in 2008, and we have 2 chapters, and an introduction from 9 parts. There is no source of the text, and its formatting is well below par. Work is 1905, by Antonio Fogazzaro, translated by Thomas Roscoe Thayer. If someone wishes to find a scan and work from there, without that happening it is my opinion that it is not worth retaining as it isn't going to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

On comparison, the text is clearly copied from Gutenberg. Translator attribution is suspect, as the original publication cites Mary Prichard-Agnetti as the translator. Many scans available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Added a scan and started the transcription. I've match-and-split the existing chapters and am currently fixing the formatting. I'll leave it at that if anyone wants to take over. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Beleg Tâl: Index:The Saint (1906, G. P. Putnam's Sons).djvu has been added and has replaced the existing two chapters, I'm not doing anything further. I propose we can remove the {{delete}} tag. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Principles of Political Economy

The following discussion is closed:

kept, scan provided —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: the work in question is now located at Principles of Political Economy (Malthus). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has an inadequate amount of content to be kept.Mr. Guye 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The page was just started, and it's actively growing. So there's no reason to delete at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Scan of 2nd ed: https://archive.org/details/principlesofpoli00malt Hrishikes (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should definitely be working to a scan for such a renowned work. Little value in bringing in a text only, we may as well just link to one. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The author page has links to scans for the 2nd edition and for the 1st US edition, but not for the original UK edition. If someone does locate a scan, we can do a match-and-split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We should not do a match and split for such works. It has long been discussed and proposed that without edition data that match and split is problematic, and the community at those earlier times had a tacit agreement to abide by that point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this is about Principles_of_Political_Economy_(Malthus) ? --Dick Bos (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1st UK edition is here, but the TOC on our version does not match the pagination of that edition; it matches the pagination of the 2nd edition that Hrishikes listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Having confirmed that the text is copied from the OCR of the second edition, I've imported a scan and begun match and split. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art

The following discussion is closed:

kept: no consensus to delete, and author confirms that work meets criteria of WS:WWI —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Self-published text whose goal seems to be to promote the manifesto of a single non-notable artist. The text is pubished by Carpophage press, which according to a respected editor is Waugh's own press. Be aware that the author's pages were all deleted and salted at Wikipedia (e.g. Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist)), with instances of sockpuppeting in the discussion. Discussion of Pulchrism at wiktionary involved three sockpuppets that were blocked. 104.163.145.232 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Delete WS:WWI says "These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." It's pretty clear this is a self-published volume and is therefore out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Keep not a reason for deletion. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 10:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Keep. Non-notability, self-promotion, and banning from Wikipedia are all irrelevant to this discussion. The only question is whether it fails WS:WWI. Considering that Waugh has set up a discrete publishing entity ("Carpophage Press") and that this work has a physical print run, I am inclined to consider it sufficiently borderline that we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think self-promotion is irrelevant. It's part of what we're getting at in WS:WWI; if we were talking a self-published book of poems that a user bought the rights to from the heirs after the author died, that's a more interesting work than something the author really wants everyone to see. Just as importantly, we might not think of notability in the exact same way that Wikipedia does, but if an author is notable, then marginal stuff by them is more likely to provoke interest than better stuff by unknowns.
Also, this is more controversial, but I think banning from other Wikimedia pages should be at least a little important. At a certain point, letting a self-promoter keep pushing every Wikimedia project independently is unhelpful, especially if they try to use that as leverage to reopen fights on projects that have already rejected them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I was thinking of self-promotion differently than self-publication, and I think self-promotion is completely irrelevant. If the work is itself in scope (published, licensed, etc), then the author should be more than welcome to add the workto Wikisource, improve the transcription, add to their own author page, promote the work's featured status if it might meet featured criteria, and any other action normally done on Wikisource, even if the only reason they are doing so is to promote themselves and increase visibility to their work. These actions on the part of the author improve Wikisource considerably. However, I agree that the work itself must first pass our criteria for inclusion, which would (among other things) disallow using Wikisource as the only third-party platform for self-promotion. If you can get your freely licensed writings published, please feel free to add them to Wikisource!——With regard to the second point, there are two facets to this. If a Wikimedia user is banned at Wikipedia, then we may want to consider restrictions to the user at Wikisource. However, if a work is not within scope for an article on Wikipedia, this has no bearing on whether it is within scope for hosting on Wikisource. Similarly, if a user is banned on Wikimedia, but they are the author of a work which is within scope for hosting on Wikisource, then their ban should have no bearing on whether the work should be hosted here.——When I spoke of irrelevance, I intended to separate the suitability of the work for inclusion, from the behaviour of the author on Wikimedia after publication. Since the author's behaviour does not change the suitability of the work for inclusion, I consider it irrelevant to this discussion concerning the work's suitability for inclusion. I think that you and I are in agreement otherwise :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree. My personal opinion is that almost all freely licensed writing that's proposed for Wikisource is junk, never the quality or importance of the majority of the PD stuff we work on, and occasionally the quality of some of the PD stuff an editor with a particular niche interest might pull from the archives and upload. (The main exception I'd argue is manuals for open source material, which at least fairly frequently hit my particular niche interest, but we tend to exclude.) When marginal, I think the value to the community of stopping self-promoters on Wikimedia exceeds any value of Wikisource hosting the work.
I think self promoters promoting their work's featured status is hugely problematic; I think it runs the risk of overloading and distorting a system run by a small handful of editors. A lot of Wikiprocesses, especially on relatively small Wikis, can quickly be overloaded by a couple of self promoters, especially with meatpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Per Prosfilaes, the relevant test is "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication", so this discussion hinges on whether the book is so published.
Beleg Tâl's remark that the work has had a physical print run is not relevant to the question of self-publication: for example, print-on-demand is very definitely a thing, and according to the Wikipedia article, in POD "Other services may also be available, including formatting, proofreading, and editing", but "POD publishing gives authors editorial independence", i.e. there is not editorial control. This is an academic question, since Waugh is printing as "Carpophage Press", but it shows that physical publication is not relevant.
Therefore, the question is whether "Carpophage Press" provides "peer review" or exerts "editorial control". Beleg Tâl says that it is discrete from Waugh, but if it is just a label run by and for Waugh, it's just self-publishing with a fancy name. Note that Waugh's LinkedIn profile lists all his publications under Carpophage Press. Moreover OpenLibrary and WorldCat only have one result for Carpophage Press, a book by Waugh. "Pulchrism" doesn't show up in the LoC. I find it extremely unlikely that Carpophage is anything other than a vanity press run by and for Waugh, providing no peer review or editorial oversight over him. The self-promotion and socking that has gone on only strengthens (although is not the main reason for) this conclusion. Therefore we should  Delete this work. BethNaught (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Delete for the reasons stated above by Prosfilaes and BethNaught. We don't host self-published works, and using your own "press" to self-publish works is not of itself enough to merit inclusion. Comment: Also, I see no evidence this work is free of copyright. Page 2 states: "All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review." --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding copyright, the work was released as CC-BY via OTRS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's any real reason to question the copyright on this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not expressly self-published; it is being assumed so. However, Wikisource does contain plenty of expressly self-published works, practically innumerable to count. Here are some examples found by a random search:
  1. Unity of Good
  2. When the Leaves Come Out
  3. Oliver Spence
  4. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1889)
  5. No Treason (all 3 vols)
  6. The Brass Check
  7. Index:Rosemary and Pansies.djvu
  8. Index:Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx.djvu
  9. Index:Craven-Grey - Hindustani manual.djvu
  10. Index:Songs of Russia.djvu
  11. Index:Gould - Mammals of Australia - Vol III.djvu
  12. Index:History of the Armenians in India (1937).djvu
  13. Index:Mammals of Australia (Gould), introduction.djvu
Therefore, self-publication itself is not a bar. The objection should invoke other pertinent points. Hrishikes (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You need to take a closer look at how WWI is structured. The examples you've given were all published before 1923, and the self-publication clause of WWI is applied to "artistic works" published after 1922. It is not applied to analytic or scientific works, nor to works published before 1923. And for some of those scientific works you've given, the author is notable by WP standards, which is an noted exception expressly laid out in WWI. So, the reasoning behind this particular argument is flawed in more than one respect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Your own reasoning does not cover this work. This is not an "artistic work"; this is an "analytical work" on the history of art. Hrishikes (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This work is not "analytic" according to the definition laid out in WWI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this an artistic or analytical work, the "peer review or editorial control" test does apply. Note that WWI says "Analytical works are publications that... These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." (emph mine). BethNaught (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding whether or not is is a creative work, note that the text contains a dozen paintings by the author. Regarding the rest, if "self-publication is not a bar" then I have some great grocery lists that I have been saving for posterity. I am at a loss to understand the keep votes, as this is a clear case of someone making up a theory, writing about it, inventing an imaginary vanity press and uploading it to wikisource. (Router reset, I'm 104.163.145.232, the the nominating IP.) 198.58.173.226 03:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This was my Masters thesis at the University of Brighton, so it was peer-reviewed by multiple professors and professors' assistants. Jessewaugh (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you graduate? Theses are published in the library catalog. 198.58.173.226 12:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant personal question, suggest not to be answered. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the personal question is irrelevant. However, if the work is a university thesis, it may have been published by the university press, and would therefore not be self-published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Many of those aren't self-published works; there are many, many editions of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures around with many editors. Likewise No Treason has been reprinted in edited editions. I don't think that rule was intended to be held against original editions of works that have seen reprint in edited form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Keep The self-publication component has to be applied with consideration, its purpose is not to stop peer-reviewed works. The work and the above evidence indicate that there is sufficient evidence that this is a serious work with valid authorship, and not some whimsy. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    If we can verify that this work (or something nearly the same) was indeed submitted and accepted as a thesis at the University of Brighton, then I would agree. Theses and Dissertations accepted at accredited institutions certainly fall within our scope. But we lack verification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The work is showcased and downloadable in the academia subdomain of the University of Brighton: http://brighton.academia.edu/JesseWaugh Hrishikes (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
But that's not part of the University of Brighton website. Anything at X.academia.edu is an independent website for an academic vanity press. See their site description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Go to the UoB Library online advanced search and try finding this thing. The search (AuthorCombined:(Waugh)) AND (TitleCombined:(Pulchrism)) turns up no results. (Pulchrism) returns 10 results, none of which are this work. Note that the search form has an option to exclude dissertations and theses, which I did not select. BethNaught (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose that idea strongly; when I proposed the (eventually and uncontroversially deleted) work by Author:Zaman Ali for deletion, it was not because it was not "a serious work with valid authorship". Even off-wiki, whatever reservations I have about the work, I fully believe Zaman Ali wrote Humanity: Understanding Reality and Inquiring Good with serious intent and result. And on-wiki, I see it absolutely harmful to try and weigh Humanity versus Pulchrism and say that one has enough value as a work to be kept and the other doesn't. WWI is clear enough and its authors wise enough that such things are steered clear of, for more neutral criteria.
    Is it a published thesis? If it is, it clears WWI. If it's not, it continues to fall into the exclusion of self-published works for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    It is a published work: 1; and the author's name is present in the list of notable alumni of the University of Brighton: 2. Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    The fact that a person has been to college / university is not a reason to include their work, and the book is still self-published. You have not successfully responded with any pertinent new information to any of the criticisms raised, but have repeated the same claims and assertions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete.(Struck:— Jessewaugh states outright that the work has passed peer review, and I'm not prepared to maintain the position that s/he lies. Hesperian 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)) We know/accept that this work was authored by Waugh as a masters thesis. It follows that it was prepared with the intent of submitting it for independent peer review, but we don't know if it was ever actually submitted for independent peer review, nor whether it passed independent peer review. The paucity of the usual evidence that it did, suggests to me that it did not. Subsequent publication by Carpophage press clearly does not constitute independent editorial or peer review. I conclude that it is self-published, and doesn't meet the bar to be included here. Hesperian 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
It would have been impossible for me to have graduated without my Masters thesis passing the peer review of my professors and their assistants - it is the primary requirement for obtaining a degree. This is my thesis and my being listed on the University of Brighton Notable Alumni page demonstrates that I graduated, so it follows that it has to have been peer reviewed. Jessewaugh (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: that is a different answer to a different question. It would be helpful if you answered the question directly. Is this paper, that is published elsewhere and reproduced here, the paper that was submitted as your master's thesis and has subsequently passed peer-review? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yes. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
CommentNominating IP here again. What we have above is a group of wiki editors trying vet a text on their own. Obviously external peer review (i.e. publishers) are supposed to do that job. The job of peer review is not supposed to be carried out here, as it is being done above with direct questions to the author about whether they had submitted it and had it reveiwed by professors. That is the publisher's job. It is also important to note that the 'author' being queried has consistently promoted and sockpuppeted, and has gone to the trouble to translate his vain autobiographical wiki article to German, Japanese, French, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, Arabic(?), (not sure what this one is), Russian and Chinese, and who trumpets on his homepage that his pulchrism text "has been archived at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Tate Britain, Brooklyn Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art, San Diego Museum of Art, Agnes Gund Collection, and others." (when in reality all he did was send them a free copy)? Don;t be taken in by the innocent act... read his comments here instead. The emperor has no clothes, as they say.104.163.159.237 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Your comment provides no useful or pertinent information. Wikipedia is a different project with different criteria for inclusion. What is at issue here is the eligibility of the text for hosting on Wikisource, not the credentials of the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you are allowing the author to argue for inclusion of his own work, I think that warning that the author has engaged in ceaseless and unethical promotional activity within wikimedia is relevant.104.163.159.237 01:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry that you cannot see the distinction between a work and its creator. I say again, this discussion is about the former only, and not the latter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record and in my own self-defense, 104.163.159.237 is a sock puppet of Michael Mandiberg AKA Theredproject, whose actions have proven that he has a personal vendetta against me, and who has been seeking to purge my presence from all Wikimedia. He repeatedly accuses me of sockpuppeting, while engaging in massive sockpuppeting himself - the pot calling the kettle black as a diversionary tactic. He’s also engaged in widespread slanderous character assassination against me and my art. I’m not sure why he has it in for me so virulently, and I am not familiar enough with the machinations of Wikimedia in order to be able to know how to request administrative review of his actions. My request would be that he and his sockpuppets and his gender-biased crony editors be prevented from purging subject matter related to me from Wikimedia, as they are obviously biased and politically motivated. Jessewaugh (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessewaugh: Don't play with the trolls. We are assessing one work, and that is the basis of what we are doing. It either is, or it isn't in scope is our discussion. We are not assessing the authors, if we did that then many of our works wouldn't be here, as the authors were shockers, so to me that argument is solely noise. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Generally each project is independent, and given the fact that your page has been salted on Wikipedia and people are discouraged from getting involved in their own pages on Wikipedia, I suspect that you'd be running a strong chance of a w:Wikipedia:BOOMERANG.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Let it be known that the IP heatedly denies such claims, and they seem completely irrelevant to the question of the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Healing of the Nations

The following discussion is closed:

kept, moved to (incomplete) scan

Another unceremonious OCR dump that is sitting there ugly after 5 years, and just creates work in the main namespace. Abandoned ugly OCR dumps are not we are about and should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a good scan at IA: (external scan) if someone would care to begin setting up a transcription project. But I agree that there is no reason to keep the botched OCR we currently have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, see Index:The Healing of the Nations (2nd ed. 1855).djvu. Tarmstro99 18:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets

The following discussion is closed:

Kept with scans.–Tarmstro99 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Another worthy work to have, though not in this old copy and paste form. Two biographies only out of multiple volumes. It should be deleted, and if someone wants to work on scans, if available, in the background, at that point it can be resurrected. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several more complete scans available at IA, (via this OpenLibrary work) or on HathiTrust. The 1794 edition has all four volumes available on HathiTrust, while the 1781 and 1783 editions both lack scans of the first volume. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I am working on converting the 1794 edition from HathiTrust to DjVu and will upload to Commons when complete. Please hold off deleting for now. Tarmstro99 20:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 Keep and migrate to DjVu (Transcription project: Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3, Vol. 4). Tarmstro99 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, source provided.—Tarmstro99 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No evidence of publication. No source. A Google search for portions of the text turned up only this page itself. Tarmstro99 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As a historical document it is clearly in scope, though it is unfortunate that a direct copy of the original document is not available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that historical documents may satisfy the criteria for inclusion stated in WS:WWI, although not every historical document does. WS:WWI’s guidance for including a pre-1923 work (such as The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge) rests upon verifiability: such a work “may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources.” That is, it seems to me, precisely what is missing here: a verifiable source indicating that the posted content is in fact a historical document within the scope of our library. What am I overlooking? Tarmstro99 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the lodge is in possession of a copy of the text. This would qualify as a printed paper source within our policy. In my opinion, we ought to try to obtain a copy of the source, and further that we should not delete the text in question until and unless we can ascertain that it is not possible for any editor to verify the text against that source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure what weight the Wikipedia reference adds to our discussion here (since it is our inclusion policy, not theirs, that governs). I note that even Wikipedia requires that “[a]ll content must be verifiable” and that “[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,” which is consistent with our own past practice, and I’m afraid I do not understand the proposal to reverse that burden. We are indisputably not in possession of “uploaded scans and printed paper sources” from which anyone can “verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction.” A document not presently within WS:WWI should be deleted, subject to being recreated if a verifiable source later appears. I believe our past practice has been quite consistent on this point and that a much fuller discussion would be necessary to change that policy for this or any other work. Tarmstro99 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia reference adds only the claim that a printed paper source of this text exists, nothing more. (I did not, and do not, intend to assert based on Wikipedia policy and practices.) We do host works which have print sources but no digital source, and the text in question appears to be another of this sort. Anyone can verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction by comparing it to the offline print copy held by Phoenix Lodge. We don't need to be "in possession" of the source, because we can't be in possession of a print source anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Further to this, I just sent a message to the United Grand Lodge of England requesting a copy of said source text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tarmstro99: File:The Confirmation Warrant of Phoenix Lodge.pdf —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:D

The following discussion is closed:

kept, autotranslate issue resolved —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

An experimental template that is broken and hasn't been altered since 2010. It has no use. One of a number of archaic templates that still use the now-deleted Template:Autotranslate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

I fixed the autotranslate issue. The template is still usable, though whether the editors of DNB still use it I do not know. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Biographia Hibernica

The following discussion is closed:

Keep.

Another long-abandoned work in the copy and paste style. Not many biographies there, though some detail with them. It may be worth trying to get scans if the work is not overly extensive, otherwise it falls into let us tidy it up, and someone can do scans whenever. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Comment We do have scans of this work in progress (see Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu), but little progress has been made since they were posted in 2010 due to problems with the scans (missing and/or duplicated pages in both volumes). I will see whether I can find better scans elsewhere. Tarmstro99 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 Keep and migrate to (corrected) DjVu (Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu). Tarmstro99 16:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

This is an early version of a state law that was later passed in another form. This version was apparently used during markup of the bill as it proceeded through the Oregon legislature; it includes markings noting where new text has been added to, and existing text deleted from, the prior revision of the bill. The final version of the legislation was passed and signed by the Governor with changes not shown in Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), and the final version of the law (Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 838) is available here. The text of legislation often changes, sometimes dramatically, between its original introduction and its eventual passage into law, but I see no real value in our preserving an unenacted interim revision of a bill that was superseded by later language. Tarmstro99 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If the version we have exists in published form I would still keep it as technically in scope, while working to ensure the final edition is available and properly disambiguated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging this and for the details about its history. I tend to agree with Beleg Tal and will try to dig into it and help get it to a better state. -Pete (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 Comment this text is now backed by a published source document. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm iffy on the copyright. Does {{PD-EdictGov}} cover drafts? My reading of the license is that actual legislation that passed would be covered because it is an edict of government. A draft is not an edict, is it? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At the federal level, even draft legislation would surely be public domain under Section 105 (as a work created by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment). As far as other governments are concerned, I’m not aware of any state governments who have drawn a line between draft and final legislation. Those states who have been most active in asserting copyright over their laws have argued (wrongly, I think) that even the final, enacted laws are covered by copyright. (Oregon has been especially active in this regard, so there is a non-zero risk that they would take exception to Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), but the courts have been pretty sympathetic towards groups like Carl Malamud’s who have been attempting to provide broader free access to legal materials.) The recent controversies around copyrighting legislation have involved the assertion of copyright by private entities (not governmental bodies) who drafted model codes that were later adopted by a government; the question has been whether the government’s adoption of the private entity’s work as the law negates the private drafter’s copyright. On that question, the courts have gone both ways; but nothing in their analyses would suggest that governments themselves may assert copyright in their own draft legislation. Tarmstro99 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 Comment To the foregoing I should add that, unless other editors still have concerns about the copyright, the migration of the original text to the published source document suffices to resolve my stated concerns. Although I think the discussion should be left open for a few more days to permit any further comments, following that time I’m inclined to close this out with a result of  Keep. Tarmstro99 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 19:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted

Chapters of The Man Who Knew Too Much

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The following chapters can be deleted:

-- Dick Bos (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu

Hi there,

I uploaded this on Commons a few months ago. It was tagged as incomplete. I found a newer version that I uploaded on Commons and I'm working on the match and split phase here : Index:An Ainu-English-Japanese dictionary (including a grammar of the Ainu language).djvu. So Index:An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary.djvu is now redundant. Assassas77 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cocktails.JPG

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This photo has been hosted on Wikisource since 2006, and is used only on the uploader's userpage. The uploader has only ever made two edits on all Wikimedia projects - one to upload the photo and one to create the userpage. Even Commons accepts a small number of personal images for use by users who contribute in some way - is there any reason to keep this photo? It could have been moved to Commons but there is no license. Note: the file was unsuccessfully tagged for speedy deletion a few years ago. Green Giant (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything mitigates against keeping it for me. Not from someone who has edited outside their userspace, and it doesn't have a license, so let's delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Musical score

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template designed to generate variable category names for musical scores. It generated categorization "by alphabet", which we do in all categories anyway; and also categorizes by author, which we do not do on Wikisource.

It is far easier to simply add the categories directly without the burden of the template than it would be to maintain a template like this with every possible variant category set to an ifeq check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be used in File namespace with scores stored as images? Or is it meant to be used with LilyPond/ABC digitised ones? Some template might be useful for both of the cases, but the current implementation does not look too useful indeed. --Base (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No, the template is intended for use in the Main namespace to automatically generate structured category names, which makes it very limiting. The person who created the template comes from working on Wikipedia, and does not understand about backing scans on Commons or multiple namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I created this template for LilyPond/ABC digitised scores. Preambulist (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 Neutral. I see benefit to having an auto-categorization of music-by-year, music-by-country, and music-by-instrument. Is there any further reason to delete this template if the author-categories are removed and the template does not display any output in mainspace?—Or perhaps could some of these features be added to the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh? It's only function right now is to generate category links according to a limited set and restricted category name structure. If the template displays no output, then it serves no function at all, and why would we keep it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 Delete It's not something I would use with LilyPond scores (and I do the vast majority of them here), because in most cases the score is contained within a work that we are hosting. The articles in DMM that contain a score are already categorised, as are the hymns in The Army and Navy Hymnal. "By year" is already available from the header template in the mainspace. "By country" is covered by the work containing the score. "By instrument" would be useful if we were intending to be a major score repository but, with only a few people doing any score work at all, this is somewhat moot. We are not going to be competing with IMSLP as a repository—who do the categorisation stuff well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Delete as redundant. We would normally have author pages for composer and for lyricist, and for that we do not categorise by name, the year would be recorded in the header template per all works. Then we can just use the category parameter for header for the remainder. It sounds as the template is not suitably acquainted with existing templates and configuration. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per previous discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been tagged for deletion though not brought here for discussion. Closing the loop, not fully knowing the work. Presumably the underlying file and other pages are impacted.

First guess is that it is a chapter of a work, so incomplete. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I forget why I didn't delete it when we discussed it last time, but I've deleted it now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-KP-exempt}}

The following discussion is closed:

deleted 2x license tags and 1x work tagged accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-commercial restriction makes it incompatible with Wikisource's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Prosody (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be applicable to us anyway; it's not the type of thing that would be relevant in a case in a US court. Definitely delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The work to which it is attached also needs a check. Not sufficient information at the moment for any sort of judgement. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the noncommercial clause was added to DPRK law in 2006, after the 1996 URAA cutoff, so Aegukka (1945) should still be hostable as {{PD-1996}}. It appears to still be under copyright in source country. See relevant discussions: w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status of Aegukka, w:Talk:Aegukka#Copyright status updated, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Anthem of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Converted MIDI).ogg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how the noncommercial clause is relevant. It doesn't affect whether or not the work is copyrighted, so it would have no effect in US law.
Also, the URAA date for North Korea would be in 2003, because that's when North Korea first signed the Berne Convention, the first copyright treaty they had with the US. 1996 is only for countries that had signed the Berne Convention or the WTO at that point. Afghanistan, for example, has a URAA date in 2016.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I think I see what you're getting at. If the work was PD in the PDRK in 2003 (URAA date) then it's PD in the US currently. If the work was copyrighted but permission given to use and distribute the work for any purpose, then in 2006 that permission was restricted to noncommercial use only—then the work is copyrighted in the USA, and if we are bound to follow what is essentially a relicensing in 2006, then the work needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 Delete along with Aegukka. The works in question are not public domain, but rather copyrighted and freely usable, which means the URAA would not have applied and the non-commercial clause is still in effect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment doesn't {{PD-KP}} also have this problem? It also provides an exemption only for non-commercial uses. BethNaught (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the United States/Carl Schurz

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted by Beleg Tâl. BethNaught (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And its subcategories. More categorization by author, which is superfluous to listings at Author:Carl Schurz. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 KeepQuestion Question. For the reasons on my talk page. There are a LOT of articles related to Carl Schurz and the category becomes hard to navigate without. If this subcategory is deleted, I recommend an improved sorting of the parent category to improve readability. Would this be possible? Are there alternatives that should be looked at?MattLongCT (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. . . why? Why should this topic be subcategorized by author? Why should two different methods of categorizing be mixed? What reason for changing the established practise do you offer?
As for sorting: Some of them are about race relations; some are about the "Indian Problem", and those would be separate categories in which to place the items, according to the specific topics addressed. Quite a few of these items are not about US politics, and don't belong in that category. The Letters and Addresses would appear in those categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think perhaps this should be clarified(what is and isn't included), possibly renamed, and made a subcatergory of the authour page. JustinCB (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete @JustinCB, @MattLongCT: Firstly we don't make "category subpages", categories should just be categories—they stack within a hierarchy. So the process used is problematic.

Secondly re listing on author pages. After trials in the early days the community determined that it is our preference to not categorise works by an author, instead we manually curate works as the detail was needed. It also led to a lot of ugly categories. There is a range of scope available to deal with listings through author subpages.

We do also have mw:Extension:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) installed were you to want to undertake intersects of categories. If you are looking for a working example, please see something like Portal:1903. We do under utilise the tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't really mean "subcategory", but subpage, that is, the content of the page should be clarified what is and isn't part of it, & those pages that aren't should be moved somewhere else on the author page or a subpage thereof, and the others moved to another subpage of the author's page. So Author:Carl Schurz/Political Writings or something like that & Author:Carl Schurz/Race Relations or Author:Carl Schurz/Writings Related to but not Politics or something like that if there are too many for to be listed legibly on his Author page alone. JustinCB (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@JustinCB: We give flexibility in that regard to intelligent decision making where the production suits a page output. There are a variety of appraoches. have a look at some of the American president pages/subpages. Or have a look at what Londonjackbooks has done with Author:Florence Earle Coates and special:PrefixIndex/Author:Florence Earle Coates — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Index talk:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf & Index:Darbar-e-Akbari WDL9691.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted, as author's request

Not English, Author Requested, etc. MattLongCT (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Recollections of Homo sapiens 호모사피엔스의 기억

The following discussion is closed:

out of scope, deleted

This is a poem by a Korean church minister, that has been translated to English, with both original and translation licence saying {{PD-release}} though there is no source, nor evidence of release. There is not even the indication that the work is published. To be retained we will need the evidence that it is published, and OTRS for both the Korean language and English language versions.


Korean Wikisource only has works the author signed, not wrote; see [1]. If this is a wiki translation, we should be working from a page on ko.ws, as I believe was generally agreed upon. If the English translation was a published work, one appropriate OTRS should do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also this poem: The six tailbone of the Cenozoic era 신생대의 여섯 번째 꼬리뼈 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 Delete as unattributed translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:History of Willamette Railroad.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deletion, redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This index was created to support Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/History of the narrow gauge railroad in the Willamette Valley. At the time, I did not realize there was a full scan of the journal's entire volume available: Index:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 20.pdf

I have moved all the pages to the full volume, and this index is now redundant. I think it's pretty straightforward decision to delete the index and the pages/redirects here. Whether or not I should propose the supporting file for deletion at Commons, I'm less sure...I'd appreciate guidance on that. -Pete (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support deleting the file at Commons too, unless you can see a purpose for retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:John Brown (abolitionist)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Wikisource does not support Author-based categories. However, I am opening a discussion in case someone is willing to set up a Portal prior to deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

They can all be listed on the author page, no need for a portal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of the articles are not written by Brown nor actually about him per se, but about the Harper's Ferry Event. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Portal for Harper's Ferry event? (whatever it is?) Or a category for that, if it makes sense to have a loose cat. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomino's Hell

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted --BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Uncertain sourcing; no evidence that the English version is published
  • No translator, and the copyright declaration is dubious
  • if it is a current "free" translation, then the work belongs in the Translation: ns
  • the Japanese/English is out of scope.

We need to manage these works of uncertain origin that are popping up, and from IP addresses where you cannot follow-up. Having to chase down the uploader is time-consuming and having to bring each here, one by one, and repeat the explanation is similarly problematic. We may wish to draft some guidance for foreign language works like these, and allow them to be speedy-deleted, though mindfully pointed to our explanatory text, and not preventing reintroduction when demonstrably within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Delete: it's a common copypasta, so the translator is probably impossible to identify, and the work is extremely unlikely to have been explicitly released under a free licence or dedicated to the public domain. "No original authorship" doesn't make sense in this context. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 Delete I can't confirm the publication year; there's a w:Inuhiko Yomota ("Yomota Inuhiko" Japanese-style, as per our author) who was born in 1953. I'm not even sure the underlying work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Japanese poem appears to be from the collection Sakin (1919) by Saijo Yaso, so it's PD in the USA though not in Japan until 2020 (1970+50). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Our version, and the story floating around the net, attaches the author name Yomota Inuhiko to it and an earlier publication than Sakin. Given the way it's copy and pasted, and any details added to juice the story instead for factual support, I just don't feel comfortable with even that. Otherwise, we should move the Japanese to Wikisource.org.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Days of War, Nights of Love

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, self-published so out of scope

An incomplete work that has been for 10 years. The source link is dead (talk page), if it even ever contained the work, and there is no free copy available on the website. There has to be a point where we pull the pin on an abandoned work. If it is ever text supported, or there is evidence that the text is available for reproduction, then we can undelete and reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Noting that files with the names are contained

if we believe that these works are public domain they then need information template added, and moved to Commons; otherwise deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scan available here. That being said, it appears to be self-published and is probably out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Reed Anthony, Cowman

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

The category Category:Reed Anthony, Cowman contains only the chapters of that novel. Could someone with a bot de-categorize all the chapters so that this book-category can be deleted. Note that the items are chapters of a novel, not short stories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

removing cats, and fixed all the headers of the work to current standard — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The Struggle This Time Is For Independence

The following discussion is closed:

deleted: per nomination. BethNaught (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation lacks license. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Already had to delete this once. Mahir256 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Brahma purana

The following discussion is closed:

deleted --BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This has lain around for 10 years without a source, or even a header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources are listed at Talk:Puranas —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Which one is this? If it is one of those, please say so. If it is none of these, then links do not help. Right now we have an unsourced copy and no means to assess its completeness, accuracy, or license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The source is copied from the reference given at the bottom.[2] The archives book quoted in the Talk:Puranas appears to be different in content.[3]--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Prophecy of Joyo Boyo

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, no evidence that translation is freely licensed

no source, no evidence of published work, nor that even in the public domain for translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it's a user translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Page37-Darwin's Journal Pelagic Confervae.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

deleted: speedy deletion as transwikied item —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I replaced this image with a better quality one on commons: File:Journal of Researches (1860) Page 015.jpg. — Mudbringer (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:G.Hist.P.Myers,Contents.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This file appears to have been made obsolete with an upload to Commons. Index:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu Pete (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More unsourced fragments from Islamic texts

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deletion as explicit copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar to last year’s Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2017#Legislation Verses Of Quran, the four works above appear to consist of fragmentary contemporary translations of Islamic texts with no source provided. Our Portal:Islam#Canon does include some collections of Islamic hadith, but the pages listed above do not appear to fall into the existing collections. Moreover, the listed pages appear (to me at least) to be translated in fairly modern English, indicating that they may be more recent than the 1923 edition posted at Portal:Islam. Without a linked source for the publication, it would be impossible to verify the copyright status of a post-1923 English translation. Perhaps a user with more expertise in Portal:Islam can locate a valid (and more complete) published source for these quotations? Until then, I suggest that these pages be deleted. Tarmstro99 16:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Delete - The only copies I can find are Google neo-books that seem to be derived from our copies. Either that or some internet source was copied many times over; but I can find no "original" text if that is the case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

These are chapters from The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari by w:Muhammad Muhsin Khan and are copyrighted translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Secrets of the Vatican

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A dump of poor OCR text from a scan, and that has sat there looking ugly from 2007. It is time that the community ridded ourself of a work that is simply ugly and not up to our standards. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Every now and then I look at this work thinking to get it off the list of very long pages, then I quail at the amount of work required to even just split it into subpages. Dumping it outright and later on getting a scan sounds good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 Delete A scan is avaliable on IA, so importing mangled OCR adds no value to the work; it also degrades the quality of Wikisource. BethNaught (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 Delete— Mpaa (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Macrophilia

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a narrow category that was originally used to tag Alice in Wonderland and Tom Thumb. If there are any works who can be strictly defined as being about macrophilia, I have no objection to this being used to tag them, but I'd be surprised if there are any free works in scope strictly about the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Concur; Deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Woman in the Moon (John Lyly), Gallathea (John Lyly), Casina (Titus Maccius Plautus), Nero: A Historical Tragedy, In Five Acts

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy and paste jobs of the first few pages of works from unknown editions. The contributor hasn't responded to questions about their intentions, seems safe to assume that they're abandoned. Prosody (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment The same editor (I assume it's the same) has a habit of dropping by, dumping an unformatted play, then vanishing for a long time. Then returning under a different IP, dumping another play, then vanishing. I too have tried to communicate with this editor, but that changes in IP don't make it easy, and I've gotten no responses. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 Delete --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 Delete Fragments not worth hosting without likelihood of completion. BethNaught (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary and subsidiary pages

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, can be recovered if where scans available

A work that has a smattering of ten biographies, long-held. The subparts all hand-typed, and this work has been long abandoned, and it is only a small start of a larger work. The subparts are not as classical subpages, instead take the DNB style. The work is not worth trying to resurrect in this form, and I recommend that it be deleted, and if required that it be resurrected as scan supported, and in our existing style of root page, and subpages. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete These long abandoned beginnings of a project just do a disservice to readers, and they're no foundation for continuing the work. Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Col1701
Kentigern (Col1701)
Munsterberg (Col1701)
Munts, John (Col1701)
Collier 1701
Template:Collier 1701
Munasichites (Col1701)
Muncer, Thomas (Col1701)
Munick (Col1701)
Munoz, Hierom (Col1701)
Munda (Col1701)
Munster (Col1701)
Munster, Sebastian (Col1701)
The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Virtual Worlds: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methods + others; fraudulent publications

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; and the associated data item on WD nominated; but the scans and associated images on Commons remain to be deleted too. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It would appear that someone that someone is playing an elaborate hoax, or running a scam, the following works are not actually published by a reputable source, and it would appear that the reputed institute is a figment of someone's imagination for possibly fraudulent means. The pages are not within scope where they are not published in a peer-reviewed means.

Pages:

Deletion of subsequent files at Commons would be recommended.

enWP has dealt with a similar issue, see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DolceVita Institute of Technology. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Another work that is long abandoned. Two subpages only, copy and paste only. While it is a worthwhile work that would be great to have, we would want scan-backed so that it can be continued by multiple people. Like this it will sit moribund. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Tension between Metaphysics and Science

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been unable to locate this work elsewhere; possibly self-published by the original poster? Tarmstro99 21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Google and WorldCat turn up nothing for this, and moreover the named author matches the uploader's username, so it is likely an original work. Alternatively, if it were not so, we would have no source or license information, which are again reasons for deletion. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Constitutive Protocol of the Parliament of the Mercosur

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This page (and the accompanying Talk:Constitutive Protocol of the Parliament of the Mercosur) identify the work as a machine translation of es:Protocolo Constitutivo del Parlamento del Mercosur (2005). I doubt that automated BabelFish translations meet the guidelines of WS:TRANS, which refer to published translations “created and released by an external translator and publisher,” or original translations created in the first instance by Wikisource editors with competence in both languages. Tarmstro99 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that this would constitute a user translation. I think it is largely immaterial how the user makes their translation; some use their own knowledge, others use dictionaries and grammar books, and some use translation algorithms. The fact that User:Tfleming created the translation (albeit using an algorithm) means that it fits WS:TRANS. See also meta:Wikilegal/Copyright for Google Translations. — It is therefore my opinion that we should keep this text in the Translation space, unless the translation is of such poor quality that it warrants deletion on its own merits (for example, if improving it to the point of being tolerable would require starting from scratch). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty bad. Just look at that first sentence. The state of the art of machine translation has grown significantly in the past few years; honestly you'd be better off reading the Google translation of the esWS page.  Delete Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 Delete (a) The work does not meet the requirements of WS:TRANS for Wikisource original translations; in particular, there is no scan-backed original on es.WS. (b) The machine translation into "English" is almost unintelligible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, point (a) does not warrant deletion because of WS:TRANS#Grandfather rule, but point (b) is salient and the work is probably worth deleting for this reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The Grandfather "rule" is not automatic; it merely says we should make reasonable effort to salvage older works. That is why I commented with an (a) and a (b). It is because of point (b) in combination with point (a) that the Grandfather rule does not apply in this situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sedley

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguating sections within a work that start with "Sedley" is not a good use for a disambig page. —Beleg Tâl (talk)

 Comment We can't delete this page until the link from Sidley (DNB00) is corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, what is the value in deleting the page? There are numbers of these through the place, usually based on DNB00, though also including EB1911 and other components. As it issn't a new or perpetuating practice, I hadn't fussed it. We probably do need a means to identify biographies by like family names, and maybe there is a scope for categorisation, based on family name. If to be done, it is a significant job. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't intend to clean up the whole job, I just saw this one and saw no reason for it to exist. I'd have deleted it already if it fell under a speedy category. We don't host pages of the form list-of-bios-of-people-with-this-surname, nor do we intend to; if we want this information, we can use Special:Search/intitle:Sedley. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete I agree with Beleg Tâl on this one -- I don't see a reason for this page to exist. It's just clutter. I'd probably be in favor of removing the majority of the "disambiguation" type pages that sprang up out of DNB00 (et al) but that's a bigger unit of work. ==Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Methods of Religious Jurisprudence

The following discussion is closed:

speedy delete as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A contemporary English translation of a fragment attributed to 11th-century scholar Author:Abu Hamid al-Ghazālī. No translator is identified, and with no publication reference it is impossible to assess either the accuracy or the copyright status of the text posted here. Presumably it would be possible to locate public-domain translations of an author who died over 900 years ago, but I see no reason to retain this small unsourced fragment. Tarmstro99 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not even a translation, it's an original book by Abu Tariq Iyad Hilal with no license or release into public domain. I've speedied it as copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Los Angeles City meeting memorandum

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A long-abandoned cut-and-paste apparently taken from minutes of a municipal committee meeting. The original document no longer appears at the provided source URL and it apparently was not preserved on archive.org, either. Tarmstro99 14:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, also likely copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 Delete. I poke about the City of LA website and though I manage to find a bunch of other minutes for other committees meeting on the same day, I simply could not find these minutes. That being said, it doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Tarmstro99 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

John Brown (W. E. B. Du Bois).pdf and related

The following discussion is closed:

deleted except for PDF file which is in scope —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded and began this project while I thought it was the only version. I have since found and began a djvu version. All work from the PDF version of the project has been moved over to the DjVu one, so the pdf file, its index page, and all related Page: files should be removed. Mathmitch7 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, but there's no reason to delete the PDF. I've tagged it for move to Commons (I'd do it myself but Commonshelper is currently broken). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Author:Keith Olbermann

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 16:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note sure that this fits within our criteria for author pages for public domain works or works freely licensed and labelled with "copyright author". Seems that without works there is not a lot of value hosting an author page with just redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is nothing listed that we can legitimately host here, either now on the the immediate future, then there is no reason to have an Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We've sometimes kept author pages for highly famous individuals to warn off potential copyvios (eg. Author:J. K. Rowling), but I don't believe Mr Olbermann meets the notability criteria in that regard.  Delete. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 Delete per WS:CSD G6 (“author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted”). Tarmstro99 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 16:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:GHGbible-ref-heb

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

I started writing this template long ago, and never used it. I actually implemented what I had meant to do with it in Module:GHG, so Template:GHGbible-ref-heb is no longer needed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedied, per WS:CSD G7.Tarmstro99 18:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 16:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Judicial Yuan Interpretations in 2000

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted it and Category:Judicial Yuan Interpretations. See b:Annotated Republic of China Case Law as the new home.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty category. Ankry (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And containing category. I assume there were works in this cat that have been since deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 16:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Hebrew fonts

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This template is created by myself, and it was used in Template:Hebrew and similar templates, later they were migarated to TemplateStyles, so this is no longer used, and I hope to delete it. --Great Brightstar (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Naskh fonts

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This template is created by myself, and it was used only in Template:Arabic, which was migarated to TemplateStyles later, so this is no longer used, and I hope to delete it. --Great Brightstar (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Nastaliq fonts

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This template is created by myself, and it was used only in Template:Arabic, which was migarated to TemplateStyles later, so this is no longer used, and I hope to delete it. --Great Brightstar (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Collection Efficiency of Filters versus Impactors for airborn fungi

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be a contemporary work (it cites a report from 1998), so unlikely to be in the public domain unless it was prepared by a government author. No authorship or publication info provided. Long abandoned by the original poster. Tarmstro99 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The source file for the text contains no text; it is an image only. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • If you look at the earlier version of the image all will be made clear. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing up the mystery. However, I still move to delete, since the added annotation is not part of the original photograph. It would be more appropriate to give the annotation in the file information at Commons, or in an image caption for the image's data item. For me, this falls outside the scope of what Wikisource does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Note also, I've reverted the edits made to the original image. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Delete USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization on grounds of scope. I’d also lean towards deleting the other image-only pages linked by User:Azertus, but they should probably have their own discussion first; because if we delete 10 pages on grounds that mere captions for an image do not qualify as source texts (unless, of course, included as part of a larger document in which the image appears), that may qualify as a developing precedent-based exclusion suitable for mentioning at WS:WWI. A fuller discussion should occur before adopting what is functionally a “there must be more text than just a caption” policy, which is why my deletion vote for now is limited to USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization. Tarmstro99 15:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    The issue here is that the "Caption" seem to have been written or printed onto an existing image. Posters which consist of an image and text, both of which were present on the poster at the time of printing, are not at issue here. This instance consists of text added afterwards, which we normally do not transcribe here; much like library stamps, ex libris information, handwritten notations, etc. And in this case, the base document consists solely of an image, with no text whatsoever. Single image-only items clearly fall outside of WS:WWI and belong at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you would be more favorably disposed towards the other pages listed above by User:Azertus, which is fine. I personally do not see much value to our collection in transcribing a three-line slogan from a poster that is not part of a more substantial work, but opinions can vary. I believe we are in agreement on deleting USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization, however. Tarmstro99 14:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Mamdouh Saif in the Middle Eastern press.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is truly released into PD, then this should be transferred to Commons and deleted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should. Recommend you discuss with uploader to verify source and claim to public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Locked global account

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we keep and use {{Locked global account}}, or discard the drama as unnecessary? The template seems mainly to be used on Wikipedias and on Chinese and Korean projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point of it. Of what practical use is it? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
the existence would be a drama-pot for wikpedia admins to mark accounts with no activity, and hence, no disruption here. and more maintenance for admins here. (they might have a better case at meta) i did not know ip’s could create templates. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 22:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Unless there is a fundamental policy change (remember to update at least both {{Main Page header}} and Help:Adding texts if there is!) Main Page still declares: “Welcome to Wikisource, the free library that anyone can improve.”. So of course IP's can (and should be able to) create template-space entries. Whack-a-mole could not be so much, err, "fun"(?) otherwise… 114.74.56.136 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
as much as i support ip editing, when ip’s go directly to template space, without any other contributions, it leads to the impression that experienced users with vindictive grudges are socking. it is a vindictiveness i would not support. i would know more about whack-a-mole than you. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I am not unaware of your background (I do do some research—don't be afraid!) However it is quite wrong to assume a virgin IP edit is in any way significant at all. It might be a regular user making a first-time "forgot to log in" edit… or a javascript-can't-handle-slow-connections stuff-up, or a ticked-off former user who wants to buck the system and make a protest while at the same time making a pertinent contribution… The take-home point is: evaluate the quality of the contribution, not the contributor — or lock down your policy because you are too lazy or jaded to behave rationally…

In any case any half-competent administrator is already aware (even out the corner of their eye) of system-provided utilities like Special:AutoblockList (locally empty) or Special:BlockList or Special:GlobalBlockList (and their equivalents at meta) which perform much the same duty as {{Locked global account}} without the manual overhead. Oh! I forgot the "look at me: I am being an administrator wannabe" factor… There is a very special corner of Hell already picked out for those particular lusers…

Or are we talking about lazy and incompetent administrators? Either way, ordinary users don't care at all about this template, whether it exists or not. It does not perform any detectable useful function other than massage the egos of the useless amongst us. Am I wrong?  Delete it. 114.74.56.136 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The line between lazy and efficient is thin; it is not rational to spent huge amount of time to judge every contribution if there's ways to filter edits quicker. Most useful edits are from logged in users, and most deliberate vandalism is from IP addresses. Moreover, contributions don't stand alone; both works and templates develop best when users take responsibility for them and keep them up-to-date and working in the changing environment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: And you have just proved the point. Lazy oversight. What you are in fact admitting to is that stated policy is not adhered to in practice and that, frankly is despicable. For shame! 114.74.56.136 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
If there is doubt regarding this template, it should be addressed to WM community how it is releated to issue and how it's used. Maybe, or not, then they must advice for that. 109.102.200.227 10:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 Neutral though I also fail to see the benefit of tagging such accounts with a template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Where the template is about globally locked accounts, it should be managed for those with few or many edits where they got banned on different wiki-project and/or locked. That {{Locked global account}} should be placed on locked users. 109.102.104.128 13:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's extra maintenance work for admins with no tangible benefits for the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok @EncycloPetey: do you wish to get template deleted? However, no need to get it out, we already managed to embed documetation of template: Template: Locked global account/doc. 109.102.104.128 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@109.102.104.128: thank you for documenting how to use this template. Please also explain why we would want to use this template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: It very simple. Template appears to different projects, when admin accounts and community must manage to tag globally locked users. 109.102.104.128 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
On English Wikisource it is never the case that admin accounts and community must tag globally locked users. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 Delete This template appears to be the creation of a single IP who is the only person using the template. No admins have used the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why to say should be deleted? They with admin rights should try this for tagging locked users. 109.102.104.128 18:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
We with admin rights want to know, why it should not be deleted? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As per answer above. It would be so hard... when local accounts should be identified as locked by an steward. 109.102.104.128 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why should they be identified as locked by a steward? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Because it while has edited after same day, then steward has to manage to lock it, as it appear to be banned or if he did commit cross-wiki vandalism. See Global locks, at Meta-Wiki. 109.102.104.128 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure: I tryed other account, but Frayae, User:Revive Iwknes MEMo Gb and few others only. Agree, if is community resolution. 109.102.104.128 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 Delete. Based on the discussion above, I don't see the purpose of this template. As a smaller wiki, we have fewer people to maintain the templates on this site. Who is supposed to go around hanging this template on user pages? Admins? a bot? I do not believe this has any long-term usefulness -- those who need to have the permissions to see users' pre-existing blocks -- and only adds excess work and noise to the site, plus extra maintenance responsibilities to support functionality that has little to no tangible purpose. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Author:Ahmed Deedat

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@The revealer: has added this author page. He has a VIAF entry, but are there any works by this author we can host? Generally, we do not retain pages of Authors with no hostable works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I did a preliminary search, and the few works I found with a copyright notice contain a non-derivative restriction. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleting then. The WP page suggests his works weren't published until the 1990s, though they had been in circulation as leaflets at some unspecified earlier date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Index:Correspondence of John McLoughlin, Nathaniel J. Wyeth, S.R. Thurston, and R.C. Winthrop, Pertaining to Claim of Doctor McLoughlin at the Falls of the Willamette—The Site of Oregon City.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is a redundant scan of the one used for Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1/Documents from issue no. 1. It has incomplete metadata. Subpages should also be deleted IMO. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Agree with nomination reasoning. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol (Dickens, unsourced ed.)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; source unknown, but scan-backed editions exist on Wikisource.

This edition has sat unsourced for more than twelve years. We now have two scan-backed editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Both from the same basic edition; the 1843 and a facsimile of the same. But there's no real need for an unsourced edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
i would keep cut and paste from gutenberg until scan backed is done, and then delete / redirect, as in this example. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't know that this is from Gutenberg. And we wouldn't redirect a title that said "unsourced" to a source edition. So I'm unclear on what it is you are suggesting. Are you saying we should delete it, or something else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Alhambra decree

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This translation has been tagged as without source since 2011. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Source. Looks like copyvio.  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Undeleted

undo deletion request

I notice that two or more pages were deleted in 2013 following a deletion discussion that was closed as keep: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2013-10#Various_Poe_collections. This came to my attention when an admin deleted a nonsense recreation (apologies) and another linked to deletion archive (thanks). Many of the Poe pages were organised as best as I could, and I put some time into conserving others contributions where possible, though I can't see the page history to know what happened here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, great to see you're still here from time to time. The base page of Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems was overwritten with vandalism in May 2018, then speadily deleted as "G1—No meaningful content or history", which is clearly an error. I have restored and rolled back. The subpages have been there all along. I've restored The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe, so at least you can see what was deleted — let me know if you want it deleted again. Hesperian 05:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, no, I've read it wrong. It was, as you say, deleted in 2013 as a result of the PD discussion, then recreated with nonsense in May 2018, and re-deleted. Anyhow, they are both restored for now so that you can make sense of what should be done with them. Happy to re-delete if necessary. Hesperian 05:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 Delete The community voted to delete these because there was neither a scan to back the work, nor was there any content from that work. The page "Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems" is a pseudo-title page with links to copies of the poems, but not links to copies from that edition. If someone finds a scan of the work in question, we would certainly host that, but not the kind of pseudo-work here. The same is true of "The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe". We don't have anything here from either work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify "The community voted to delete these" please? I'm not seeing anything.... Hesperian 01:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you not follow the link at the top of this thread to the 2013 Deletion discussion? Or did you just see it archived under "Kept" and not read what the discussion actually said? Although some titles were kept as a result of the discussion, the others were deleted for having no content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It is evident that Hesperian reviewed the relevant discussions, if that is what is meant by your question, and that I disagree that there was any consensus to delete or my request would not have taken this form, i.e undelete. Another admin thought they could delete without reference or explanation, the actions of that account are often mysterious to me and attempts to communicate directly are always ignored. Did you review the previous discussion when redeleting, or did you not notice the page had history when you did that? Pardon any insinuation, but users who are so often correct are unused to reversing their positions. So are jerks, but that is not what I am implying. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that the pages had existed previously, and a community decision had been taken to delete them five years ago. So the pges had not existed since 2013. The only "new" content in 2018 was created by an IP who created with the content "This is a book by Edgar Allan Poe which is a collection of a lot of books that I don't know because I haven't even read the book so um this is all your getting about it unless someone decides to edit this page" This content did not seem worth keeping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 Keep if the works can be updated to be withing scope. Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems is now self-contained though incomplete, and should be kept. Prose Romances has a scan here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I would prefer that this discussion is restored to the admin notice board when complete, and that users give an explanation when they override others intentions. The link is already noted above, and does not serve as an adequate explanation of the actions undertaken. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Undeleted

Undelete IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

The following discussion is closed:

not undeleted as no evidence of compatible license provided —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This work was incorrectly speedy-deleted under G6 (copyvio) as a "clear and proven" copyright on the basis that [4] has a website-wide copyright tag. This was mistaken since IHRA do not and can not claim copyright having not written the definition. As sourced at Working Definition of Antisemitism, the person primarily responsible for IHRA's 2016 adoption of the definition "explained that the definition is taken from the EUMC definition as there was not enough time to invent a new one".

The purpose of the definition is for it to be public domain. It was originally written in 2004 by a group of academics for the EUMC who first published it in 2005 without a copyright tag, and then disseminated it throughout the public domain via adoption by multiple governments and agencies (examples include US Government (“Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the State Department’s main website is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission.”), Israeli government, UK government, London government.)

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Writings by the EUMC are automatically copyrighted by the EUMC in both the EU and the USA, even if there is no copyright tag, and even if the writings are adopted by multiple governments and agencies. The only way we can host this document is if the EUMC as copyright holder explicitly states that they release this document into the public domain, or that they grant permission for anyone to use the document for any purpose whatsoever with no restrictions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn’t a writing by the EUMC.
Ken Stern here sets out the Working Definition in its original form: “developed by this author along with other experts during the second half of 2004”.
Neither Ken Stern (the principal author) or others involved claimed copyright, and consciously gave the definition to world governmental organizations such as the EUMC or IHRA.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Same thing. Writings by the Ken Stern are automatically copyrighted by Ken Stern in both the EU and the USA, even if he did not claim copyright, and even if he consciously gave the definition to world governmental organizations such as the EUMC or IHRA. The only way we can host this document is if Ken Stern as copyright holder explicitly states that he releases this document into the public domain, or that he grants permission for anyone to use the document for any purpose whatsoever with no restrictions. See the table below.
Insufficient Sufficient
No claim of copyright Explicit release into public domain
Authorized adoption by government organizations Authorized any use by any person for any purpose
—Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment A definition itself doesn't fit our categorisation of a publication as described in WS:WWI, it more seems to be an excerpt of a website. You need to find a published work that is not under copyright, or is freely licensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose undeletion; no evidence that content has been released under a license we can host here or that copyright protection has been expressly waived by author(s). Tarmstro99 20:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Other

Previous revision of File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu

Contains copyright-renewed story from Isaac Asimov. Replaced scan has the pages removed. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hosted on Commons, so a Commons admin needs to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

NIST Koblitz Curves Parameters

The following discussion is closed:

kept, migrated to full work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this isn't even an excerpt from FIPS document but restated information. Prosody (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it to Digital Signature Standard (DSS) and added Index:Fips186-2-change1.pdf to back it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated links that previously pointed to the deleted page [5] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861)

The following discussion is closed:

Merged and moved to Author:Charles Baudelaire/The Flowers of Evil —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not actually versions or translations of The Flowers of Evil, but rather just a list of what poems were contained in each original French edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The lists could be merged and moved to a subpage of Author:Charles Baudelaire since they are lists of individual poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, or to a section of the author page itself Author:Charles Baudelaire —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be too long to place on the Author page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Turpie Dog

The following discussion is closed:

moved to userspace, possibly can import to Wikibooks from there —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Originally added with no header, no source, and no license. The text now appears to be an "original" work of the contributor with no published source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a folktale that(as far as I know) has not been published. Does it belong somewhere else? JustinCB (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's never been published, it doesn't belong here. It sounds like you'll want to look up self-publishing sites, since Wikimedia doesn't really cater to that market. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it, it's a folktale. I might've put it to paper(or bits, as the case may be), but I reckon it's been told since the Skags(the family of the first two white men in Tennesee[they were brothers, long hunters]) were still in Scotland. JustinCB (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But the words you used are your own; you wrote this edition. On Wikisource, we don't create original editions. If the folktale is an oral tradition, that's great, but we need a published edition (in PD) in order to host a copy here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There was some earlier talk about oral tradition at a wiki, and the Wikisources, nor the sister wikis chose to not expand their scopes. I personally see that it is aligned with Wikibooks, though I am not sure that they do. At this point it is a hole in the market, though not one filled by Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you see if the wikibooks people want it, and if it can be sent there? JustinCB (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: feel free to ask them yourself, at b:Wikibooks:Reading room/General —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked at b:Wikibooks:Requests for import.--Jusjih (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@JustinCB: Imho it is in something of a grey area, relative to Wikibooks. You might be able to help with either of two questions I have asked, to help clarify the situation, at b:Wikibooks:RFI#Import from Wikisource (indeed, I see some hints above toward the first question). --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Searching Turpie Dog on the web gets too few results, so I cannot help save the work. Maybe move to user's subpage?--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If that were needed as a temporary measure, perhaps it could be done — if there were a long-term exit strategy to get it out of userspace. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete it until there's a place found for it(you can move it to my userspace, though) JustinCB (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm moving it to User:JustinCB/Turpie Dog. It can stay there until you are able to find a way to set it up at Wikibooks or elsewhere. In the meantime I will redirect Turpie Dog to More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

We actually have a sourced version of this story, though the telling is rather different, at More English Fairy Tales/The Hobyahs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's First State of the Union Address

The following discussion is closed:

no action taken, per discussion at Scriptorium —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this page and move Donald Trump's Address to a Joint Session of Congress here so it can match the style of other Presidents. Dash9Z (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

not done at this time. There is a separate discussion about this whole set of works with a similar name and they need to be look at holistically, not on an individual basis. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Second State of the Union Address

The following discussion is closed:

no action taken, per discussion at Scriptorium —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this page to allow Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018 to be moved back to Donald Trump's Second State of the Union Address so it can match the style of other Presidents. Dash9Z (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

not done at this time, see above. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Symposium

The following discussion is closed:

snippet moved to subpage, and the remainder has been provided through scan —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This work is only a small part of Volume 2 or the overarching symposium. And only being a snippet, is outside of the scope described at WS:WWI. There is a link to the complete work, and if it is to be retained, then it should only be in the context of the whole work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Keep, context of the whole work has been provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:H.M. The Little Town.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#File:H.M._The_Little_Town.djvu--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just uploaded the Heinrich Mann's book and after upload I realized that the publishing date provided by Internet Archive (1909) is not reliable. Also, there is no clear publishing date inside the book. The 1909 date provider here seems to be the copyright date for German edition. Also, Worldcat does not report any English edition with clear publishing date prior to 1930 (and Winifred Ray, the translator does not seem to be active so early). If you share my doubts, please delete the file. KäthesBücher (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#File:H.M._The_Little_Town.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Red Badge of Courage

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to versions page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The edition currently located at The Red Badge of Courage appears to be the Gutenberg edition of 2008, which has a number of irregularities.

I am transcribing a first edition from a scan, and there is a transcription started for an edition from the following year.

Is the Gutenberg edition worth keeping? I think not, and unless someone believes we should keep it, I propose to delete it once the transcription of the 1895 scan is complete. The Gutenberg title would then become a versions page for the aforementioned two transcription projects, and potentially some of the other editions (such as the earlier, shortened, serialized version of 1894). --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Index:Pamphlets. Translated from the Russian

The following discussion is closed:

fixed issue with index page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No attached source file. Was it moved?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nazmifr: it looks like you were trying to create an Index page for this work and couldn't figure it out. Is that accurate? Would you like assistance to set it up correctly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Regiment march

The following discussion is closed:

Discussion moved to WS:COPYVIO#Regiment march.—Tarmstro99 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A Google search for the text turned up only this page itself. In the absence of prior publication information there is nothing from which we can conclude that the text may be hosted here. Perhaps it is an English-language translation of a foreign-language work? Tarmstro99 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, couldn't find any source either —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this is a translation of s:tr:Alay Marşı, the song of the w:Special Forces Commando (Turkey). BethNaught (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: good find. Do you by any chance know anything about the copyright status or authorship of the Turkish song? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked for that information, but couldn't find anything, unfortunately. BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information

The following discussion is closed:

Two days shy of a year after nomination, nobody has expressed an interest in working on it or even argued in favour of its retention. Deleted as low-quality, out of scope, and with copyright violations.

A decade-old cut-and-paste job with copious OCR errors; would require significant cleanup work to make presentable. The accompanying talk page appears to be a personal note from a reader expressing appreciation for the text. I think I have located a scan of the original document here, but the scan includes hundreds of pages of appendices (containing photos, drawings, tables, and other information) not provided in our version. There is also this page which appears to include not only the scanned original document, but also clearer versions of the embedded photographs. It would surely be possible for an editor interested in the subject to combine the scanned text with the linked photographs to produce a version of the document far superior to that presently posted here. In its existing state, however, Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information adds little of value to our collection and should be deleted. Tarmstro99 00:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
don’t know if i want to delete a cut and paste, without a scanned-backed to replace it. there are photos mass uploaded here c:Category:Historic American Engineering Record,
i would support a demonstration of an example here, given the large amount of material in HAER, that would support historic structures. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am a near-total amateur and came across this page while searching for material about Boston's Highland Railroad -- which I have yet to find. Even though it is far from pretty and almost totally obsolete, I would recommend keeping this because it does contain important information that would be very challenging to find elsewhere -- if it even still exists elsewhere. (For information and bemusement, starting in the 1870s, the Highland Railroad ran plaid horsecars from Grove Hall in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood to downtown Boston and beyond with a frequency of at least 1 every 8 minutes, which is far more frequent than the current service in 2019 and did not also call for a transfer. 2601:182:CB00:300B:344A:8F35:472:DA3 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Ed Allan
 Keep and just upload the source material. It's at https://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ma/ma1200/ma1288/data/ma1288data.pdf Jarnsax (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Running it through the Internet Archive to get a cleaner OCR, it'll be at https://archive.org/details/ma1288data eventually. Jarnsax (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, after digging about a dozen pages in, and finding the actual title page, the interesting bit (the history) isn't actually a US Government work.... it was written by a consultant for a consultant for a contractor.... kill it as copyrighted. Jarnsax (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed)

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to annotated title (Offences against the Person Act 1861/Annotated)

A collection of extracts from the (complete and scan-backed) Offences against the Person Act 1861. The extracts consist of those portions of the original Act that “have been repealed and no longer represent the current law.” Putting aside for the moment the difficulty of keeping such a listing current (have no other portions of the underlying statute been repealed since Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) was posted here a decade ago?), I question whether our own original listing of repealed statutes satisfies WS:WWI. Of course, if the UK Parliament issued a publication enumerating which portions of its Offences against the Person Act 1861 were no longer in force, I would see no problem with reproducing that document here. But Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) doesn’t seem to be anyone’s work but our own and there is no indication that it was previously published. Tarmstro99 18:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Could this be updated to be essentially an annotated version of Offences against the Person Act 1861? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point: is anybody actually willing to do that work? I think part of Tarmstro99's concern was that we would need to also complete and maintain such a listing, and II don't see anybody stepping up to do so. Nor even show up too object to its proposed deletion. Hence my position below. --Xover (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a policy requiring our annotated versions to be complete or maintained. Just move Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) to Offences against the Person Act 1861/Annotated, put a header on it, and link it with {{annotation header}}, and voilà. No harder than actually deleting it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BD2412 T 03:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2018&oldid=9797076"