Wikisource:Proposed deletions

(Redirected from Wikisource:DEL)
WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.
Proposed deletions

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

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

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.


A Critical Dictionary of English LiteratureEdit

Only one entry is present, and no source is given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  Keep (and improve): The entry is proofread and properly formatted, and linked to/from the relevant author page. The scans are available at the IA, and this is a genuine entry. It would naturally be better to import the scans, but even if that were not to happen, it's allowed to have single articles from a collective work, and it's allowed for things to not be scan-backed. It certainly would be beneficial to improve the top level page.
†If this were only one chapter from a novel, or some other portion of a work that doesn't stand alone, I'd say delete. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, so this is a bit of a mess. CDEL has multiple editions, each of three volumes, plus a "supplement" published after Allibone's death. I have managed to scrape up what I hope is a set of decent scans from the IA which aren't Google scans and aren't marked "missing pages" at the IA (not including the supplement): commons:Category:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature. Anyone have any ideas on which three we like best? Latest possible? All are pre-1923. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  Keep at minimum until this discussion is concluded, as it is a prominent example in that discussion. Furthermore,   Keep for the long run per Inductiveload. I'm willing to do some of the work to get everything sorted. -Pete (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Whilst I will agree that the work is in scope, this sole article reproduced as typed text sitting in the wilderness is not in scope. Looking forward to someone working on getting volumes of scans and coordinating the work. In the meanwhile delete, this title page and the singular article without prejudice to a proper presentation. Suggest moving the text of the single biography to the author's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Headquarters AgreementEdit

The United States Headquarters Agreement is not formatted correctly. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)

These are two different works, though the critical text is (theoretically, at least!) the same:
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
retain as different editions/versions, hat note the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Inductiveload: You seem to have a grasp of what these works are. Could you move the editions of the same work to suitably disambiguated pages, create a versions page (or pages, if relevant), add {{other versions}}/{{similar}} hatnotes to link them together, and tag them all with {{migrate to}}? I think this and the below section are about two editions of a UN—US treaty and a distinct agreement relating to implementation of that treaty, but I quickly lose track of what's what here. --Xover (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

United States Headquarters Agreement for the United NationsEdit

The United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations is not formatted correctly. It also includes the acts of the US Congress that should not be a part of the article. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, these are different works that contain the same text with different "contexts":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If Inductiveload is saying that they are different editions, then retain, and ensure that we suitably disambiguate with a {{versions}} page, and hat note each with {{other version}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Translation:ManshuEdit

Ok, I think it's time we have this conversation…

Translation:Manshu describes itself as a Wikisource translation of A 9th century Middle Chinese text regarding the geopolitics of southwest China, particularly the historic kingdom of Nanzhao. It is an important historical source for the period. This translation is based upon a digitized version of the recompiled 1774 movable type edition edited by the 武英 (Palace Museum Library).

However, looking at it more closely it appears to be much more an original analytical work than anything that could be shoehorned to fit within our definition of a mere translation.

The front page is almost entirely original work (apart from a table of contents), partly semi-encyclopedic and partly meta-discussion about the effort itself.

Looking at Chapter 1 we find some actual translation, but mostly comparisons with a professionally published previous translation (Luce) that is quoted extensively, and translator's commentary that far exceeds the actual translated text itself. It also features a lot of images that obviously do not appear in any original, but have been picked to illustrate a particular point (i.e. how Wikipedia would construct an article).

Chapter 2 and onwards are the same, except they lack the extensive quotations from the published translation (Luce), but only because the effort to compare has not reached that point yet. Around Chapter 9 the translation appears incomplete with only the Chinese original text present.

Irrespective of the rest of this work, there is a question regarding the extensive quotations from the previous professional translation (link). It is a 1961 publication with copyright notice, so there is a high probability that it is in copyright (and thus the quotations are also copyvios). I haven't looked at this issue in detail, but if this discussion ends up keeping the work in some form we will have to address that separately (and if it is not in copyright, why are we not transcribing that instead of making our own?). The sole contributor to Translation:Manshu has a somewhat haphazard approach to copyright (e.g. claiming satellite imagery from Google Maps or similar as "own work") so the issue will have to be checked thoroughly.

But all that being said, this is also a great effort and a unique work that really should exist somewhere. If it were completed I'm certain it could have been professionally published, and it would be a real shame if all the effort that's gone into it was wasted. The contributor has not been active since 2018 (and the last large progress was in 2016), so I don't think it very likely that it will now ever be completed; but if a place is found for it even the partial translation is valuable, and could conceivably be completed by others at some point in the future. If the outcome of this discussion is that it is out of scope we should make a real effort to see whether a project like WikiBooks would be interested, and, if not, rather than simply delete it we should move it to the contributor's user space (a practice I am usually vehemently opposed to but am making an exception in this particular case).

In any case, it has kept popping up on my radar for various reasons, and I have always been torn on what to do about its issues. It seems clearly outside of scope per WS:WWI, doesn't meet WS:T, violates WS:ANN, and would most likely need cleanup to meet WS:COPY. So now I'm putting the question before the community: what do we do about this? --Xover (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm only able to comment on a small portion of this, which I hope might be helpful: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First has no results for Man shu or southern barbarians as title; nor Luce, Gordon as an author name; nor do Cornell University or Southeast Asia Program or Oey or Fan, Cho seem to have a relevant renewal under their names. Southeast Asia Program as a title reveals registration of other of these data papers as copyrighted works, but no renewal of this one. This suggests the copyright was never renewed on the Luce translation (possibly this is not surprising, as these weren't exactly blockbusters...) and it is now public domain, judging by Help:Public domain#ref renewal. If accurate, this should resolve the WS:COPY concern. Good luck with the rest of this matter! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


Response by authorEdit

Hi there, I am the primary author, an admin on English Wikipedia. I would say I have spent upwards of 500 hours on this translation. During the time it is alleged that I have been inactive, I was a founding team member at a very important company you would have heard of, and provided some of the earliest COVID map coverage on Wikipedia (webm gif). Currently I run seven (7) companies and have a family, so it is fair to say I have 'other commitments'. I do still intend to complete the translation. Aside from time constraints, partly I have not been active on Wiki projects recently because I am living in China and this makes editing Wikiprojects a massive hassle due to the requirement for a VPN. Nevertheless, I noticed this deletion attempt by Xover and would like to respond objectively for the record. If we summarize the alleged issues they are as follows:

  • The translation includes commentary
    • That is simply because it is a good (ie. transparent/honest) translation.
    • Any accredited historian will agree this is a good (positive) feature.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work is incomplete
    • I am still finishing, I am just ridiculously busy and have been so for five years.
    • Incomplete and pending further effort is often simply the nature of voluntary work.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes quotations from previous translations
    • Fully cited and contextually presented, in academia, this is clearly fair use.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes satellite derived images
    • These images were constructed with great care based upon detailed context and are both low resolution and substantially original work in themselves.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The translation is done by the contributor and openly licensed instead of being an out of copyright work of someone else which has been uploaded
    • IMHO as a student of history original translation is *great* to welcome and should be encouraged.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates 'What Wikisource Includes' (WWI)
    • Wikisource includes "Works created after 1925" / "Analytical and artistic works".
    • Wikisource includes "Translations"
    • To be perfectly honest I consider this assertion a truly baseless accusation that I frankly find highly offensive.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • "Doesn't meet" WS:T
    • Unclear what this means
    • The WST page clearly states that original translations are in-scope and acceptable (there is only one prior English translation and it is bad and incorrect)
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates WS:ANN
    • I have never seen that page before in my life
    • Apparently it doesn't like parallel text
    • I would suggest strongly that parallel text provides the basis for most high caliber academic translations, it is my view that the policy page is wrong and further discussion to correct it should occur there.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Requires cleanup to meet WS:COPY
    • Unsure what this is actually alleging
    • Aside from original work there is only contextual quotations from other works in line with an academic translation
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.

Sincerely, Pratyeka (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that Xover also deleted my maps. This is a great loss. I cannot recreate them as I do not have access to the context at the time. This is truly a tragedy. I am ... highly alarmed and stressed at this turn of events and will cease contributing further to Wikipedia projects. Pratyeka (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone with more time please go through the undeletion process on my behalf. It is... truly a great tragedy. Multiple academics had thanked me for this work. Pratyeka (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: These maps are not appropriate for enWS (or Commons), because they contain copyright material: the satellite photos. There is no allowance here, as there is at enWP, for fair use or de minimis, and resolution doesn't affect it. I imagine the "correct" solution is to either locate a suitable base maps from Commons (or NASA or other PD source), draw your own, or commission them via c:Commons:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
If the presumption of copyright is incorrect (e.g. the photos are PD or freely licenced), then let me know and they can be restored and correct attribution and licence declarations made. In that case, they actually belong at Commons.
Sadly, being thanked by academics does not overrule copyright.
Even if these are copyrighted, I can also provide you with the files if you do not have access to them any more. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: I'm glad to see you're editing again. I'm not sure why you felt it relevant to mention that you have +sysop on enwp, but since you bring it up… as an admin on enwp you should be well familiar with the need to make policy-based arguments in such discussions and to familiarise oneself with the policy on the project. I have raised several policy-based concerns, and your response addresses none of them. However, to reiterate the challenges:
The text on Translation:Manshu is not a mere translation of a previously published work. It contains substantial portions of your own analysis, comparisons, and commentary: all of which is original rather than previously published content. In enwp terms, think of it as "original research": it's not a perfect analogy, but the problem is similar. This is out of scope for English Wikisource. In addition, you include extensive quotations from the other (professionally published) translation, but that translation is not public domain or compatibly licensed. Fair use content is not permitted on English Wikisource (and even on enWP only in very narrow and limited circumstances), which puts in violation of our licensing policy.
Now, as I wrote above, this is an impressive work and I am sure it is a valuable contribution to the knowledge in that area of study. It just isn't compatible with the policies on Wikisource. In other words, if it is to stay here it will have to be stripped down so that it only contains the translation, without embellishment, of the original text and all non-public domain elements removed. I imagine that's not your first choice as I get the impression it is the analytical parts of the work that interest you the most. So as an alternative, works such as this may be in scope for WikiBooks: their scope explicitly includes original works so long as it falls within their definition of "educational". As another Wikimedia sister project it is possible to import the pages between projects, even preserving revision history. If you need it we can try to facilitate contact with the Wikibooks community to get the ball rolling. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This whole situation is insulting. The work is clearly a Wikisource translation of a work in the public domain, and is thus in scope, your complaints about the annotations aside. This discussion should never have been started, and much less dragged on this long. The problem with the maps is unfortunate, but the rest is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, and I would love nothing better than to see much much wider participation in discussions here and on WS:CV so that we could properly determine community consensus and within a reasonable time. That's why I so very much appreciate your efforts to participate in both venues! However, meanwhile we have to operate within the reality that exists. I am sorry if you found this insulting, but there really is no other way to address such issues. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I’m sorry, that was a bit much. My apologies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Act No. 3815Edit

Copydump, what formatting there is uses raw HTML, with no source and no license. A superficial look also suggests this is a modern translation (the specified translator shows up in Google as a paralegal) so it may also be a copyvio, but I'm too lazy to do the research on that just now. Xover (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Weirdly it looks to have been originally published in English so I am not sure what that translation is about, see e.g. here https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ (which says public domain). The source is almost certainly from the copyrighted source here: https://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippines.htm#.YLgkKXVKiV4 since it has the chan robles header. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please look at Republic Act No. 8293 Section 176 (which is also here in Wikisource at RA 8293#Sec. 176), the Philippine law stating all Philippine government works (including your proposed Act No. 3815) are and must be not copyrighted and are in the public domain.
Also, all Philippine laws are written in English and not a translation of any kind.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Yivan000: Thank you for working to improve this text; however, please familiarise yourself with our style guide. enWS does not use the automatically generated table of content that MediaWiki provides, does not use the heading syntax of MW wikimarkup (we use direct visual formatting instead), and we use formatting templates rather than raw HTML. Paragraph breaks should be done by simply inserting two newlines, and italics should be done with wikimarkup, not HTML. In short, while massively improved from the cut&pasted text that was there before, this is still a mess. Xover (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

April the 8th came certain intelligence to London from BruminghamEdit

@PBS: is this a complete work? Almost seems to be an extract from an extract, but I cannot tell. If we can situate it as part of a work, can we please do so, otherwise it seems it is extract per WS:WWI and if so, not part of our collection. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The source indicates this is a complete part of the History of Birmingham, but, as it itself is an extract, it should be deleted in favor of the full work; though I cannot find a scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, not that it matters all that much to this discussion but I've uploaded a scan of The History of Birmingham and scan-backed this text. Looking at the immediate source this fragment is actually a "chapter", of sorts, in that it has its own entry in the table of contents (titled "Extract"). It is still an extract from The History of Birmingham (1835), which gives an extract of John Vicars's God in the Mount (1641).
Regarding the latter I have been unable to locate any scan of it anywhere. EEBO has the text, but the scans are, as usual, locked up by ProQuest. Multiple institutions have holdings of it—including the British Library, Corpus Christi, the National Library of Scotland, Trinity College, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Folger, the Huntington, and the Beinecke—but none have made scans available. If anyone really cares, several of these institutions may be amenable to scanning it for us.
In any case, as it stands it is an extract of an extract, and presented completely divorced from its original published context, so it'll have to go (from mainspace).
However, as PBS hasn't edited since May I think we should leave this open for a while yet in the hopes of hearing from them. They may be interested in proofreading the rest of The History of Birmingham and there's no particular hurry. Xover (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Xover: I have (dubious) ProQuest access, and have accessed God in the Mount. The scans bear a (presumably British) copyright notice, does that matter? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: In copyright terms, no. ProQuest is just asserting a "sweat of the brow" copyright for the scanning job, but Wikimedia projects do not honour such claims. The original work is PD and that's what matters. But the terms of use of ProQuest's services (a matter of contract law) prohibit downloading and scraping, so we can't host it for that reason (and you'd risk getting sued over it). Xover (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: My claim of dubious access was a little too vague, I guess. What I mean is this: I have access to the content of ProQuest, but I have never myself accessed ProQuest, and do not have access to the “front-end” ProQuest database. Using a personal ILL account, I can request books (some of which are on ProQuest), but nowhere in the agreement to use that ILL account is there a restriction on usage like the ProQuest EULA—which means there is no contract for me (or Wikimedia) to get sued over. The only restriction on usage at all is the generic copyright notice for ILL systems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been AFK. I see now that the whole book is in place (thank you user:Xover) so presumably the header about delete can now be removed from the page. However the reason for placing it here on Wikisource in the first place and it is a stand alone extract from a book. If only whole books can exist in this archive and not extracts from a book, then that presents a real problem, as one of the reasons this source site was created was to take extracts that ought not to be placed onto Wikipedia. To take one example "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" does the whole book have to exist on Wikisurce before that extract (about a specific topic, or passage) can be placed on Wikisource? Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Excerpts is to say the least not clear on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@PBS: Thanks for commenting!
Yes, our written policies are rather less developed than one expects coming from enWP, and rely instead on practice developed over the years. It's really not an approach that's friendly to people for whom enWS is not their primary project, but I've complained about it so much people have started to just nod, smile, and back away slowly when I bring it up. Oh well…
Our basic unit here is the previously published work, in a specific edition. God in the Mount (1641) is a work. The History of Birmingham (1835) is a work. The latter includes an excerpt of the former, and April the 8th … is an excerpt from that. In other words, an excerpt of an excerpt. In a citation (i.e. on enWP) citing some fragment of info through intermediary sources is fine and often even preferable for reliability, but the goal on enWS is preserving and making available the works themselves as published. That we have added a scan to back the excerpt does not make it any less of an excerpt; only made possible the production of the whole work. But do I take it then that you have no interest in proofreading the entire work? At a little over 500 pages it isn't insurmountable, and it's not inconceivable that others would be interested in helping out. Xover (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Xover: if I had unlimited time the I would be only too happy to proofread the book. However I tend to proof read text that is useful for my primary work about topics on Wikipeadia. My concern here is that the extract was a quote of a primary source, if primary sources can only be accessed if the whole of the text in which it is quoted then this is a diminution of the use of both Wikipedia and Wikisource to provide information to readers of articles on Wikipedia. Take for example the quote from Richard I. The original will be in French, and will exist in some archive. There are several translation in reliable secondary sources. The reason for placing an extract from one of those secondary sources is it allows a Wikipedia article on Richard to include the statement "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" with a link to the text on Wikisource. The rest of the book may or may not be worth including here. But the translation of the primary source certainly is.
Another example which is on my to do list is a further transcribing of "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna" That in itself is a large undertaking and usually Wikipedia articles are only interested in specific articles within the treaties that make up the Final Act. However while I see the use of copying all of the treaties that make up the Final Act, I see no reason in the medium term to copy over and proofread the whole of the sources I am using for that text: The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, volume 2, 1 Feb to 6 march 1816. Even more so as the text is formatted in a way that make reading it difficult (so I am using a couple of other sources to help with formatting and some minor translation alterations). As I wrote in the introduction to Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/Act I "This translation was laid before the British Parliament on 2 February 1816, with some additional formatting from the French original." The reason for this is that the French formatting is close to modern English that that used in the Parliamentary translation.
So I think that you need to consider when suggesting that the whole text of a secondary source is included, whether that is the most useful use of editors time or even if it is desirable when what is most useful for modern use by as :Wikipedia:Article titles puts it "The ... description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Ie someone interested in (but probably not an expert in) the Napoleonic wars, or the post war concord, may well be interested in the details of the treaties without being in the leaset interested in the Prince Regents speech to the British Parliament at the start of the 1816 session.
It may be in the future that someone somewhere will want a copy of that speech, but until it is requested (eg via a link from an article on Wikipedia), I think that editors can use their limited time here to support the project in ways that are more help to the someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area.
-- PBS (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@PBS: You need to think of it in terms of things like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYN: if we allowed arbitrary extracts we would allow selective quotation of whatever subsets of a work supported someone's point of view (maybe WP:UNDUE is an apposite reference?). Our equivalent to WP:RS is to make sure works are previously published, and not self-published. For WP:V we use proofreading from a scan of the original, rather than just cut&pasting some text from the web somewhere. For example, if you are adding text that is an amalgamation of multiple sources (the text you mentioned as hard to read), or are adding text from one edition but formatting it according to a completely different edition, you are essentially just creating a completely new edition. In analogy, you are violating WP:NOR/WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:RS.
We do not require anyone to actually proofread entire publications (they can literally be a lifetime's work in length), but whenever you are looking at something more granular than "book" it ends up being an assessment of whether the text qualifies as a stand-alone work (think "stand-alone article" or "… list" in enWP terms: WP:GNG-like assessments apply) or whether it is a mere excerpt from a larger work. A poem of a few lines can certainly qualify as a stand-alone work, but even a full chapter excerpted from a novel would not. Your Richard I example might pass that bar, as it looks like a complete letter or speech (I didn't check its published context; it needs scan-backing and situating within the context of the work within it was published in any case), but the text currently under discussion doesn't because not only is it an excerpt from The History of Birmingham but it is also in turn an excerpt of God in the Mount. Xover (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Biþ On WæterælfadleEdit

Unsourced Old English poem. I can't find a scan of the original source, or any source that was definitely published before 1926.

I'm sure the poem probably is real, but if it's unsourced there's no way to prove it wasn't just invented as a hoax. Modern books mention the poem, but that's not quite good enough.

Someone more knowledgable in Old English literature than me might be able to find a source and/or prove what we have transcribed here is legitimate. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the w:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms. It's certainly a "thing":
The w:Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records contains this in volume 6 (1942), but that was renewed: (Renewal: R491174).
That said, this is from the 10th century: even if ASPR 6 is the only printed source ever, this is pretty clearly PD unless this edition has copyrightable modifications. At worst we could use the manuscript above. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rho9998: this seems like it might be in your wheelhouse: do you know of a good modern-ish source for this that's in the PD? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There is Cockayne's 1864 edition of the "Leechbook" in which the poem is found; I don't think there are any editions in the public domain after that. The poem can be found on page 350 of the Internet Archive upload: https://archive.org/details/leechdomswortcun02cock/page/350/mode/2up
@Rho9998: Amazing, thank you!
The index is already up (along with vols 1 and 3): Index:Leechdoms wortcunning and starcraft of early England volume 2.djvu due to the industry of @User:Beleg Tâl! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: The transcription from ASPR does not appear to match that of the Leechbook, suggesting the mere transcription may have copyrightable elements (akin to a translation). In either case, the fragment at Biþ On Wæterælfadle is not scan-backed to either ASPR or the Leechbook. Xover (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The complete works of Count TolstoyEdit

Some page scans of (mostly) Wiener's "The complete works of Count Tolstoy" exist as 2 versions:

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_01.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc01tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_03.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc03tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_04.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc04tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_12.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc12tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_13.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc13tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_17.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc17tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_21.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc21tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_22.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc22tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_24.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc24tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_26.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc26tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_28.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc28tols).pdf


To avoid that people start editing them twice, one of these sets should be deleted. Because the indices with the *.djvu seem to have been used already in the https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy , the preferential deletion should target the PDF versions, not the DJVU. [On the other hand, the PDF volumes seem to be complete but some DJVU volumes missing, so a homogeneous name space would rather keep the PDF...] R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's frustrating, given that I speedy deleted several of the pdfs as duplicates back a few months and someone has blithely recreated them. Yes, once any proofread pages have been appropriately dealt with, delete all the pdf versions and also delete the template that lists the volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a message of some "InductiveBot" of 2021-05-17 in Page:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksof02tols).pdf/107 which says that some DJVU pages have been moved to the PDF pages. Will something like this happen again, if the PDF scans are deleted? (I'll start to copy all contents of the PDF pages to the DJVU...). - R. J. Mathar (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@R. J. Mathar: InductiveBot is a bot operated by Inductiveload If it moved these pages it was probably in response to a request someone made. I would suggest you hold off moving any pages until we figure out the background and decide definitively what indexes we are going to use. It is also probably best to let an admin do it to avoid a lot of cleanup afterwards. Xover (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
(E/C) This was talked about before, but no much seems to have happened: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05#Tolstoy_(Wiener)....
@R. J. Mathar: please do not copy the content, that's a complete waste of everyone's time and removes history. I'll move any pages if needed. Manually moving pages between indexes is rarely the right thing to do, because if you do that, whoever does the move properly will need to delete the copied pages first.
Volume 2 was missing pages in the DJVU, so it was migrated to the PDF (see the deletion log at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu). If we want to go for a full set of DJVUs, that needs fixing. Or do we want a mixed set?
If a batch upload of the missing DJVU volumes is desired, I can do that if provided with a spreadsheet of metadata as explained here User:Inductiveload/Requests/Batch uploads. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I had in mind to do some Tolstoy a while back and found this mire, when I noticed an admin assisting the disruption I stopped trying to sort it out. It is very easy to waste a lot of thoughtful contributors time with a few clicks. Can someone please ping the relevant accounts? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the templates, Template:The complete works of Count Tolstoy volumes, and the history of the other. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: do you have any comment on what you were attempting to achieve? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, I started importing this set for the inaugural MC because someone recommended Anna Karenina. I didn’t realize that someone had already started this one as a DJVU set because it wasn’t listed on the Tolstoy page. Then, while looking through some of the Tolstoy works, I stumbled across the partial set of DJVUs. So, I requested that the text be merged over to the PDF because some of the DJVUs had missing pages or were worser quality. Beeswaxcandle then deleted the PDFs leaving to partial sets. Soon afterwards, I had to take a wiki break. It seems that in the meantime, someone began improving the DJVU set and restored the PDFs. Now, it seems like we have three choices. First, move the pages over from the DJVu to the PDF and delete the DJVU set. Two, import all the PDFs, move the page list over, merge the PDF pages to the DJVu, delete all the PDFs. Three, create a mixed set of PDFs and DJVUs by moving the pages over from the PDFs to the DJVUs and then deleting the PDFs. Two seems like the most work, three will produce a more confusing template, and one will require a bot to move stuff. Languageseeker (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the missing pages 311 and 312 (that is 337 and 338 if counted from 1) to the Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_02.djvu version on the wikimedia commons, copying the pages from the PDF scans. So at least that djvu-volume does no longer have missing pages. It would be useful to know exactly which other dvju volumes miss which pages. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcriptsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept, no consensus--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

An amalgamation of something like 7 different sources of data, all of them selectively included, and compiled into an original work on-wiki. The result is interesting and valuable, but it is out of scope for Wikisource. Xover (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  • It is one work, though compiled from several sources. I do not believe it is original to Wikisource, but to the United Nations; although I have not verified this presumption. The compilation (being chronological) is not creative, and thus does not have copyright. The coloring is useful, and quite interesting. I do not think it to be quite without scope, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Everything in the mainspace in Category:Project disclaimersEdit

I feel like this might be a hot take since these have been around a long time, but I don't think the mainspace is the appropriate place to have these disclaimers.

In December 2015, User:Library Guy moved the page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer (now a mainspace redirect, which I also disagree with) to Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer with the comment "shouldn't be in main namespace". They are not works at all, nor are they actual sections of the original encyclopedias themselves, so I don't believe they belong in the mainspace.

At the very least, the mainspace project disclaimers should be moved to appropriate sections of the project namespace, without redirects being left behind. However, I think these overly specific disclaimers are probably products of another time, when Wikisource was younger and it was being used more so than to-day as an aid and supplement to Wikipedia's efforts. We also have Wikisource:General disclaimer which (at least in a broader way) covers most of the things said in these pages. I would be fine with just to delete them.

However, I'll leave the interpretation to consensus below. Should the entries be moved to other namespaces, or deleted entirely? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Also pinging @Bob Burkhardt: in case the Library Guy account won't be used a while. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Thanks for pinging the other account. Maybe something like {{AuxTOC}} can be used to wrap the disclosures. I imagine the information is available elsewhere, but I think it is good idea to make the disclaimer information more immediately available for the encyclopedia projects. I've never checked the alternative disclaimers cited. They seem too obscure to me. The contents listings for the encyclopedias are also not part of the source. Something should probably be done there. Maybe just {{AuxTOC}} could work somehow. The disclaimers could be moved back to the main namespace with a wrapper of some sort since it seems tough to wrap a redirect. Seems fair to keep around the redirect though since the destination makes things clear. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bob Burkhardt: You don't think moving them to another namespace is a good idea, at least, as you've done at EB1911? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think putting the disclaimer in the project namespace is an effective solution, but you were talking about deleting the redirect, and the wrapper solution, which I have become aware of more lately, would avoid the redirect. I like the current solution better than the wrapper for the disclaimer. The wrapper solution ({{AuxTOC}}) would work better for the tables of contents. It is widely used. I will also mention the ACAB disclaimer has some things that I think are really very necessary for that work. Probably the encyclopedia disclaimers should at least refer to the General discliamer. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These project disclaimers were added a long time ago, and are a part of the project’s set-up. While, strictly speaking, they are not neccessary, I think that, at this point, it would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them. Certainly, they should not be made now; but I do not think they should be deleted. Any move (across namespaces) would necessitate a cross-namespace redirect, owing to the age of the original name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "It would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them." – For what reason do you say that? Age alone isn't a reason to keep—there are lots of old relics that we've deleted at WS:PD. Assuming that we delink all references to it in the mainspace (which is what I'm advocating for by the way), what harm would this do to the project itself, reading- or editing-wise? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: The “old relics” which have been deleted were entire works—although they were usually not quite so entire; this is not the case here. I oppose removing the references, as the continuity of use of them (my meaning in age here, my apologies for the confusion) would be so disrupted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "The old relics were entire works; this is not the case here." Right, they aren't works at all, nor parts of works, in any sense. The mainspace is for works, not entire user-generated pages dedicated to explaining some bits of information about how a work ought to be used, especially when all of those notices are already fundamentally covered by WS:General disclaimer. Furthermore, the initial question I had has still not been answered. That is, why, specifically, would the removal of these disclaimers in the mainspace be so destructive to the encyclopedia projects? You even admit that "strictly speaking, they are not necessary", so if something isn't necessary, why would deleting it be so detrimental? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: They are not as a rule necessary, but these in particular have been made necessary as an exception because of their long use. No, the notices are not covered by the general disclaimer; that is why they are project-specific, and deleting them would entail recourse to the general (and thus not specifically useful) disclaimer, while losing the information of specific relevance to the articles at hand. They generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules regarding “verifiability,” “notability,” and such, I believe; such being the reason for their initial creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Wikipedians copying and referencing material that happens to be in the public domain is nothing new as you say. The entire sum of human media before 1923, and now before 1926, is a pretty wide scope of works after all, which, theoretically, we should have transcribed in its totality at Wikisource. I've seen entire plot summary sections of Wikipedia articles having been copied verbatim from public domain film magazines, for example (as of now, film magazine coverage at Wikisource is incredibly slim, however theoretically we should have them all). There are a ton of nonfiction works, encyclopedias included but also dictionaries, atlases, certain magazines, textbooks, newspapers, masters' theses, and the list goes on. Any number of these things are copied and/or used at Wikipedia all the time. Should we make mainspace disclaimers specific to these, too? How about I put a page like that in The Masses (periodical), to make sure that Wikipedians who might use it know that The Masses purposefully has a socialist slant, and that articles shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia because it's not NPOV? The encyclopedia disclaimers set a bad precedent that way, and I'm a bit worried something like that might be tried one day because of it.

And anyway, if "they generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules", that seems like a bad thing to me. Why is that our responsibility? What is done with the information in the encyclopedias at Wikipedia should by no means be our specific responsibility. We're a very different project from them, and Wikipedians can go to pages like Wikisource:For Wikipedians to get an idea of that.

Furthermore, I disagree that these disclaimer pages are useful even. Let's look at Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Project Disclaimer as an example. It says:

Inaccuracies: The articles of the 1921 edition of Collier's New Encyclopedia were based upon the information available to the editors and contributors at the time of their original publication in the early 20th century. Changing circumstances and more recent research may have rendered this information obsolete or revealed it to be inaccurate, especially in the areas of science, law, and ethnography. Readers should bear this in mind when using the information.

There is an entire section dedicated to this very thing covered by WS:GD, which says for example (while not with the exact wording):

[...] we cannot guarantee (in any way whatsoever) the validity of the documents found here. In particular, medical or legal texts on Wikisource may be incorrect or out of date. We suggest contacting a qualified professional for such information.

The next section:

Transcription errors: These articles are transcribed from the originals by volunteers, sometimes directly and sometimes by correcting a preliminary OCR conversion. While we strive for perfect accuracy, there may be transcription errors in the articles.

What WS:GD says about the same thing (although the wording isn't very specific so it's easy to misconstrue):

[...] material found here may not be reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to ensure the accuracy of the texts.

So we can take out those bits because they aren't necessary for an entire separate page. What we're left with is the very first paragraph, which states:

Title usage: Use of the titles Collier's New Encyclopedia or Collier's Encyclopedia is strictly to acknowledge titles used to refer to the edition of 1921 which has gone into the public domain in the United States due to the expiration of its copyright there. Any reference to this material should explicitly note the original date of publication.

Trademark law is not mentioned in the general disclaimer. However, at this point all we have is a paragraph, which is enough for just being in the notes section on the header of the encyclopedia work.

However, even this trademark law bit could be mentioned in the general disclaimer, but isn't for some reason. Really, any number of works hosted at Wikisource are probably still protected by trademark in some jurisdictions, and we really shouldn't leave a disclaimer about it on every work that applies to. We should probably mention, in the general disclaimer, that the use of the titles of some works, or the identities of the characters in them, may violate trademark laws in some jurisdictions which is unrelated to copyright.

I'd like to end the post by saying that I think much the material in these project disclaimers could be either included or made more specific in the WS:General disclaimer. I don't like how vague the general disclaimer currently is on many issues, so it certainly could be improved. However, the issues with the general disclaimer does not necessitate the existence of a specific project disclaimer page, in the mainspace of all places, for every single encyclopedia we have that I know of. I think the improvement of our general disclaimer should be discussed by the way (probably separately to this discussion). PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • PseudoSkull: Many encyclopedias (e.g., EB, EA) are still covered by trademark law, but most (if not effectively all) books are not. My response to your (rhetorical?) question about The Masses is the following: No, it should not have a disclaimer, because no new disclaimers should be made. The maintenance (read: non-deletion) of these project disclaimers harks back to when Wikipedia copied at large from the old encyclopedias, and they noted them back to Wikisource. The disclaimers were added to the projects at the time to facilitate this, and thus, to maintain this ad-hoc “backwards compatibility,” they should be kept. I disagree with your interpretation above: the Collier’s disclaimer is more specific than the general disclaimer, and thus is useful. (This is the case with other project disclaimers, as well.) I also believe that the general disclaimer is perfectly functional in its current state: being a general disclaimer, it doesn’t need excruciating detail. I agree regarding the general disclaimer discussion; for another time, perhaps. (As for the old film magazines, they are quite interesting, but with so many images, it is a daunting prospect.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There have apparently been incidents regarding the use of the Sherlock Holmes character in newer works, as policed by the Doyle estate. However I'll digress on everything else, for the sake of further community input on this issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, but Sherlock Holmes is not title, but character; for titles, there are but few trademarks, though for characters, there are many more. (I am reminded of “Herlock Sholmes,” though from whence I know not.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the issues around Sherlock Holmes are around copyright because some works are in and some works are not, with the claim that derivative works are derivative of those works still in copyright, the trademark in terms of print [was abandonded]. Tarzan on the other hand has had court cases around the character and is a live trademark. Winnie-the-Pooh and Steamboat Willie will be other interesting cases of this. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: It'd be a shame if Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright proper in the UK. In the US, the original being public domain would allow for derivative works of that original interpretation to therefore be allowed, not counting in the possible exception of a trademark still being in effect. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: The claim of the Doyle Estate was that while Sherlock Holmes as a character is in the PD as represented in the PD works, Sherlock Holmes as a character is not in the PD as represented in the still copyrighted works. Specifically, they talk about Holmes showing emotion, respect for women etc. as a development in the later works and still copyrighted. This particular issue will go mostly away, thankfully, come January when the next batch of stories enter the PD, but the main legal question is what counts as "original interpretation" of the character and what is still copyrighted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Strongly support moving these to WS namespace. Neutral regarding actually deleting them (at least within the scope of the current discussion) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Excerpts of works by Viktor PinchukEdit

The following works by Viktor Pinchuk, uploaded and translated by Виктор Пинчук, are excerpts or fragments of larger works, with the rest of the work omitted; and thus are out of scope for hosting on Wikisource:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The three miniatures translated by me are fully completed little novellas that have only an indirect relation to the content of the book that includes them. This is the case when one work, more extensive, contains another — smaller in volume: this happens in literature. The book written in genre of "travel literature", telling about real events. The miniatures (exhibited for delete) are created in the artistic genre. They are small fantasy scenes played in the mind of the main character of the documentary work. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Виктор Пинчук: If Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are NOT excerpts from Six months by islands..., but instead are themselves complete works, that were published within Six months by islands..., then I believe we can host them. As for Translation:Flight of fantasy, you identified it as a "fragment of an article"; so it does not appear to be a full article. If it is only a portion of an article, I do not think we can host it here. We can *omit* portions of an article, if necessary due to copyright, but in this case most of the article appears to be missing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beleg Tâl: Any of my newspaper articles is part of a series of articles devoted to some topic, and any of my books is part of a description of adventures from my life. So you can get to the point of absurdity, figuring out where a "part of the work" is and where "the whole work" is.
  • If, for example, an extensive newspaper article on a political topic describes a meeting of the president of a certain country with a representative of a neighboring state, at which one of those present told an anecdote unrelated to politics, then the anecdote taken out of context can be considered a separate work, and not part of an article on a political topic.
  • My Newspaper article (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Наяву_на_Яву_прибыл.jpg) written in the genre of "journalism", but the fragment (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Flight_of_fantasy) — that is part of it is written with the help of grotesque.Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    If an extensive newspaper article about politics contained an anecdote, I still don't think we would be willing to host the anecdote without the surrounding article. I'd be interested in seeing the opinions of other editors on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk in Cyrillic.
I would be gently inclined to keep this as it technically does meet WS:WWI (published, free license, original source text exists). Publication in a local paper is indeed a low bar, but we set the bar at "publication of any sort except self-publication". However, I would like to see the following issues addressed before I commit to a "keep":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There are several works by Pinchuk which I am not proposing for deletion, because they are published in a local paper and as such meet our publication requirements. The three which I am bringing to the attention of WS:PD are specifically because they are exerpts and not full works, as per WS:WWI#Excerpts. "Provincial story" and "Final swim" are not works, they are extracts from the 1916 book Six months by islands.... If the book Six months by islands... were added to Wikisource in full, I would have no further objection to keeping these portions within it. Similarly, "Flight of fancy" is a fragment of an article published in Respublica Krim; if the article in its entirety were to be hosted, I would have no further objection.
To your other comments: I have already scan-backed all of the other works we have by Pinchuk, and removed images or added {{image missing}} as needed. I'm neutral on the idea of having the entire structure of Respublica Krim in Translation space just for these articles (though of course I would demand it in mainspace). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, well, then I am guilty of not paying full attention and thought these were just small self-contained works. Indeed, all of these are fragments of works-as-published and thus are indeed out of scope. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Pinchuk has convinced me that Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are complete works per se, despite being published within a larger work. I am still not convinced about Translation:Flight of fantasy, which apparently is comparable to a tangential anecdote being exerpted from a longer article detailing the full conversation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Виктор Пинчук: thank you for the redaction of the image.
  • R.e. Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk, that is just a clarification to make it clear that you are the author in question in case it's not obvious to others. There's no problem with it.
  • R.e. the illustrations: Wikisource is a repository of texts as published. English Wikisource doesn't accept self-published works. Thus, while the version of the works that appeared in Respublica Krim are in scope, self-published editions are not. Also, under WS:ANN, Purely decorative illustrations and images. (Known as grangerisation or extra-illustration) are specifically excluded from permissible annotations.
  • Note that Wikisource is not a publishing platform for users work, it's a platform for published works, which in this case, just happens to be by a user: yourself. If it had not been published in a paper, it would be out of scope. If you would like to host your own work somewhere online and it's not in some published format, I do not think the WMF ecosystem contains such a platform. Usually content like that is published via personal website, blogs, or sites like Medium or those mentioned at meta:Wikifiction. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t have texts that have not been published in newspapers, magazines, or books, but there are illustrations that, for technical reasons, did not fit into officially publications. These illustrations are not Grangerization and they are not extra-illustration: they correspond to the theme of the material. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, @Inductiveload: Would you say that the issues raised here have been resolved and this thread can be closed, or is there still more to be done? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Alta California Report of the Bear River MassacreEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old.

  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000Edit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The American in HollandEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A scan is available here (IA) if someone wants to match and split the current text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Amyntas, A Tale of the WoodsEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. What part is not truthful? The text is incomplete, there is no source given, and the page was created on 13 June 2007. Languageseeker (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  Keep This is now scan backed. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of ScriptureEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • There is a link to the source on the discussion page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @EncycloPetey They don't quite seem to be the same source. The online text has features such as illegible text marked that the enWS text does not. It appears that someone "cleaned-up" the original transcription and created a new, unpublished edition of this text. Languageseeker (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Ingram)Edit

This is an incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • If you look at the discussion page, the source is identified and linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @EncycloPetey The discussion pages lists at least 5 different sources of which one is still under copyright. The question is which one of these five is the source? Languageseeker (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That is noted and explained in the Notes on the main page of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • @EncycloPetey So the 1912 text mentioned in header is actually a 2003 transcription of the 1912 work that has a copyright of 2003 and is for personal use only. Does that matter? Languageseeker (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • So you agree that this has a source, even though the deletion rationale you gave was that it is "unsourced"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @EncycloPetey Yes, I was wrong about the unsourced part. Mea Culpa. I went too fast on these. Despite this, it's still only a small fragment of a work that is over 400 pages long. Languageseeker (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Anne of GeiersteinEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. The text only has the Introduction and is missing all 36 chapters. The scan link was added in 2021 [1] and does not correspond to the same edition as stated on the header (1871 vs 1829). Languageseeker (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Myths and Tales from the San Carlos ApacheEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. The source is a defunct website. There is absolutely no way to assess where the text came from or to continue the work without finding a scan. Languageseeker (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Languageseeker: The Web-site is archived, and the archive contains the relevant text. Even if that were not the case, the singular priting is available here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete The text is incomplete and the original source no longer exists. The alternative source linked in the above discussion shows a document that differs markedly from what we currently have. If someone sets up an Index page and begins transcription, they can do so at this title, but the current content does not meet the standards of WS:WWI: It is a second-hand transcription; it lacks key content in the portions that have been included; and it is a partial work. Most significantly, it is a scholarly work which has had all the footnotes stripped from it. Academic citations are a central component of any scholarly work. Even if the rest of the text were pulled from the Archive of the web site, it is still a second-hand transcription, and lacks key content of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe to the OceanEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This is not an “incomplete” work, per se. It is an excerpt from “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,” although one that has historically been considered a separate work, as published under the title of “Address to the Ocean.” My !vote stands as to the stated rationale. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Augustus. The life and times of the founder of the Roman Empire (B.C. 63-A.D. 14)Edit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. The IA link was added in 2021 and does not necessarily reflect the source of the published text. Languageseeker (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization ActEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Keep There is a link to the fill text at the source of the document, which is a US Gov't website. This text has a trustable original source from which it can be completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Act for International Development of 1961Edit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete This page consists of a title, header, and history of the legislation, but no text of the Act itself. This is encyclopedic content, and outside our scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Act of Union 1800Edit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. The page is not formatted, there is no talk page to give a source neither is there one in the header; it was created in 2009; and it only has article one. Which part of my statement is untruthful? Languageseeker (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Languageseeker: The source is referenced; besides which, it is available from this volume, from p. 359. However, I do admit that the provided source was incorrect; it is not 40 Geo. 3 c. xxxviii. but 39 & 40 Geo. 3 c. 67. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsEdit

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

History of CawthorneEdit

From the notes on the discussion pages, this is an unformatted copydump of an unproofread OCR copydump from a defunct website. Languageseeker (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. This work is complete; a complete work should not be deleted without a more compelling reason than a lack of source. The work is largely formatted, and it was not derived, as far as I can tell, from OCR exclusively. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Scan found at IA. MSG17 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are serious about accuracy I would suggest that you obtain an original copy of the book and not rely upon copies reefed unceremoniously from pages that are already on the internet. Imitation is flattery but copying others transcriptions and corrections without acknowledgment should not be encouraged by Wikipedia." Languageseeker (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

      • @MSG17 Are you planning to M&S this text or start a fresh transcription? Languageseeker (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of the Sexual ImpulseEdit

Unformatted, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Work is complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. The work is unformated from a PGDP text file. It is missing it's footnotes and has numerous instances of italics marked as "_sexual impulse_." Languageseeker (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Languageseeker: The underscores can be replaced easily; I do not see how this problem justifies deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • @TE(æ)A,ea. If it were just the italics, I could see how that could be fixed by a bot, but the references would need to be added manually. They're more or less mixed into the text. IMHO, it would take quite a bit of work to finish this text and it seems better to be done on a scan than this. Languageseeker (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wreck of the Steamer "Stella"Edit

Speedy deletion contested: original by Languageseeker, with claim “out of scope - secondary transcription.” However, there is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. A secondary transcription is a transcription made at another site and then imported here, from my understanding of the closed proposal. This work is marked as “no source”; thus, it is not evident that it originated from an illegal source. For the record, I oppose the deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm interpreting the policy as including "no source" as being "secondary transcriptions" by default. Languageseeker (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. If there is no source, then it cannot be a secondary transcription, and if it is a secondary transcription, then it has a source. The two cases are inherently mutually exclusive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey What is to stop users from source washing by simply omitting the secondary source? Languageseeker (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be good to communicate to contributors clearly what we expect them to do, if what we want them to do is to provide a source we should explicitly communicate that to them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I did reach out to the user and offer to find them a scan. Part of the rationale for this policy is to stop further unsourced/secondary transcriptions. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You mean: how can you police the honesty of contributors? That's an entirely separate issue, and not relevant for this deletion discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk)
It’s about making a presumption that no source = secondary transcription as the most likely scenario. The other works that the user posted are from a secondary source. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This almost certainly was copied from one of the many secondary transcriptions online, which are probably copying each other and I hazard likely eventually back to Yet More Poetic Gems, which is a British 1980 compilation and therefore copyrighted (the compilation, probably not the poem). It would be a lot better if the original source could be found, probably in some periodical, but if it can't be, a "naked" text is the best we can have, though there would always be an open question over whether it was modified in the 1980 edition (with a small but non-zero risk of creative input: cf. the posthumous "improvement" of Charles Bukowski's work). So it could be an exception to the second hand text thing based on lack of public domain source. Any ideas where the original was published, anyone? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the poem was first published in 1962 in More Poetic Gems. Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)–
That can't be right, it sounds like it was likely first published in some local Dundee paper around the time of the event. That Wikipedia list looks like someone has just transcribed the TOCs of the collections at the IA. For example, apparently the one about Gilfillan was published in the Dundee Weekly News, not in a 1962 collection, 60 years after McGonagall's death. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This begets the question of how much work do we need to do to hunt down the original publication. If the uploader transcribed the poem from an original publication, they should be able to easily list it. Otherwise, I'm inclined to presume that they simply copied it from an online source. Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Can you solve the mystery and tell us the source of this poem? Languageseeker (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Worldcat says that the poem was originally published in 1899. But I haven't been able to find an instance of the original publication. DoublePendulumAttractor (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Languageseeker, @DoublePendulumAttractor: You might want to note that "Lines in Praise of Tommy Atkins" was also published in More Poetic Gems (1962).
I really don't have any access to print media (although I surely wish I did), and searching Google Books doesn't yield anything with "Preview available", but I do know that several other poems have been published posthumously; that might have been the case with these two poems. Just giving you some advice. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Thank you. This source would make it a secondary transcription and out-of-scope. Languageseeker (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep It rather seems to me that this poem will not be easy to scan-back due to lack of unambiguously copyright-free physical copies. While any one poem is clearly in the PD, the actual book Yet More Poetic Gems is not because copyright subsists in the collection itself, so we can't host a scan of that book.
Thus, I suggest that this poem should be permitted, since it's unreasonable to expect someone to use a scan if no-one can find a scan. If a scan comes along in future, probably due to digitisation of some local Dundee broadsheet, this "unsourced edition" (in that it's not clearly tied to a physical edition, though it likely is YMPGs) can be replaced with a suitably backed copy. In the mean time, we have {{unsourced}} and {{second-hand}} to make it's provenance, or lack thereof, clear.
This is, IMO, an appropriate time to invoke a WS:WWI#Consensus exception due to the unusual lack of any hostable scan for the work.
If scans were available, I would expect those to be used instead for all the usual reasons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
apparantly there is a broadsheet floating out there [2]; [3] - but it might be hard to find to scan. when you delete it you make it harder to find. (maybe you should contact the Univ Edin. group at WMUK --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
National Library of Scotland has a print copy dated 1899 [4]. Therefore in scope (as are any other of McGonagall's poems being nominated). As we have NLS people involved here talk to their liaison contact @LilacRoses: and see if they can help. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Kidnapped - Stevenson (1895)Edit

Unsourced reprint of the scan-backed text Kidnapped - Stevenson (1887). Languageseeker (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Just redirect the pages of the old version to the chapters of the new version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • They're not printed from the plates, so it's not quite correct to just redirect. Languageseeker (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It's unsourced with an existing scan-backed version so   Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep It is not unsourced. Create an Index page from the scan and set it up to be migrated. Mpaa (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Just who are you !voting should do this work? Xover (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
??? Mpaa (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Just who is it you are !voting should "Create an Index page from the scan and set it up to be migrated."? Xover (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
It is just my suggested course of action. Whoever is interested can pick it or drop it. Same as "Just redirect the pages ..." above or "rather migrate" below. Mpaa (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the "rather migrate" below (and spammed across every discussion here) is about as useful. The "just redirect" is an effective delete vote, and within the bounds of what falls under the necessary work of handling deletion discussions. But finding and checking a scan, uploading it, creating an index, match&splitting, proofreading all ~375 pages, and then re-transcluding is a "somewhat" bigger ask. Unless you're actually offering to this yourself, you're effectively voting that someone else should do all this work. Xover (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You are making your own reality. My vote was clear and I added it would be better migrate the page. As far as "who will do what", it will be who will feel like, as it is always been. Do not lecture me about what I am willing to do or not. Mpaa (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
And while you are giving such lessons, ask yourself why you deleted this: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=11120068 and look at the history of the page. Mpaa (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Uhm. Because it was proposed for deletion and all participating in the discussion were in favour of its deletion? As the link to the discussion that was included in the deletion log indicated? If you believe it was deleted in error then feel free to open an undeletion discussion. If you think I messed up (always a possibility) then I'd appreciate a headsup so I can fix whatever the mistake was. Xover (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
If you can't see it by yourself, too bad. Mpaa (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
You're really going to make me guess? *sigh* But, ok, provided I've guessed correctly… I've opened an undeletion discussion for it down in #Undelete Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and temporarily undeleted it pending the outcome, and pinged the participants of the previous discussion. I'd give good odds the outcome will be keep, as it usually is when anyone even expresses an interest in working on a text that's been proposed for deletion, not to mention when they've actually started working on it. Much as it would have been had you noted the fact you were working on it in the original discussion at any point during the 5+ weeks it was open. And as it also would have been had you dropped a note about the issue on my talk page a week and a half ago when it was deleted, so I could have reopened the discussion and polled the participants as we usually do in these situations. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a delete outcome for a text that someone is actually working on proofreading. Xover (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

1990 Census Name FilesEdit

This is a severely incomplete dump of a US Census Bureau website, containing only a tiny fraction of the data, and that is sourced to the Internet Archive archive of the website rather than the website itself. It is also mainly raw census statistical data (apart from the cover page), so strictly speaking out of scope. But mostly it's just pretty pointless for us to (badly) mirror the Internet Archive's mirror of a born-digital website which was subject to USGov archival regulations to begin with (you can still FOIA-request those pages and expect to have them handed over). Xover (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep (weak). This page is in scope, and the dist.all.last directory is also technically in scope, by being an accompaniment to the main report. However, I do not think the table listing should be hosted, and I certainly think a listing of the first one hundred items in that list is more definitely so. However, excluding the somewhat related attachments, the page is complete, and connects to other pages. I would prefer neither of the pages be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep born digital file that our "open" government persists in publishing in pdf. when you have reliable data link, migrate to commons data. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Index:King Alfred's Old English version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, turned into modern English.djvuEdit

This has been declined for a speedy delete, but I fail to see how this is not a duplicate of King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies Turned Into Modern English. Languageseeker (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: The two title pages list 1902 and 1904 as the date, respectively, so they are clearly not identical. Both are scan-backed and fully proofread (though the proofreading does leave a bit to be desired, it seems: Page:King Alfred's Old English version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies - Hargrove - 1902.djvu/61). Xover (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Xover I think there is some confusion because the 1902 scan actually contains actually contains two separate works: Yale Studies in English XIII (1902) and Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). The proposed deletion is for Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). So I'm asking how does the Yale Studies in English XXII (1904) differ from Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). My personal sense is that the fact that the 1902 book is bound with the 1904 work has thrown people off the scent. Languageseeker (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary (unsourced)Edit

Unsourced version of a work for which we have multiple scan-backed editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Subtemplates of {{user lang subcat}}Edit

I've made significant edits to {{user lang subcat}}, and its subtemplates are now just invocations of the main template. I've removed all uses of the subtemplates, and I think it would be good to delete them so as to avoid unnecessary maintenance. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 07:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1880)Edit

This work is not backed by a scanned source, the text contains numerous OCR artefacts, and there are clear instances where text is missing. These defects cannot be rectified because there is no indication of the original source (there is no front matter). There is a scan backed version of the work at Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1920), so this work should be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. I added links to 1880 scans from the British Library on the author page if someone wants to create the index files to start a new proofreading effort from scratch. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 09:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep and replace with scans per the links added by MarkLSteadman. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administratorsEdit

I came across this while browsing the Category:Wikipedia content category, but it just seems to be a list of administrators on another project, rather than content? Is this actually useful at all here, given that having Wikipedia admin access doesn't confer any extra access rights here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Comment This category is automatically added by {{User Wikipedia administrator}}, so deleting the category would mean nothing unless the template were also altered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Index:Newton's Principia - the mathematical principles of natural philosophy.djvuEdit

This appears to be a duplicate of the work already fully transcribed at Index:Newton's Principia (1846).djvu Chrisguise (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity/FullTextEdit

This is the transclusion of the entire work of 'A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity' in one page, but the same index page is also transcluded into individual chapters as per the published work's table of contents. This page should therefore be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Daniel DerondaEdit

Languageseeker originally speedied this, where I converted it into a {{delete}} template. The comment they left was: "scan back version complete at Daniel Deronda (First Edition). Per the notes, this does not correspond to any printed edition."

I agree with the nomination, so   Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Delete per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Delete In case Daniel_Deronda is deleted in favor of Daniel_Deronda_(First_Edition), all the subpages https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Daniel_Deronda/Volume* should also be deleted so they're not becoming orphant. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)