Wikisource:Proposed deletions

(Redirected from Wikisource:DEL)
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.


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


This template is not currently transcluded anywhere on the project—and as best I can tell never has been—and was imported from enwp (over an older WS-specific template) by John Vandenberg in 2008 based on a WS:S discussion where it was brought up as one possible solution. Apart from a few discussion pages that link to it, and See also links from the docs for {{familytree}} and {{chart2}}, it's not used anywhere on the project. So far as I know it's been entirely obsoleted by Chart2, and all these are likely to be even more obsoleted once the WMF eventually gets around to start pushing their horribly overengineered modern and powerful general chart solution.

This template and all its myriad subtemplates are currently generating about a hundred lint errors. --Xover (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean Extension:Graph which seems more concerned with data charts, or Extension:Graphviz for things more like org charts and family trees? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The former. See e.g. task T137291. The Chart extension seems likely to be the new basis for all such functionality eventually (but probably not very soon: there still aren't dedicated resources assigned to it afaik). --Xover (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Meh, its presence isn't hurting anyone —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete happy to cull an unneeded, and code problematic template. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   DeleteMpaa (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifestEdit

Previously discussed at WS:CV as a copyright issue (kept). Original PDF was deleted with minimal discussion at Commons, and an undeletion request declined citing privacy concerns. As best I can tell regarding copyright, this is simply {{PD-ineligible}}.

However, a recurring issue in all the previous discussions was whether the data is in scope per WS:WWI. It was highly relevant in 2014 at the time of the incident, so it was probably smart to keep it at the time for that reason alone, but now that it has had time to fade into history a little bit I think we should assess properly whether this is worth keeping. And let me be clear: the same factors that make this ineligible for copyright (lack of original expression) also argue that this is not within scope for Wikisource. Arguments to the contrary that turn the work into being a copyright violation are probably not particularly effective. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Keep This is clearly in scope as a documentary source, being "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". I also agree that this is {{PD-ineligible}}. We will need to get a hold of that PDF for local hosting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The PDF can be retrieved from w:File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a raw list of passengers on the relevant flight that IMO bears little resemblance to … constitutions and treaties [and] personal correspondence and diaries.. It does, however, sound quite a lot like 1. Lists;… 3. Tables of data or results, better known as Reference material, to me. However, the full report on that accident—which presumably includes that list in an appendix somewhere—would clearly be a documentary source. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reference material is also in scope if "it is published as part of a complete source text". As far as I can tell this PDF is a complete source text, or do you have evidence to indicate otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The exception for a "complete source text" refers to Reference data that is provided as part of larger publication (tables, appendices, etc.) is perfectly acceptable. The passenger list is just a dump of data from the airline's booking system (it's literally a tab separated dump of some rows of the database with minimal formatting: I've written the code to produce such about a gazillion times for various purposes over the years); unlike the complete accident report that would include such data as a table or in an appendix. That a mere data dump is "complete" does not ipso facto turn it into a "publication"; and reference material is not in scope on its own, it is merely "perfectly acceptable" if it is here because it is a part of a work that is in scope. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that by publishing this data dump as a complete PDF document, AirAsia has turned it into a documentary source that is evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events (the other stuff listed there are just examples and their similarity to the document in question is of no relevance). The entire contents of this documentary source is reference material which is published as part of the complete source text as released by AirAsia. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, it is still a valid interpretation of WS:WWI and therefore in my opinion this document should be kept regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be a fundamental disagreement on the best course of action for this work among the (two) participants in this discussion. I would therefore request wider community input to enable a proper determination of consensus. All input would be valuable for that purpose: "keep", "delete", "dunno", "don't care", and whatever else you think relevant would all be helpful in that regard. --Xover (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Beeswaxcandle: As the only two still-active participants in the previous discussion, do you have an opinion on this issue? --Xover (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion and the community made a decision at that time. I generally don't revisit discussions unless there is a specific change in the circumstance around the decision. Generally we would live with previous discussions whether we agree voted for or against it, whether we agree or disagree with that decision. [Don't pick scabs] — billinghurst sDrewth
  •   Keep: This seems like a fairly un-controversial piece of documentary evidence. It's not particularly mind-blowing, but it's real, and it was part of a then-current event. Assuming it really is {{PD-ineligible}} in the places needed, that is - it's PD in Indonesia because it's not a "work" there. Does it also need to be PD in the US, and if so, is it? If it is PD, recommend scan-backing to the PDF and tidying up. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: The copyright issue was settled well enough in previous discussions, whose conclusions I agree with: this is ineligible for copyright in the US due to not rising above the threshold of originality (it's just a dump of their passenger database). For works that are not eligible for copyright protection at all in the US, we don't need to care about the usual URAA and status in country of first publication stuff (AIUI).
    The question at hand in this discussion, and which is what has made it linger without resolution, is whether it is in scope for Wikisource. The question was raised repeatedly in previous discussions, but never addressed directly (the context then was copyright); and in this discussion I and Beleg Tâl reach diametrically opposite conclusions (and Billinghurst robustly refuses to address the issue). --Xover (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is in scope of WS, and it looks like it falls under PD-inelligible. If kept, it should be backed by the PDF document. However, if Commons declined the document for privacy reasons, can we ignore this concern? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: We have no local policy that addresses privacy beyond what the WMF Terms of Use impose. This is also a well-publicised public record (you can bet this same list of names scrolled across the TV screens of a bazillion news broadcasts at the time), and not all that sensitive, so whether we host a copy of it is of little matter in that sense. I brought up the Commons deletion mainly because it smacks of being a knee-jerk deletion. I don't personally think we should give Commons' decision excessive weight in this particular instance (others may of course disagree). Iff we keep it we'd need to upload it locally instead of on Commons, but we do that all the time anyway due to the differing copyright policies.
    That said, I do agree we should consider privacy in such cases in general, and particularly when, like in this case, it's just a list of victims names. But to me that falls under the scope issue that prompted this nomination: where is the value we bring there? Why do we need to host this mere list of names stripped of context? As a data appendix to the full air accident report, certainly; but when stripped out on its own like this? I just don't see that it falls within scope as defined in WS:WWI (which is, as all our policies, way too imprecise and handwavy for comfort, but…), and if it does then I don't see why it should be. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, we should definitely take privacy issues into account and the value of the bare list of victims’ names is so low that it cannot overpower this concern, no matter whether we take it as a separate issue or as a part of our scope. So finally I come to   Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Overly complex, will soon be unused (outside of testcases). Per certain contributors views on over-complicated layouts. The related family of templates and associated module should probably be reviewed as well.

This is an overly complicated train-wreck of a template, that would need a major overhaul before it's anything like suitable for use on English Wikisource, and still remains incompatible with many other templates in common use.

Delete and redesign, once existing usages have been resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete These complex formatting templates can be a boon, but they have a steep cost so using (creating) them wisely is recommended. Works large and regular enough to merit work-specific formatting templates (like EB1911, DNB, etc.), and without too complex formatting needs, will be the optimal use case. If the users of this template are frustrated by ongoing and unfixable problems and interactions with other templates, that's a strong indication that this template is not worth the hassle. --Xover (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Xover, see also comment below about numbered div , and possible re-implementation using a styled definition list. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ShakespeareFan00: Can you confirm that the nominations was in regards {{cl-act-p}} including sub-templates (i.e. {{cl-act-p/1}}, {{cl-act-p/1-2}}, {{cl-act-p/2}}, {{cl-act-p/2a}}, {{cl-act-p/3}}, {{cl-act-p/4}}, {{cl-act-p/x}}, {{cl-act-p/indexstyle}})? And should I presume it also includes the sister templates in Special:PrefixIndex/Template:cl-act? I see the main {{cl-act}} template is still in use, so I presume that's not intended to be deleted. Anything else from that list that likewise shouldn't be deleted?
    Also, I notice that several of these were first created by JustinCB who has not so far participated in this discussion. Do you have an opinion either way JustinCB? --Xover (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    It didn't include {{cl-act}} which was still in use. Anything that was still in use was not to be deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also excluded -

  • Cl-act
  • Cl-act-TOC-h0
  • Cl-act-TOC-h1
  • Cl-act-TOC-h2
  • Cl-act-TOC-h3
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1/2
  • Cl-act-TOC-s2
  • Cl-act-h1
  • Cl-act-h2
  • Cl-act-h3
  • Cl-act-layout
  • Cl-act-missing
  • Cl-act-cons
  • Cl-act-amend
  • Cl-act-pre
  • Cl-act-pre-nt
  • Cl-act-s
  • Cl-act-s1
  • Cl-act-s1-repealed
  • Cl-act-s1/2
  • Cl-act-s2
  • Cl-act-s2/3
  • Cl-act-s3
  • Cl-act-s4
  • Cl-act-style
  • Cl-act-t
  • Cl-act-t-int
  • Cl-act-t-int1
  • Cl-act/doc
  • Cl-act/sandbox

As these are STILL in use (and the previous attempt by others.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment I am holding off on this one because I'm waiting to hear from JustinCB (who has not edited since last October). --Xover (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Template was repaired, and complexity is not a deletion reason. Module code needs commenting on how things are done...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of RojavaEdit

Incomplete machine translation untouched since 2016, and by a contributor that has not edited since 2016, with no source, no license (though we would probably consider it PD-EdictGov), and in the wrong namespace (it's a Wikisource translation of the foreign-language original). It popped up on my radar because it's the kind of thing that attracts both vandals and "factual corrections". --Xover (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource translations are kind of the wild west. Suggest to move to Translations page and tag it with translation license|original={{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. How about we just provide a link to the original on Google Translate? If we can track it down, as no source is provided. What possible value can a straight machine translation that will never be worked on have? Are we willing to keep any old thing so long as it's called a translation? And conversely, do we really want the translation namespace to be a dumping ground for low-quality cruft that overwhelms what high-quality translations we have (do we have any high-quality translations?)? I swear, some times on here I feel like I've wandered into an episode of Hoarders! Come on people, let's get some KonMari going here! --Xover (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol. Translation namespace is kind of a dumping ground for low-quality cruft - even WS:T notes that "there is no requirement to show any level of competence in a subject or a language to participate". However, there is a way to get around it: if the work was added after July 2013 (such that the grandfather rule does not apply), and if a scan-backed copy is not present on the original language Wikisource, then technically it falls afoul of WS:T and we can delete it as such :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, this clearly and straightforwardly fails to meet WS:T on multiple scores. First and foremost, WS:T says A full translation into English, by Wikisource contributors, of a work previously published in another language. (emphasis in original). This is neither a "full translation", nor meaningfully "by Wikisource contributors" (it's cut&paste from Google Translate, the exclusion of which was an explicit goal of WS:T). It also says A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation. Neither of which clauses are met here. And, finally, it says Works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion …. Which brings us to this proposal.
I don't think these are mere technicalities, or having the policy becomes pointless. But still we keep moving these low-quality works into Translation: where they gather dust indefinitely… --Xover (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think one could argue that this is a "full" translation in the sense that there is no part left untranslated, and that this is "by Wikisource contributors" in the sense that "the resulting copyright owner would be the user of the software". There is an inter-wiki link to ar:العقد الاجتماعي للفيدرالية الديمقراطية لروج آفا – شمال سوريا as required. We have yet to establish a consensus of what constitutes "abandoned for long periods" (someone argued to me recently that February 2019 counted as "a long time ago", which I'm sure even you would agree is insufficient).
To sum up, I think that this discussion has the ability to set precedent for many other works in Translation space and so we should be very clear about what we are willing to tolerate. In my opinion, "abandoned for long periods" is the key argument here, so putting a value on "long periods" would be a good starting point. The rest are, in my opinion, technicalities. We could also consider explicitly disallowing machine translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that two years of inactivity is a good line to draw, what do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
See, the thing is, we do disallow machine translations! That was explicit and uncontested in the RFC that led up to the 2013 update of WS:T, it was just never actually written into the policy page (because we have such a lax attitude towards formal policies). And the way translations were supposed to work (again, explicit in the RFC) is that 1) a scan-backed foreign language work is proofread on the appropriate language WS, then 2) an index for the foreign-language work is set up here and 3) the translation done in the Page: namespace as if proofreading, before 4) transcluding into the Translation: namespace. Translated works here should cover no more of the work than is already proofread in the original language's WS if it is not complete. The decision to require a scan-backed foreign-language proofread work was deliberate. The goal of the RFC was to clean up the mess that had accrued prior, so being strict about what Wikisource translations were to be permitted was by design. And yet we're treating it as the exact opposite.
In any case, I very much agree with your other points except the "technicalities" bit. All those things are standards set through the RFC in order to give guidance for just such discussions as this. Not that they can't be overruled when the case requires it and consensus supports it (everything can), but it changes the default presumption and prevents rehashing each aspect every time.
As to time period, I'd happily accept anything between one and three years for incomplete stuff sitting in the Translation: namespace. For incomplete translation sitting in the Page: namespace (and scan-backed) I would not personally be in any hurry, so maybe 3+ years with a low bar to resetting the clock if anybody expresses an interest in working on it. --Xover (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It is strange to me that this RFC (which I have not read) is so different from the policy that resulted from it. When I (independently) began creating scan-backed user translations a couple of years ago, some other admins flagged my work as out of scope, and said that what I was doing was "very unusual", so this is not well known even among the more experienced admins. I think I am more anti-deletionist than most, so there is also that. But yeah, three years sounds good (and if no one objects to it, I'd count this as precedent). As far as machine translations go: I just realized that if it were not masquerading as a Wikisource original translation I would have no hesitation to nuke it as an unpublished translation in violation of WS:WWI, so I guess that rationale works here too since no original content has been added to it. But I do think machine translations should be explicitly addressed in WS:T. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment move it to the contributor's user namespace, and leave them a note that if finished that it belongs in the Translation: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      Support A good compromise, I didn't think of that, but we should probably take this course of action more often. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Regarding moves to User space, you moved the work Translation:Mayan legends (discussed below) to User space for much this reason, but it was then moved out of user space by another user without the underlying issues having been resolved. Any ideas how to prevent this? Perhaps an {{mbox}} or category (or both) to track and educate? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: We can handle it in a number of ways. 1) simply protect the work against a move, either soft or hard; 2) write a filter that disallows it, or warns against it, and a permission level, or some of the AF rights or other conditions that can be applied; 3) simply write a filter that flags such a move out of a namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Moving junk to user space solves very little: it's just another namespace to use as a dumping ground. At the very least this option should only be applicable when the user in question is active and asserting an intent to work at something that may eventually be suitable for a content namespace (and should be a time-limited grace period even then). And once we start accumulating junk in User: space it is going to be essentially impossible to clean up: main and Translation: space have at least some standards, User: has none. --Xover (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Xover: Yes, though qualified. Firstly, we have always been pretty liberal with our user ns, and as long as it is not abuse, or clearly contravening decency, we have allowed numbers of constructs where they are within the true nature of Wikimedia. Secondly, we delete junk, though there can be occasions when it may not be, and you simply want the time to explore, discuss and don't want the user to get kicked in the guts when they are seemingly, or trying to be, doing the right thing, but it doesn't fit. If the user ns is less pure, so what. It is user space, it isn't primarily indexed, and if it has some constructs, and they are not harmful, they are not copyright, they are not abuse, what do we really care??? I have pages of junk in my user space, some of which I prod and turn over, some of which I do not. One user has 00s of proto WP articles here. How is any of that different? — billinghurst sDrewth 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'll grant that moving to userspace does achieve the most critical aim: it gets junk out of the main content namespaces. I'll also stipulate a general exception for instances where we have something that is not yet, but may eventually be, suitable for main/Translation: and where a user is actively asserting an intent to work on it in their sandbox. That's essentially the "don't discourage [kick in the guts] contributors" scenario.
    What I am objecting to is using Translation: and User: space (or any other namespace) as dumping grounds for stuff that would otherwise be deleted. The case at hand is a machine translation straight out of Google Translate. It has had minimal wiki formatting, but the translation itself has not been fixed. It's been sitting there untouched for well over three years (2016). The user who uploaded it has not edited for three years. In other words, it's junk that has zero realistic chance of ever being worked on at all, much less improved to the point we'd host it.
    And every page of junk we have sitting around has a maintenance cost. Take this one, dumped in Translation: where we tend to dump everything, sitting there with a {{under construction}} tag that puts it in a maintenance category, contributing to the backlog and hiding other articles needing attention. It attracts "corrections" and vandalism, showing up in Recent Changes and needing patrolling. If it had templates in it it would be another page needing (possibly manual) intervention when migrating or deprecating templates. Etc. Nothing much to care about for one page, but something that accumulates quickly if we make a habit of it (which this thread is in danger of creating precedent to do).
    I have no complaints about a user creating a gazillion sandboxes and works in progress in their user space: it's us using the user space of an absent user as a convenient place to hide our trash that's the problem. Sooner or later it'll start to stink bad enough to lower property values in the whole neighbourhood. --Xover (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

History of Delaware CountyEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept; now scan-backed, and within general scope

The preface of the work of the same name, with no other work done. Incomplete since 2010 “extraction.” As there is no impetus for the completion of this abandoned work, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

  •   Keep As usual, I move to migrate this to a scan-backed edition of the full work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Scan is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete I am afraid that this work is going to follow the following typical scenario: an abandoned work is nominated for deletion, then at least the scan is uploaded and title and contents pages (which were not even proofread) are transcluded, and after this the work is quickly abandoned again. Unless sombedy declares that they are going to work on it, I vote for deletion of the abandoned work from the main namespace while keeping it in the index namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete mainspace as abandoned extract and per Jan above. Index: and Pages: can stay. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'm going to hold off on closing this for a bit in case anyone else would like to chime in, but based on the above the outcome here looks like deleting the excerpt/incomplete mainspace transclusion and keeping the Index:/Page:-pages/scan. --Xover (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep I would be glad to work on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's excellent news! I see Beleg Tâl has already uploaded a scan and set up an index and basic transclusion structure for it. Do you need any other help getting started? I see a lot of your work recently has been on non-scan-backed texts. Are you familiar with the whole scan→index→page→transclude setup we use here? --Xover (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have not, and need help! I have been transcribing single articles from newspapers. I would love to contribute to larger projects. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'll follow this up on your talk page. --Xover (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Realign OCREdit

Proposed for deletion, given concerns from another contributor that it may be "over-templating", when the index ns pages it was used on are already indicated as "Source file needs to be fixed". As an intriem edit I've changed this into being a "silent categorisation" template, although as it is currently unused, this could be considered as a speedy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally, discussion whether we need/want some template should always precede its removal from Wikisource pages, not vice versa.
As for this particular one, I am unable to say any opinion, as the template has never had any documentation showing its purpose (creating a template should always be conditioned by creating a well-written and detailed documentation page) and as you have even changed the template prior to this proposal, so I cannot see anywhere what it is/was supposed to provide. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Daughter of HeavenEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept; now scan-backed and within general scope — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned transcription, which is incomplete..

Closest edition I could find on a quick serach is -
Scans of a near identical edition at -

Suggest deletion of the unsourced version, and upload of the actual scans instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The contributor added the text very short time ago and had already had some other non-scan additions before. It may be a good chance to show them the preferred scan-backed way of contributing, so if you were able to upload the scan and match the current work to the scanned pages, there is IMO a good chance that the original contributor may continue with proofreading. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is now scan backed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I note that no progress has been made since Beleg Tâl scan-backed it and am inclined (as should be no surprise) to question whether we need the excerpt sitting in mainspace under those circumstances. That being said I have not yet formed an opinion on how best to deal with this specific case. --Xover (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep work in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Translation:Exhortation of Wuhan Public Security Bureau Wuchang Branch Zhongnan Road Street Police StationEdit

Translation:Exhortation of Wuhan Public Security Bureau Wuchang Branch Zhongnan Road Street Police Station was created by Njzjz and was deleted as a speedy deletion at 03:44, 8 February 2020. The reason for this speedy deletion given in edit summary is "WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope". But this file is a translation of zh:武汉市公安局武昌分局中南路街派出所训诫书, a legal document issued to Li Wenliang by a police department of China, which is in public domain according to the law of China. I think that it is a "documentary source" that is allowed to be included in Wikisource per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, and can be put in Category:Legal documents. I don't understand why it is beyond scope of Wikisource. Hope that it could be undeleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Since the text was speedied under G5 (beyond scope) rather than copyright or other "hard" deletion reason, I have temporarily undeleted it in order to facilitate a community discussion. The undeletion is temporary and should not have any bearing on the outcome of this discussion, beyond enabling the community to see what they are discussing. --Xover (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Hmm. Looking at the copyright, my initial thought is that it's borderline for PD-PRC-exempt and EdictGov. It's an admonishment issued under Chinese law, but it has limited claim to being itself a law, ordnance, judicial or administrative ruling, etc. Or put another way, it practices the law but does not define the law in any sensible manner. I would not, personally, see this as clearing the bar for exemption under either Chinese copyright law or EdictGov in the US.
    I also think this has some privacy issues that makes me uncomfortable hosting it.
    Finally there's the issue of scope… Under our current policy definitions it does not appear clear to me that this work would be excluded. It is not obviously an excerpt, even though it is a single-page form. While the original (non-form) text is brief, it does not appear to be simply data or tables. It is not an evolving work. It is not a previously unpublished scientific work. And so forth. That being said, I am, personally, not sure that this should be in scope: it sits in a grey area where good arguments might sway me in either direction.
    What is clear to me is that if we are to keep this we need to set up an index for it and move the translation to the Page: namespace; and the translation itself should be improved beyond the fairly mechanical one that's currently there. For this kind of text the sourcing and quality must be impeccable (out of respect for Dr. Li and his family, if nothing else).
    @Jusjih: I would like to see your perspective on this. --Xover (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    In my view, this letter, as an administrative ruling, is in public domain according to Article 5 of the Copyright Law of China, which states that copyright shall not be applicable to "documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature". And I don't think there is any privacy issue here since a picture of the original letter was posted by Dr. Li Wenliang himself to his own Sina Weibo account. It can be presumed that Dr. Li was willing to let the whole world know the content of the letter. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    That Dr. Li posted it himself ameliorates but does not remove the privacy concerns. He was under considerable stress at the time this was posted (and, depending on the timing, may indeed even have been ill), and may well have reconsidered or chosen differently under different circumstances. Since he is now dead the issue also affects his heirs who have a legitimate interest in the issue. We should certainly take such issues into account when deciding how to deal with this text. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    The fact that Dr. Li received this letter, and even the content of this letter, have been widely reported. The specific words in this letter do not expose any new substantial information. Probably Dr Li's birth date, the name of the WeChat group, and the names of the two police officers in this letter can be removed from the translation for privacy concerns. But anyway readers can know all the content of the letter by looking at File:李文亮的训诫书.png on Commons. Hiding that information on Wikisource seems meaningless if File:李文亮的训诫书.png is not deleted on Commons. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep mainly per Neo-Jay's explanation. IMO it can be also tagged as PD-ineligible as I can see there no creative input. The document is definitely in our scope, as a document "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Similar speedies are really harmful. The summary accompanying the deletion was WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope. The summary unfortunately did not contain any hint why the admin considers it beyond the scope. Looking at the first of the provided links, there is written "Beyond scope: The content clearly lies outside the scope of Wikisource (such as advertisements or book descriptions without text)" and the other link goes to a page stating that WS includes documents "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events", which seems contrary to this deletion. No trace of anything suggesting why the deleted page should clearly lie beyond the WS scope: Admins speedy-deleting works should take into account whether it is only their opinion or whether they can really suppose it would be generally considered clear by the community, and speedy delete pages only in the latter case. Speedy deletes for being out of scope should be used only in cases where discussion is useless because it is clear that its verdict would be "out of scope". Unlike in this case, admins should also always explain the reason why it is beyond the scope in the summary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    1. Thanks for noting contributor's talk page where I explained what I had done, and how to bring it here for discussion.
    2. I will put it to you that a work should be demonstrated to be within scope, it is not to the administrator to demonstrate otherwise from anything but the contribution itself. The process for scope is that historical / evidentiary documents and people demonstrated to be notable, it is not a blanket opening for any evidentiary document. The person is not an author, and their notability was neither demonstrated nor evident from the document. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The work has now been scan backed; deletion must also include Index:李文亮的训诫书.png. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    Chinese Wikisource considers it PD-PRC-exempt while believed to be governmental administrative document. If no other comment, I propose keeping it per Neo-Jay.--Jusjih (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Help:Wikilivres and Template:WikilivresEdit

I was an admin on Wikilivres and I'm very sorry that it's gone. But it is gone. It's been offline since the middle of August 2019. That's six months now. It's obviously not coming back. Keeping a load of dead links to it on Wikisource is only going to make Wikisource look bad. I think Help:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres should be deleted and all links to the defunct site should be removed. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Note There is a related discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikilivres is gone. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As I mentioned in the other discussion, my initial take is that removal of Wikilivres links cannot be reliably automated, so if we delete this template we will also have to manually go through all transclusions and manually remove them. There's around a thousand of them so a bit of work, but entirely doable. --Xover (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, also, this affects {{wikilivres page}} too. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, I propose Template:Wikilivres page for deletion too. Unfortunately, that means that all the pages on which it appears will have to be deleted as well. I understand that most of the links to Wikilivres will have to be removed by hand. I will try to help by removing as many as I can. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    We should be really careful with deleting pages with Template:Wikilivres page, because some of them may have meanwhile slipped into PD and so should be restored instead. For example The Poems of Sappho were deleted here as a copyvio and moved to Wikilivres in 2013, but now it should be in public domain, as the work was published in 1924 (see Author:Edwin Marion Cox). There can be many cases like this and other may follow in the near future too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's more complicated than that. I've checked, and our Poems of Sappho was an extract from that book, and nowhere near the complete text. It extracted the Greek text and English translations of a few poems without the text of the book that Cox wrote, leaving us with less than 2% of the actual book. So, for that work, it would be better to start from scratch with a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I agree with Poems of Sappho. However, we should be cautious before we delete all the mentioned pages and no mass delete without checking should be performed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: Just to be clear: there is no proposal here to delete any actual works. All that's proposed is to delete the (now dead) links to works on Wikilivres. The reason I caution against automation above is because the templates and links are used in very variable ways on Author: pages etc., so automated removal would be likely to leave such pages with various forms of breakage.
    Regarding undeletion: we certainly have the technical means to undelete any page we've previously deleted, and pages that were deleted only due to a now-expired copyright should be undeleted. Sadly we have no good system to track these and rely entirely on users requesting undeletion at the right --Xover (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)time.
  •   Keep for Help:Wikilivres, as an archived page tagged with the {{historical}} notice.   Delete for Template:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres page, but we should check every use of the latter for cases like Poems of Sappho and localize or delete as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


  1. at some point I will need to be undertaking maintenance to special:interwiki for both wikilivres and bibliowiki links. If we know that there is a complete collection at "WayBack machine" or close to, then we can maybe update the interwikis if it is a universal static replacement. If the stem of the urls have variance, then that will not be possible, and we will have to do a removal.
  2. If we need to kill the links interwiki links in {{header}} and {{author}}, then that just becomes a simple task of killing those visible link components s in the respective header templates, and not fussing about removing until someone is maintaining those pages. We can put tracking categories in place.
  3. If we need to kill templates in the body of works, we can just neuter the templates, and then run a bot through to remove.
  4. Don't forget to check for "bibliowiki" components as that used to be a name in the mix.
  5. We can probably look to redirect all templated links to Help:Wikilivres and add some additional information about the site's demise.
  6. Generate a list of deleted works, with the dates that they can be resurrected, and keep that list on Help:Wikilivres and tick of those as we recover them, or determine not to do so.

billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep If nothing else, mark historical. There is no value in deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Senator Paul on Impeachment of President TrumpEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept the speech, though I have redacted what I guess is the contentious quote in section, firstly it isn't his quote, and we have previously redacted components of other people's works submitted to US Congress. I have also deleted the earlier edits. I have left the citation of source. If anyone believes that this is too far, or not far enough, then please make a note below and the closure and that can be addressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
correcting statement, I misread the text, and the quote was indeed the author's a compromise of redacting names has been made. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for deletion because Xover would rather eternally bitch about how it should have been nominated, than just nominate it themselves. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. We are not censors. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep For the same reasons I wrote above, but please don't use language like this @Hesperian:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a public domain speech published in the Congressional Record and viewable on C-SPAN as I noted on the talk page for the document. Objections to this are that the speech allegedly includes the name of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment of Donald Trump. Nowhere in the speech is any specific name alleged to be that of the whistleblower. Even if it alleged that a specific name was that of the whistleblower, I do not see any local policy that this would violate nor any part of the Terms of Use that this would violate. Claims about "privacy" do not seem valid given the widespread media coverage of this name as that of the whistleblower, including social media posts by the President of the United States, and numerous fact-checking organizations and media outlets have found no law prohibits identifying the alleged whistleblower. Again, this speech does not identify anyone as the whistleblower, but even if it did it would not change the fact there is no policy grounds to remove the document.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I just feel gamed here, especially with The Devil's Advocate explaining how there's absolutely no reason at all for him to have transcribed this text, no, not one, it was totally random. If we want to transcribe the Congressional Record, let's transcribe the Congressional Record, not one excerpt from it that is a hot potato in some political game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was random. Not every part of the Congressional Record is of such historical significance that we would have any reason to copy it over. One might be inclined to copy over every Senator's comments from the Congressional Record on impeachment, though a lot of it would be redundant talking points. Either way, I think it is pretty clear Paul's speech on impeachment is of historical significance and it is in large part because of the political controversy surrounding it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hesperian, proposed deletions is not a space to play games. See above: "This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy". When somebody asks me to consider deleting something, I expect them to explain me the point in detail, especially which rule has been violated and in what manner and extent it has been violated. I have learnt nothing of that kind, your "resoning" shows only some frustration which I know nothing about and you are misusing this site to cure it. So I am suggesting to speedy close the proposal and if somebody really thinks that the work should be deleted, they can open a new proposal with proper rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems unfair to the person who just voted delete.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Jan: I have opened this discussion in good faith. Allegations have been made that community discussion on this is being stifled; this will not stand, man. Hesperian 03:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • fairly ambivalent about the work, though   Keep as it is within scope, and that I don't personally agree with the politics of our RW contributors, that is not the discussion. I would also be completely comfortable redacting the works in question, and./or having them reappear at some into the future, and we could apply the template logic per {{copyright until}} to redact the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This serves only one purpose, and it's not a good one. There is a reason why no mainstream media carry the full text. As to policy, that goes back to the Foundation, which has mandated policy on the protection of biographical information about living people. This selectively chosen transcript furthers the agenda that Rand Paul pursued when he gave the speech, which is to intimidate and endanger those who dare to speak truth to power. JzG (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • JzG, you've just revealed yourself as politically motivated: as concerned with the welfare of "those who dare to speak truth to power" rather than with the welfare of English Wikisource. In any other venue, I'd applaud you. Hesperian 23:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I love the irony there. You think TDA is motivated by pure dedication to free knowledge, when choosing to transcribe just this one speech that no mainstream source transcribes? JzG (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
No. Hesperian 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @JzG: I am wondering whether you could address your argument with respect WS:WWI. Every person here contributes based on a place of interest, and that is why we manage to usually escape the enWP issues of conflicted interest. If it has been published, then documents of all views are within scope, whether I personally welcome them or not. We have upsetting racist works here; we have works for and against the right to vote. As a library we host it, not determine its value. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep this work appears to be clearly in scope and compliant with policy, (despite being problematically annotated with wikilinks) so I see no reason to delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • delete do not feed the paul trolls. text dump without a side by side scan. upload the congressional record and build the index first. minor historical footnote of interest to only ideologues, like his foray to Howard University. speeches on the floor are a dime a dozen, more suitable to a blog. Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think any Senator's floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history could be considered a "minor historical footnote" and the only real question should be distinctiveness. Paul's speech is obviously distinctive among the various speeches due to the political controversy alone. No doubt there are other Senate floor speeches on this matter of note beyond Paul's and Romney's speeches. Would have no problem with those going up and may put some of them up myself. Doubt the Congressional Record in general is going to be as noteworthy historically as these speeches, but if people think differently they can address that by making their own contributions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      • i find your escalating english wikipedia drama here is inappropriate. clearly you have a POV to push. the effusive praise for a junior senator, over and above the actual source material gives the game away. "floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history", and all the floor speeches on the second presidential impeachment in history, are not here either. if you are going to drive by text dump, you should understand, those "not scan backed" get deleted, if no one steps up and does the work. see also Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-08#IN_THE_MATTER_OF:_STEPHEN_GLOVER_ROWE,_D.M.D._License_No.:_4121 Slowking4Rama's revenge 15:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
        @Slowking4: Whilst I recognise your expertise in WP dramaz, you have been in a few, can I suggest that you keep your personal opinion about what and why people contribute out of a DR. Truly inappropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
        what's inappropriate is repeatedly pushing outing material of private people upon every project; you have a precedent about libelous material that may happen to be published somewhere; and have The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster/The Reply to Hayne - when he publishes his great speeches we can transcribe them also. Slowking4Rama's revenge 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        "Within scope" is within scope. Our motives have never been judgement previously for what we contribute for works within scope. I don't judge yours or others for what they bring within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Obviously, I published this here because it just happened. Wikisource didn't even exist during the Second Presidential Impeachment Trial. If you think there are some significant Senate floor speeches from the Clinton Impeachment Trial then please point them out for us or publish them. No one is stopping you. As far as being "not scan-backed" I looked at the policy beforehand and there is no suggestion lacking a scan is worthy of deletion. The Featured Text guidelines says a scan is ideal, but that an online source satisfies the criteria. If linking the relevant source material on the talk page is appropriate sourcing for a document appearing on the front page, then it is obviously appropriate for inclusion. Only reason for requiring sources is to authenticate the contents and I don't think anyone here seriously doubts the authenticity of what has been written. I copied this directly from the online PDF of the Congressional Record available at the official government site for Congress.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral First of all, it is very irresponsible of us to not delete and salt (prevent recreation through page protection) this text until the community makes a proper determination of whether we should host it at all. A plausible concern has been raised that it may contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to a third party, and until that risk has been properly assessed against other factors by the community our first priority should have been to prevent or mitigate that risk. Our failure to do so does not speak well of us; and I still urge that we should do so until the community's conclusion is ultimately determined.
    There are several issues that should be addressed for this text.
    Starting with the simplest, as a speech published in Congressional Record , Vol. 166, No. 23 (February 4, 2020) it would seem to be obviously within scope. It is an excerpt of that publication, which would put it outside scope, but it can easily be argued that the speech constitutes a separable work in its own right, so I do not think this is of particular concern in terms of scope.
    That it is an excerpt does bear on quality though, as does also its lack of scan-backing. The work is certainly not up to modern standards, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, our actual policies are old and do not reflect those standards. Neither does the community generally tend to delete texts on this basis. I do not think this issue constitutes more than a quibble.
    Also related to the quality are the use of links in the text, which violate our annotations policy. However, this is a matter easily remedied; has not historically been considered grounds for deletion on its own; and, personally, I think our annotations policy is too strict (and confusingly written) to start with.
    The obvious issues being addressed, we get into more complicated aspects: are there any factors that stem from the law that we need to take into account?
    The first and most basic is copyright. Speeches are often iffy, and speeches by elected officials (i.e. those who sometimes speak in their role, and sometimes as a candidate trying to be elected to that role) doubly so. I had to do quite a bit of reading to make sure I could even sensibly address this. However, on that basis, in this particular case I cannot see that there is any question that the work is covered by {{PD-USGov}}. Representatives are considered to be officers of the US federal government for copyright purposes, and a speech on the House floor is unequivocally made in that capacity (regardless of whether one suspects the motives of it to be posturing for the benefit of future voters). To the degree there was any lingering doubt, its publication in Congressional Record should put that to rest.
    Then there's the issue central to its controversy: would hosting this transcript violate any law with regard to protection of whistleblowers or protection of personal information, or other related law?
    Serious media organizations have refused to publish the identity of the whistleblower that Paul is trying to out here, which should definitely give us pause. However, as far as I can tell, they are doing this out of concern for journalistic standards and media ethics. Wikisource is not a newspaper, and we are not journalists; those standards would be an ill fit for most of what we do. We certainly can and should learn from them, but we cannot reasonably apply them here directly. I have not been able to find any law that would directly prohibit journalists from revealing the identity of the whistleblower. There are any number of laws that prohibit many different entities from doing so (as a form of "retaliation"), but none that I can see that would apply to journalists or to Wikisource. There are arguments being made that various laws that do not address this directly have the practical effect of making its publication illegal (think "criminal negligence" or "endangerment" and similar), but I cannot see that these are obviously correct or can obviously be said to apply here absent case law or a legal analysis addressing our situation directly. Whether these arguments represent an actual liability for the WMF or contributors is, in other words, something WMF Legal will have to determine.
    Beyond the law, there is however an argument that hosting this text would be irresponsible and unethical of us. Any claim that Paul does not here deliberately identify the whistleblower is either hopelessly naïve or deliberately obtuse. Any argument that hosting this will not contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to the whistleblower is not reality-based.
    However, one can certainly argue that our contribution to that risk is small. The identity is published in the Congressional Record, and has been published in several places that do not apply mainstream journalistic standards. In particular, sites whose primary demographic are the very groups that are most likely to engage in harassment or violence toward the whistleblower have already published their identity.
    The biggest additional factor that I can identify is that by hosting it we lend it the imprimatur of the Wikimedia movement in general, including the borrowed authority of Wikipedia, and whatever weight Wikisource on its own carries. By hosting just the speech, and not the entire Congressional Record, we afford it an implication of notability and importance it would not otherwise have; and by hosting it at all we contribute to giving it an authority likewise. We are also a lot more findable than many other sources of this information.
    I acknowledge those factors, and certainly think we should weigh them, but I do not see that they carry a very large weight. We are not Wikipedia, and our contribution to those factors is very small in the big picture. Judging solely by those factors we host several texts that are far more problematic.
    In addition, it is as fundamental to Wikisource that we are not censored, as things like verifiability and neutral point of view are to Wikipedia. The nominator put it succinctly and forcefully in their original discussion, and I encourage everyone to read that argument rather than the… let's call it an "expression of frustration"… on display in this nomination. Our starting point must be, I would argue, that we cannot judge of the contents of a work by standards that will shift with the seasons and fashions. I have personally proofread texts that contain horrible anti-semitic propaganda; works putting on display the systematic male chauvinism and casual racism that historical works are rife with. Eventually Vladimir Nabokov's best known work will become available to us, and we will need to deal with its controversial subject matter. If we were to censor all texts whose proofreading I need to hold my nose to get through, we would have very little left. If we were to censor all texts that offended someone's olfactory sense we might as well just shut down the project.
    However, even with that basic stance, I think we should exercise caution with texts that are specifically intended as some form of propaganda, that for other reasons carry some actual potential for harm, or where there is significant gaming the system surrounding it. Here the concern is harm to others and harm to the project. That's not to say the presence of those factors are automatically exclusionary; but when those obtain we need to treat the situation with caution, wisdom, sensitivity, and nuance.
    And the bottom line for me is that in this instance we have failed in this. Based on the observable evidence of the handling of this text, I am very concerned that our processes are neither mature enough nor robust enough to deal responsibly with such texts. And if we cannot deal with them responsibly then we must simply not deal with them at all, with all the downsides that implies. I am currently leaning towards delete for that reason, but I am very much torn on this issue and absent the current mess I would very likely have landed on keep.
    I strongly urge all community members to think carefully on this issue and express their opinion (for either outcome, obviously). --Xover (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The point about Paul not identifying the whistleblower in his speech is a factual one. In this context, his discussion of the whistleblower is because his question was publicly rejected by the Chief Justice during the impeachment proceedings on the grounds it named the whistleblower. His question was, in fact, the only one rejected in such a public fashion. Given his question did not identify anyone as the whistleblower, it seems the Chief Justice's conclusion is that the name itself could not be read regardless of context. At the same time, that question cuts to the heart of certain concerns driving those opposed to the impeachment, which is that this was a long-running aim and was more about ending Trump's policies by any means necessary than addressing real or perceived misconduct.
    It is also worth considering that if the whistleblower were one of the people named in that question, then it goes to the heart of the proceeding itself as suggesting the motivations of the whistleblower were also more about politics than integrity. Eventually, the whistleblower's identity will be an established part of history and if the person alleged is the whistleblower, it will inform a lot of the historical understanding about the impeachment. This would still be true, though somewhat less so, if it turns out Paul never actually named the whistleblower. One way or another, I don't think anyone could credibly argue that this speech would not be relevant to a historical understanding of the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history.
    As far as the "reality" of whether someone will be harassed or face physical violence, I think the former is so vague and broad as to be a certainty when any person is named as part of a controversy and using it as an excuse to not discuss or document allegations of misconduct is more about censoring damaging information than about protecting others. With the latter the prospects for violence remain remote as with most cases. There is also an inappropriate imputation about motive here that somehow the purpose is to expose that person to harassment and violence so as to silence that individual. In reality, the reverse is true as those accused of outing the whistleblower want him to testify and be cross-examined. Rather, those arguing for protecting the whistleblower are the ones who do not want that to occur.
    Part of the issue here is there is a lot of consideration for near-term issues with regards to this speech. I do not believe any Senator's speech on impeachment would be a "minor historical footnote" or somehow be less significant or important than the rest of the Congressional Record. Numerous major media outlets have covered Paul's speech, though not transcribed it, and not all Senator speeches on impeachment have been covered as extensively. The random routine procedural orders and communications about D.C. city bond issues stand little chance of being more important or significant. No issue with publishing more of the Senate speeches on impeachment or the complete public record of the trial proceedings to include Senate speeches, but the Congressional Record itself would be a bit excessive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    "Near-term issues" are the important ones here. There will be no problem in uploading this text in five or ten years. I don't believe there's value in Wikisource hosting one item out of a set, seemingly chosen only because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, mainstream media, and Wikipedia have decided that it's inappropriate to mention the name of someone that Rand Paul had no qualms about mentioning. It's disruptive to the Wikimedia community.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    Again, I don't have a problem with even more speeches being put up and I don't think anyone else would have a problem. I put this up after seeing the speech from Romney here and can imagine several other speeches noteworthy enough. Technically, as I argued previously, all the speeches could be put up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see valid arguments on both sides, and I don't wish to weigh in at this time on the final decision. However, I strongly agree with @Xover: that this should be deleted and salted -- or at least redacted and revdeleted -- pending the outcome of the discussion. It reflects poorly on us if we cannot create an environment for reasonable deliberation pending a clear outcome. -Pete (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    The fundamental problem with that approach is it demands everyone here to discuss the propriety of the work without all being able to review the ostensibly objectionable material. Given it has been up for over two weeks without incident, there is no clear reason why it needs to be deleted or redacted before a decision is reached.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    That is absolutely not true. (a) Redacting a name in no way impacts the ability to assess the merits of the argument above, and (b) redacting the entire document doesn't have that much impact either, since there is plenty of news coverage describing what happened. Either approach would (obviously) better serve the interest of reaching a decision without making the point moot, or pre-supposing a certain outcome. -Pete (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    A source document and video are linked on the talk page. Is it your position those should also be deleted from view? How do you expect regular contributors to discuss this if it is made impossible to review the material here? The reporting about the speech is easy enough to find, but the speech itself takes a little more effort and a lot of the reporting mischaracterizes the speech in a way that prejudices discussion in favor of the "delete" argument. I don't see how deleting and salting the page is somehow not pre-supposing an outcome as it suggests there is something here so horrible that it requires such extreme measures.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    I never said anything about removing links, you're arguing against a straw man here. Also, deleting and salting the page was only one of my suggestions; the most straightforward would be to simply redact and revdelete the individual's name. Simple, not horrible, and no imposition on reasoned discourse. You're being obtuse, and my sense is that you're "winning" this argument by tenacity and attrition. I don't approve. Carry on if you must, but I'm not impressed. -Pete (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft in Warfare.Edit

I would like to propose the deletion of Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare.pdf

There are two copies of the same edition of this book in the system. This copy is the most complete Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare_(1916).djvu and it has been suggested that the second copy Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare.pdf should be deleted.

Thanks, Sp1nd01 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Letter of request regarding Gangwon Fire Headquarters Delegation Visit to Washington DC Fire & EMS Training AcademyEdit

Hello sir. I want to keep the article but I was curious to know whether it fits the wikisource article criteria. My decision to make a contribution was by below wikisource introduction in wikipedia and also [1]. Please delete or keep it by admins' and people's judgement. thank you. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The project's aim is to host all forms of free text, in many languages, and translations. Originally conceived as an archive to store useful or important historical texts (its first text was the Déclaration universelle des Droits de l'Homme), it has expanded to become a general-content library. The project officially began in November 24, 2003 under the name Project Sourceberg, a play on the famous Project Gutenberg. The name Wikisource was adopted later that year and it received its own domain name seven months later.

@Choikwangmo9: This document does appear to satisfy our copyright policy. It would fall under the "documentary sources" part of our inclusion policy. It appears to be missing some information: where can other editors get a copy of the original to compare this copy against? If you have a hard copy or a PDF, you should scan and upload it to Wikimedia Commons for this purpose. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is the original letter. thank you sir. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  Keep I see no reason for this work to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: We have usually required documentary sources to be related to notability, and I don't see that this rates for notability for any article at the Wikipedias, it is simply a general piece of correspondence. We have previously deleted other documentary sources for non-notable people. How do you see that this is different? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Our definition of notability has nothing to do with articles on the Wikipedias or not-notable people, but is instead based on editorial control and publication. If you are suggesting that this be deleted as a self-published document, then I am open to hearing your arguments to that effect. However, documentary sources that are issued by organizations are frequently hosted and kept regardless, so I am not sure what precedent you are basing this on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: We are a library, not an archive, and that is how we wrote the WWI to have a component of (historical) documents relating to notability. The notability aspect around documents is that around manageability of our scope. How many 18th century wills of insignificant people do you think that we should have? How many non-descript process letters of any government or organisations do we collect—unless they are supporting something like a WP article, something of notability. Random letters from fire fighters inviting themselves to visit other fire fighters are archival in nature, what is our purpose of hosting. That this is self-published adds to my issues with it living here, what purpose does it have? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiples of works about GranvilleEdit

The Works of the British Poets/Volume 17/Selected Poems of George Granville/Life of GranvilleEdit

We have a single piece of text that is not scan supported that is sitting on its own with little hope of having anything attached to it. The work would be in scope if we have the volume of the text, however, is not so on its own. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't need to be nominating these if they were scan-backed per WS:WWI and they had been added per our instruction. I am noting this in the nominating process. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I !vote that these be scan backed rather than deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Do you have any suggestion about how one might go about this? I've searched for this, and several of the volumes listed below, on the Internet Archive 9using their internal search tools) as well as on the web, and through my local public library. I've put a fair amount of time into it, but I've come up with nothing. I imagine any reader would have a similar experience, and would encounter similar questions ("which volume is this from? what library has it?" etc. etc.) Do you have reason to believe that scans exist for this, or any of the works listed below? Do you see some process by which a wiki volunteer could acquire those scans and upload them? And if not, what's the meaning of your vote? What should be done between now and whatever time in the future somebody finds scans? -Pete (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The scans appear to be available at Hathi. It looks like there are 15 volumes not available at the IA, including (natch) volume. I have made a list here: Talk:The Works of the British Poets. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
Thanks Inductiveload. My question for Beleg Tâl remains: what course of action do they recommend? I don't understand what this particular conditional vote is recommending, in practice. (If I could upload the work, I would, but Hathi requires a login that I don't have.) -Pete (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I think we are voting about the work in its current state, not about a hypothetical state which might come to existence but also might not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George GranvilleEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another orphan page from a work where the work is not set up for others to work on it to complete. Of little value as it is. In scope if the remainder of the work was available, but an excerpt at this time. work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne/The Life of G. Granville, L. LansdowneEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another snippet of a work, unsupported by scans. work Not going to be found by users, or be able to be proofread in current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Needs to be scan backed and also the title page needs to be founded so that other contributors could find it and continue with the work easily. Non-scan-backed works can imo be tollerated only if they are fully transcribed and do not need attention of other contributors. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

General Dictionary/Lansdowne, George Granville, LordEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that is an excerpt of a work in its current form. Single biography as a subpage, from a larger compilation that is not grounded within the work. These works need to be scan-backed to be within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographia Dramatica/Granville, George, Lord LansdownEdit

Another work that is a single item as a subpage from a larger compiled work. No scan to support the text, no parent page exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Do we know which edition this is from? There was more than one edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I am also having difficulty figuring out what volume it's from. The Internet Archive has a number of volumes, but as far as I can tell (from a cursory search) none of them include this text. -Pete (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Update: See below (or the work's talk page) for a scan link. According to EncycloPetey, quality is insufficient to warrant upload here. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We still don't know which edition the current text is supposed to be from. There are scans of two different editions on IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors/Volume 4/George Granville, Lord LansdownEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another page that is sole page of a compiled work of multiple volumes. Not scan supported, and sits isolated as a subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a larger piece of illustrated text and so it would be a pity if it were not brought up to our standards, i.e. scan-backed and the work’s title page founded. So I am pinging TE(æ)A,ea as the contributor who added the chapter to notify them about this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) On more ping: TE(æ)A,ea., as I mistyped the user name before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Found a good scan, and have now migrated the transcribed words and image. Please take another look. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. LansdowneEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that has a single component added without being scan-supported. No root page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  •   Keep; I have now uploaded the scan, and transitioned the transcription to the index pages. -Pete (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, GeorgeEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work, same condition as above. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

General Biographical Dictionary/Volume 16/Granville, GeorgeEdit

Another work, same condition as other nominations. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response of TE(æ)A,ea. to nominationsEdit

I oppose all of Billinghurst’s nominations. The works I have collectively transcribed are (generally) from well-known biographical dictionaries of the 19th century, with some earlier entries. They are all “attached,” I may add, to George Granville’s author page, and are not thus orphaned. There are, I may suspect, many other non-scan-backed pages which are not sufficiently transcribed, (whether wanting in completion or accuracy,) and these works are, within themselves, complete. These (biographical) articles have the same standing as any article of the Dictionary of National Biography, all of which are root pages in the main namespace; I have merely placed them as sub-pages so as to identify their location. I agree with Jan Kameníček, in that these works should be fully brought on to the English Wikisource; however, I am working on abandoned indexes at the moment, and do not want to start working on such a large-scale project as any of these works would be without the support of some other members of the community. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

And that is explained that the works would be within scope if they were scan-supported. They are not nominated due to their content, it is that they are isolated works which cannot be proofread, without ability to be built to complete the work, as such the works are worse than abandoned, they cannot be continued, and that is the point of why we wrote the rule as it is. They do not have the same standing as DNB for these reasons. Incomplete works that are abandoned and not scan-supported are truly problematic and we have been trying to fix this problem, not add to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The works are already proofread, and could be easily validated. The abandoned works that I am currently proofreading are left in a worse situation, as, unlike the works I have added, there is minimal relative indication of their existence, and are thus inferior to the works as they existed in their original form, (on Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust.) Your comment on the Dictionary of National Biography entries misses my point—those articles existed before the whole matter was scan-backed. As I have said, I created the articles as sub-pages so as to facilitate identification—this also allows for a more ready integration into a hypothetical scan-backed edition of any given work. Your comment on “fix[ing] this problem” is indicative of a problematic trend which causes abandoned indexes—just as the History of Delaware County, a work with little value to the project (due to its non-completion), languors in the main namespace, and, after the deletion process is completed, and the work is left with a scan, has the same value as the original, as it is still incomplete. I would glad to work with any other interested editors in completing a scan-backed version of any of the above works, but I will not work on it alone, and I would not like the work(s) to suffer in the index namespace in the same manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC).
  • The pages sit in isolation, there is no hierarchy to them beyond they sit as unconnected subpages of non-existent works at this wiki. We had a very early history of things just being dumped in place and not progressing, moribund and abandoned, not proofread, just OCR scraped and pasted, or sometimes some evidence of proofreading though no indication of any particular edition of a work. We are still tidying up these works. This is exactly why we put in place the statements about scans, why we look to have the rigor about the work we present, why we have standards to follow. The value of transcription progressing in the Page: namespace is that work can happen, and it can take as long as it needs to take to have a product worth displaying.

    To your commentary about the DNB, I know full well its history, I was there. We didn't have scans so we couldn't do it differently, and when we did gets scans, we worked to get those scans in place and to resolve the issue. And it was truly shit, and disorganised back at that time, and it was painful fixing. I don't want to have to go back to that time just because you have a supposed better idea.

    It is not our place to propagate random biographical excerpts without the ability or the wish to put in the remainder of the work or to align with the components of our consensus scope. We are not a site for clippings from this book or that book being randomly contributed, and that cannot easily be proofread or validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    • You once again do not understand my point. The works which I have created were created as sub-pages only so as to facilitate hypothetical interconnection with a complete edition of the work and to help with identifying the original publication of the work. My reference to the Dictionary of National Biography was not to claim that not having a scan is a preferable situation, as you have presumed, but to reference the method by which the text is represented. The works I have created have already been proofread, and could be easily validated. They are not in “isolation,” as I have already said in my first response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
      Your point about DNB is not valid: there was no other option, AND there was an active project working upon it, AND at the earliest opportunity it became scan-backed. Re your claim about easy validation, I am sorry thought that is a false claim, and it has been demonstrated here for years that it rarely happens. This is why we stopped that approach, and why we say to use scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I find it difficult to know what to make of this situation; while I have read the text above, I find myself lacking basic information that would inform my vote. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you answer, in a few sentences, these questions?

  • What is the background of the pages - what process did you (and/or others) follow to bring them here?
  • When you say they have already been proofread, what are you referring to? What were they proofread against? (Maybe this is already addressed in your answer to the first question.)
  • When you say they could easily be validated, what process would I follow in order to validate them? How could I compare them to the original, published work? (I'm happy to pitch in a bit if you can give me some guidance.)
  • What is the ideal path forward for these works, in your view? What are the key things that need to happen, and how would these works look if those things happen? -Pete (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I thank you for asking these questions; I believe that they will help to alleviate some generally held confusion. Having some interest in George Granville, and noticing the references of his Dictionary of National Biography article, I proceeded to create more entries on Granville from biographical dictionaries. I worked alone in proofreading these pages. I have proofread them against on-line scans of the work, which I thought not proper to include on a sub-page; I am not wholly experienced with the specifics of metadata referencing on Wikisource. They could be validating by a comparison of the text as I have presented it against the scans by which I originally created the pages. The works could exist in two states, in my view, one which Billinghurst does not believe is viable; this was the main issue we have been discussing. I have created these pages integrated with George Granville’s author page, and with other biographical entries on Granville; I believe that these entries are complete, with the exception of the one major article I have not yet proofread, in their interconnection. The works, (i. e., the works containing the above-mentioned articles,) could also be brought to the English Wikisource as scan indexes; however, I oppose this action taken without real backing, as that could leave numerous abandoned indexes—those with only minimal work done. I hope that this response answers your questions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the answer, it's very helpful. I'm still a bit confused on the third question, though. Would this involve coordinating with you, as an individual, to transfer the scans? If so, I think I would lean toward delete. If the scans can be made publicly available on Commons, then they are useful not only to potential validators, but to diligent readers who may want to verify the accuracy themselves. In my view it's an important distinguishing feature of Wikisource that we make this process easy for all readers (i.e., providing scan-backed transcriptions).
I would not oppose bringing the entire indices to Wikisource, even absent a specific plan for further transcription. Simply having them set up here eases the burden on future transcribers who may wish to complete the works. However, if for some reason you really do feel it's important not to do so, another approach would be to create DJVU or PDF files only of the sections you have transcribed (i.e., the Granville sections) and upload those instead. Either of these actions (uploading the full index for each work, or uploading a subset to back the pages you have transcribed) would be sufficient for me to support keeping them. -Pete (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The only coördination that would require my involvement would be the identification of the scans. All of the above articles I have proofread against on-line scans accessed from either the Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust. I shall now look for the scans of the above works; I will include them in a further response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
      • I have moved the list below; I would like to mention that it contains hyper-links only to those volumes which contain the articles on Granville, and not of the entirety of the work, with the exception of the General Biographical Dictionary on HathiTrust. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
        • @TE(æ)A,ea.: This, above, is the crucial piece of information this discussion has been lacking. I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of bolding it, as I'd imagine others in this discussion (who may not be following this sub-thread) are likely very interested in it as well. With this information, I believe you have unlocked the possibility of a path forward in which nobody objects to keeping these works. This will still take a little work; I'm willing to do some of it. I have just now added the relevant source to the talk page of each of the works currently nominated. I will upload the The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain file, and match-and-split your contribution, to create an example of how the rest of them could be handled. If there's anything unfamiliar about what I propose, or what I do, please feel free to ask. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries to coordinate the type of works identified. It discusses the processes that can be utilised for these sorts of works. It is why we run a bot through and apply text layers of biographical works (which we don't typically do otherwise) and put search templates onto those pages exactly to make it workable with items identifiable. See Index:The Catholic encyclopedia and its makers.djvu, Index:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 1.djvu, Index:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu +++ Some people come in and do one article and leave, whereas some do one article and stay to finish the work, or do other works.

It is expected and accepted that some works will only have one or two pages transcribed and transcluded due to personal interest. Index: pages that are not active is expected, and the community has agreed that sitting there in workspace is okay. These works are available however, and it is the community's preferred way to progress in the Index:/Page: namespaces, so please disavow yourself of the notion that it is wrong, it is completely right, not just biographical works, but all works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an important discussion.

Firstly, I'd like to thank all those who give the infrastructural support. I have hardly got involved in the index page side of things in a decade here. But that does not mean I think it trivial.

Secondly, as I move around what are now better integrated Wikimedia sites (WP, Commons, Wikisource), I'm struck by how much there is to do, how much Wikidata is prompting work (at least from me), and how easy it is to get "distracted".

So, I think there is a tension between the systematic and the more sporadic approaches. Focus is very good: systematically completing works, especially neglected reference works, gives Wikisource a USP. The expression of the tension involved I see above doesn't surprise me.

I actually found this discussion because I was looking for the New Biographical Dictionary (Rose) online, for a reference. The sort of enterprise being debated is very interesting to me. We live here with the wiki principle "you can edit" but also the verifiability principle "others should be able to check your work"; and proofing being what it is, there will be some who come down on the side of saying the latter should be in practice, not just in theory.

I hope we can come to a reasonable accommodation on such a fundamental point, which has been around since ProofReadPage came here. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George Granville upload:   Done scan-backed:   Done
  • A General Dictionary, volume 6 (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland, volume 4 upload:   Done scan-backed:   Done
  • The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • Biographia Dramatica, volume 1, part 1 (external scan) This is a truly terrible scan with blotched pages and washed-out text throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • General Biographical Dictionary, volume 16 (external scan)
  • The Works of the British Poets, Volume 17 (external scan)
  • A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, George upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
    • I have created the index pages for all of the above works with scans; however, the other volumes of Walpole’s Catalogue have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
      • Looks great, thanks! I completed another upload, now noted above. -Pete (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I have finished the General Dictionary volume; the scan quality, due to the formatting, is questionable; additionally, the other volumes have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
          • For what it's worth, I'm aware that there are other volumes, but as in so many cases here...just because there is more possible good work to do, doesn't mean I will do it :) My goal is to bring this deletion discussion to an amicable resolution. I'm putting in work to get these works to what I believe is the "bare minimum" that will get most Wikisource users to agree that they should be kept. You, or anyone else, may build on that work at any time; I may do so myself in the future. But for now, my commitment is only to getting these works up to the point where they are substantially scan-backed, with complete volumes uploaded and index pages set up, which could support future work others may want to do. -Pete (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
            • I would be more than happy to find scans, help set them up, and even do some transcription with this work, but I still do not have an answer to my question from above: Which edition? There is more than one edition of the Biographia Dramatica that has been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
              • @EncycloPetey: The scan you found too blurry appears to have been published in 1812. Does that not answer your question? And -- thanks for the offer of assistance, more hands would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                • No, my question is From which edition was the original bit that we're trying to save taken from? (or does it matter?) And corollary to that: Is one of the editions to be preferred? Perhaps the later edition expanded the number of entries, or corrected errors? Or perhaps the later edition replaced earlier content with different content, or introduced errors? This is a work I'm not familiar with, so advice on choosing an edition would be helpful. It would be a shame to waste effort setting up a multi-volume work like this only to find after the fact that the other edition was the better choice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                  • My understanding is that TE(æ)A,ea. posted the links of the scans from which they originally transcribed, so unless I've misunderstood, the 1812 edition is the one that was used. I have no idea what edition would be preferable, though. Maybe T can shed further light on that question. -Pete (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                    • Here are some decent scans for the work: Vol. 1, Part 1 (external scan); Vol. 1, Part 2 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan); Vol. 3 (external scan). There is also a 1782 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)), but I believe that it is inferior. As The Companion to the Play-House, there is the 1764 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)); it is also given as The Play-House Dictionary. I believe that each subsequent edition is an improved emendation; as such, the 1812 edition would be the most preferable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
                    • Having recently seen this, Halliwell’s Old English Plays declares the 1812 edition the “last and best.” It also gives the three additions as sequential improvements, as I had believed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
                      • @EncycloPetey: Any further thoughts on this? I've done all the ones I'm able to, except this one -- I've paused because you seemed interested in working on it. Is there any info just holding you back, or just competing projects? -Pete (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall votes for the above-linked worksEdit

  • For any works where the scans have been uploaded and properly linked, such as The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. Lansdowne, I vote   Keep. For any others, I am declining to vote for the moment, in the hopes that more Wikisource users will pitch in to bring the scans here, now that the information is readily available. Ideally, like Beleg Tâl above, I would like to see them all brought here and properly linked, but I'm still not certain what process will make that happen. TE(æ)A,ea., are you able to help with this process? If so, I think that would be enough to change my vote to "keep" for all the pages. -Pete (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • If scans of the quality you have presented can be brought forth for all other works, I can help standardise formatting on the index pages; however, I believe that some works may not have scans of such quality. If such works can be identified, I can help bring them here; your assistance, as well, Pete, would be much appreciated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
        Comment The scan listed above for Biographia Dramatica is truly awful. It is unusable for our purposes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      I think it was a windfall that there was a better scan for that one work at IA. In general I think the scans you linked to are sufficient, and I'd be happy to do the work of uploading them to Commons (which essentially involves downloading the PDF, converting to DJVU, removing the Google cover page, and then uploading). If you're willing to take over after that, I'd be happy to deal with the files. While the Biographia Dramatica scan is certainly lower quality than the others, in my view it's not unusable; but I'm happy to leave that one for last, and/or skip it entirely if that's how others assess it. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      With a scan that bad the OCR will be garbage. There a paragraphs I can hardly read myself. Better to locate a good scan than attempt to work with that scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks very much for the work. I vote   Keep for all scan-backed works. The works which have not been scan backed yet can get more time and should not be deleted at this moment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom orders of honour and subsidiary categoriesEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept the base framework for main ns works, removed author ns categories

I am wondering why we are bothering to capture these. They are sufficiently captured at enWP and Commons and Wikidata, I don't see that we need these for our categorisations. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment My immediate instinct is to agree with nomination, but I'm open to the possibility that there may be something I haven't thought of here. --Xover (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    Pretty much what I was trying to say. If they were subject matter, then no issue, however, not for tagging of authors. This is another example of the vagaries of authors/portals, biographies and subject articles. One of the reasons that I want to add that clarity to our categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Superfluous to Template:Teletype (WS:CSD G. 4). Not in heavy use, created quite recently, and more than a decade after the other template. Speedy deletion contested. It should be deprecated in favour of that template, and deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Keep It's not superfluous, as {{Teletype}} is just a span of monospace font and {{kbd}} is semantically meaningful for keyboard inputs. @TE(æ)A,ea.: why are you saying these are the same as they are not? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Replace both. I personally do not see any difference among them. When I tried them in Firefox, they both gave absolutely the same results. When I tried them in Chrome, they both did not do anything. This imo means that they are both bad if they do not work in all browsers and so they both should probably be replaced by one template that would work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: works in both browsers for me, check The Gospel of Wealthbillinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tried them both in my sandbox and still I cannot see any difference in comparison with plain text in Chrome :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: in your file, for me in both Chrome and Firefox the lines 2 and 3 look the same, and different to line 1. Working as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I see the lines 2 and 3 different from line 1 only in FF, in Chrome they are all three the same :-/ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Even if they render the same, they don't do the same thing: one has semantic value and the other doesn't. See also {{code}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A semantic difference is not sufficient for two templates where there is no visible difference; if they “render the same,” they therefore “do the same thing.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
1.) they may not render the same (e.g. CSS exists) and 2.) there are data models on a page that make semantics useful (e.g. just making text big and bold is not the same thing as having a heading that can be parsed by a search engine). Why are you opposed to proper semantics on the web? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not “opposed to proper semantics;” I merely oppose the duplication of a perfectly functional template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Then how do you propose using proper semantics with one template? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: Not sure what you mean by semantic difference. When I apply the template to a piece of text, it (quite logically) does not seem to influence its meaning (semantics), only the shape of letters, so my understanding of the term "semantics" is probably different from what you mean. So I went through the documentation of the template and unfortunately it did not explain me what makes the template useful from the semantics point of view either. Imo it should be compulsory to explain all important features of every template in its documentation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics are meaning applied to data and style is just how it looks. If two things look the same but have a different underlying structure, that is a meaningful difference. Agreed that the documentation is insufficient. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics always refers to meaning, but in certain contexts the reference has implied specificity.
In the context of a "Manual of Style" for a publisher, for example, it is implicit that the meaning we are discussing lies in distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word). These uses are all typically formatted the same, but have different meanings; and which is intended is usually inferred from context. It is our facility for language combined with our experience with these conventions that let us pick up on the relatively subtle hint that the meaning of the word "émigré" has been modified slightly in the particular instance.
However, in the context of electronic information, in general, and in web design (of which a wiki is a sub-sub-specialty) especially, when we discuss semantics it is implicit that what we're really discussing is the aspect semantic signalling (how does the information—in this case textual, but could be sound or images or …—indicate or label meaning?) and semantic extraction (how does the computer extract the meaning from the information). Computers, and software, are bone stupid in general. A computer program faced with interpreting … distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word) is only going to be able to observe that the rendered text is in italic type, and that the HTML source used the <em>émigré</em> markup, whose semantics (defined in the HTML standard) is "emphasis". All our subtle semantic hints from the "Manual of Style" example are gone.
In this particular thread we are discussing the difference in meaning, as distinct from presentation, of the different templates in a technical sense (humans infer the meaning from visual rendering and context; it's computers that need specific labelling). {{kbd}} uses <kbd>…</kbd> HTML tags under the hood, which have the defined meaning "Text entered on a keyboard" and with its example of usage a software manual needing to show an example of user input. {{teletype}} just uses a <span>…</span> with some styling to make it show in a monospaced font, so it has no semantics to a computer. There is a <tt>…</tt> element (tt=teletype here), but it has no inherent semantics: its meaning was specifically "format this the same text was formatted on a teletype display". That is, like <b>…</b> and <i>…</i> it describes how this should look rather than what this means.
"Semantic markup" is important in order to let computers treat information intelligently. For example, with correct semantic markup a computer can automatically extract a citation, or an address, or a phone number from a web page. The infoboxes used on biographical articles on Wikipedia use semantic markup that lets a search engine (like Google) show a precis of the information (occupation, date of birth and death, a portrait, etc.). Voice browsers and other accessibility aides (not just for those with a visual impairment; people with cognitive and motor impairments also benefit from these technologies) can do things like skip reading the navigation menus at the top of a web page (they are peripheral content, not the main content of the page), skip to the next section, select or copy text, or call a phone number (the contact number for the business owning the web site in question, say). Purely physical markup—of the kind that was typical in the 1990s—was hopeless for accessibility tools and there was a real risk that web technology, with all its potential for giving people with disabilities equal access to information and services, would shut out the very people that could most benefit from it. The push for semantic over physical markup (which these days is actually mandated by law in several jurisdictions!) stems from these concerns.
However, all that being said, computers have actually gotten a lot smarter since the 1990s, and are able to infer a lot more from context without explicit semantic markup. Voice browsers and other accessibility tools have learned to cope with and compensate for poor markup and other web issues. When you view the mobile version of Wikipedia, you are shown a stripped down version of the information in the lead of the article: MediaWiki (the Mobile Frontend) understands the Wikipedia conventions and strips out hatnotes, maintenance templates, the IPA pronunciation guides in parenthesis after the article title, the infobox, disambiguastion notices, etc. Some of this is marked up semantically (the infobox), but other parts are simply that MediaWiki understands Wikipedia's conventions and style manual. Articles start with a bolded word or phrase, followed optionally by a phrase in parenthesis containing vital years and pronunciation guides, and we know we can omit the parenthesised phrase the same way a human usually skips over it when reading.
At the same time, almost all the formatting we do with templates here on Wikisource is visual (aka. "physical") formatting. We don't label text as a heading, we label it as being centered ({{c}}), extra large ({{x-larger}}), and with extra inter-letter spacing ({{sp}}. This is impenetrable semantics to a computer, but perfectly clear to humans. It is also a consequence of the kind of project we are: since Wikisource reproduces old books, a physical and visual medium, we can't escape mostly physical or visual formatting. A lot of the semantics of our source works are also inconsistent, contradictory, and unclear; so we couldn't produce pure semantics if we wanted to.
In other (briefer) words, what we're discussing here isn't a simplistic right—wrong issue. It's about nuances such as whether we need to make the relevant semantic distinction, in a limited set of circumstances (only in project-space, and even then very rarely), and whether that need and its benefits outweigh the maintenance cost (small, but non-zero) and user confusion and cognitive load ("Which template should I use for this again?"), and risk of misuse (it might easily be used inappropriately in mainspace for example). The argument Billinghurst (iirc) made was that the costs of having the template outweigh the benefits, and especially because we can use the <kbd>…</kbd> HTML element directly in the few cases where we do need it. However, the opposite argument is equally valid: the cost of having the template is small; using raw HTML tags has a cost too; and having the template gives us a richer vocabulary to express meaning that is consistent with how we usually do things (just templates rather than raw HTML). --Xover (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for the detailed explanation very much, now I understand the point better. If I got it right, the Teletype template makes text look like from a typewriter, while the Kbd template makes it look the same way+carries the meaning of a text written on a keyboard. In such a case I would suggest to delete Teletype and keep Kbd, as Kbd seems to have some extra value to Teletype, while Teletype does not have any extra value to Kbd. Am I right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: That would be a valid and reasonable position to take, yes. {{teletype}} doesn't actually use it, but the <tt>…</tt> element is actually even deprecated in the latest HTML standard, which is an argument to delete {{teletype}} on its own. My problem is more that I don't see a clear use case for either variant that seems worth having two more templates sitting around. *shrug* --Xover (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I think teletype has it's occasional place when a scan has typewritten sections (e.g. Page:19521104 No187 1.jpg) or when original uses monospaced font (e.g. a software manual referring to a variable name, I don't mean we should use it for all typewritten documents). That said, teletype is a poor name and a holdover from the TT tag; I think moving it to "monospace" would be more correct and drop the "teletype"/"tt" aliases, keeping "mono" if wanted. Say what we mean: the text is formatted with font-family:monospace;, with no further semantic content. Teletype/monospace, unlike kdb, can be useful in the content spaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Sensible. I would support that. I wouldn't even object to keeping {{teletype}} as an alias (redirects are cheap), if anybody wanted that, provided everything else is clearly updated to be "monospace". --Xover (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The templates should produce “typewriter” text (e. g., this page). On any given browser, the two templates should produce an identical result; and, as Template:Teletype is older and more widely used than Template:Kbd, I believe that the latter template should be deleted in favour of the former template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: "two templates should produce an identical result" no, they shouldn't. Where are you getting this information about how browsers are supposed to style particular HTML elements? Did you also see {{Code}}? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am thinking convert to a redirect if it matches similar template names at other sites. We don't need numerous templates that just do the same thing, it confuses the punters. Convert it to a redirect as we are unlikely to have KBD for a large multiparagraph div. No need to replace it. I am happy to hear how and why the long-existing template does not meet needs. If the semantics are truly needed, they just use the tags, no requirement to template them, and little to no difference to code. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would you be applying KBD semantics to reproduced works? I hate this argument about semantics when you cannot justify a use. Then when you can just use the tags for the semantics you desire you talk about it should be in a template. This needs to be looked at holistically, and a new template that simply represents a look that is no different to another look is problematic. Please tell us how it is better, how it helps the site, and why the alternatives presented are not suitable? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A source certainly could ask someone to perform keyboard entry--e.g. source documents for software. Even if it's not used in Main: it's very easy to imagine it being used in Wikisource: or Project: namespaces. But I think the case that it's not helpful to replace semantically meaningful differences with the same thing is pretty obvious to me: they mean different things. This is also true of typography: we wouldn't replace an endash in a source with a hyphen just because it's easier to input. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  Neutral it is not the same as {{tt}}, the semantic difference is real. That said, there are very few places it can be used to any effect, under 10 cases in all our documentation by a quick look. It's not useful in the content spaces, which have a limit on semantic content imposed by the source material.
If we keep it, I'd recommend giving the tag some CSS (a box outline is conventional) to evoke "Keyness". It's pretty pointless if it just looks like the code tag. And also say that it's only intended for the auxiliary namespaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think that's a poor example. The I tag doesn't have a template (actually {{italic}} does exist) because Wikicode provides the double apostrophe syntax. Which actually produces an EM tag, which is technically wrong in our content space, where we really do often mean "font-style:italic;", not just "emphasised, whatever that means, that's a problem for the browser and CSS". We just studiously ignore that uncomfortable fact because it's incredibly convenient to have the double apostrophes and we don't need EM for anything else.
  • The advantage of a template over a tag in this case (and I'm certainly not an anti-HTML crusader) is the template can invoke TemplateStyles (or just online CSS) and the tag would need an entry in the global CSS to get non default styling. As I said, this template doesn't feel useful unless it has a distinct style. But that can be done easily.
  • An argument based on the templates being the same is, IMO, ill-founded. The real question is, is it actually useful? Plenty of templates critical at other wikis aren't needed here. And certainly, I don't see it having any practical use outside of internal documentation. Maybe a software manual, but even then we follow t source formatting and I really can't see what KBD would bring to that table, since it would need to have its style overridden for the work in question. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep There are good reasons to want to highlight something as a key command, and now that the style looks different to {{tt}} and {{code}} I think this template is fine. I agree that it should probably only be used in project namespaces. —Sam Wilson 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning toward delete—I am not convinced we have any non-negligible need for this particular template, and I am currently prioritising cleaning up and pruning templates (and their associated confusion and maintenance cost) over enriching our expressive power. Willing to entertain the notion that the need for and benefit of it is greater than I currently see, but the keep arguments so far have not supported that. --Xover (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    A regular, and forever, task over the years as we have the next great idea about a need for a template that already exists. We should have a good reason for a template to exist, not just "because it can". Keep it as simple s reasonably practical has always been our goal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Poems by the WayEdit

This abandoned and barely-started work contains only two things: a table of contents, and a top-level unsourced edition of Pomona, which can be considered redundant since it is also included in The Book of Hallowe'en/IV.Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: ^^^^ an oooooooold one of yours. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I will also note here the duplication of The Book of Hallowe'en vs Book of Halloween (the latter is scan backed.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Contribution to a Bibliography of Chess PeriodicalsEdit

This is a fraction of a small article from a larger journal that has hung around for over a decade. I've copied what was done to Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 12.djvu/150 and Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 12.djvu/151; I don't see any reason to let this hang around in mainspace any longer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: suggest a subst'd {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just moved this under the Notes and Queries page and completed and transcluded the relevant section. Since it's referred to by Portal:Chess, it seemed worth keeping around. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiji and the Fijians: The Islands and Their InhabitantsEdit

This is actually volume 1 of Fiji and the Fijians; the other volume was written by another author. The only text in this work is the preface to the first volume, which was created in 2006. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

  • The Internet Archive has at least 16 scans of this book. Excluding Google scans, there are scans of the following editions:
    • New York, 1859 [2] [3]
    • New York, 1860 [4] [5]
    • Boston, 1871 [6] (extended edition; scan seems to be missing the first page of the preface, which is included in this Google scan (London, 1870)).
  • These editions seem to be single volumes including the material from both of the original two volumes. I am not sure which of these scans is best. James500 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The file is at commons:File:Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, New York, 1860.djvu. It has more pages than the other 1859/60 scans. James500 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The French Revolution: A HistoryEdit

Only the first chapter of the first volume (of three) exists. In addition, there is no source provided. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

Goodspeed's Northwestern ArkansasEdit

A few biographical entries from this work are all that have existed since its creation in 2006. The source is unclear, and possibly copyrighted in part. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

The Iliad of Homer, translated into English blank verseEdit

No content. Speedy deletion contested. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

  Delete and refer to scan from Iliad versions page and Author. Scan at Index:Iliad of Homer - Bryant - 1870.djvu. OCR seems almost as good as the existing text (missing some apostrophes, though). No incoming links of note. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Irish Builder/Volume 1Edit

One page of unedited OCR; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  Delete There's no value to this in mainspace as it stands and it's not under active work. No prejudice to having volumes set up in Index/Page space and even single articles of interest transcluded piece-wise, but uncorrected OCR is pointless, and non-scan-backed uncorrected OCR even more so.
Aside, IA has a few nicer scans, but not a full set. In traditional IA style, they are not catalogued very well at all and the metadata is rubbish. Making a list of known scans at Irish Builder would be a good idea. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@User:Inductiveload: This is not uncorrected OCR. James500 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh, sorry, it's just totally unformatted, which makes it look like just another OCR dump. Either way, there's not much point having just a title page without a scan in place to let people add new articles. If we had scans, I'd be OK with it if it was formatted properly: at least there's a remote chance people can then dip in an do and article here and there. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not know how to upload the scan from Google Books. Someone would need to upload it and create the index page for me. After that, I could proofread the individual pages myself. James500 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Index:Irish Builder - Volume 1-3.pdf. It appears complete, and the OCR is "OK"; the plates are scanned pretty terribly (as expected from Google). Enjoy :). ~~
Thank you. James500 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  Keep Since it's now at least a functional collective work with a scan behind it. A pity the plates are so trashed by the scanning process, or it'd be a really nice item. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Irish Law Times/Volume 1Edit

Three pages of unedited OCR; no table of contents; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one), transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Scan at Index:Irish Law Times - Volume 1.pdf, but the pages are unordered (eg. 54-55 are repeated three times). There might be missing pages, Google scans often do. I haven't got time to deal with that right now, so I'll leave the pagelisting fun to you. It's a Google scan, so it naturally has further defects, for example half the pages are "zoomed out" with the content in one corner, but the OCR seems "OK". I tried to use BUB2, but the Internet Archive choked on the file as it's too big for their derivation process. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Messianic PropheciesEdit

A few pages of entirely unedited OCR; the table of contents is present, but unedited. No addition to content since 2007 creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

  Delete. Nothing much of value in mainspace here. Scan at Index:Messianic Prophecies - Delitzsch - 1880.djvu if anyone wants to work on it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


This is probably a speedy, but in case someone knows what this was for: {{notes}}.

Appears to be unused and has been unchanged since 2012. Looks like some kind of remnant of header template development. There's a (blank) docs subpage and a testcases subpage too. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It is an internal template—it has nothing to do with the main namespace. It is used here—it is the small gray bar at the top of the section. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ahhhh, I had missed that one - I thought that was just a mention in passing. #fail. I'll document what (I think) it does.
Then again, it's rather overpowered for "make a blue-ish box" and now I try it, most parameters are broken (eg wikipedia). Is it possible this template is being misused at Wikisource:Tools and scripts based on it's generic name? The id="header_notes" class="noprint" leads me to think that's not it's true purpose. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The original template looked like this:

{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #A88; background:#fAfAff; font-size:0.9em;" |- | {{{notes|}}} |}

This certainly reminds me of the {{header}} usage. I believe, like several other templates (I think), User:George Orwell III tried to modify the template, in 2011. The template as it stands now “should” be used within that template, but there is no need for it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

Targum OnkelosEdit

Three chapters of Genesis from, I believe, a version of the entire Bible; translator not specified, and possibly not copyright-free. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

The Targum Onkelos is an early (as in 2nd century) translation of the Pentaeuch into Aramaic, from Hebrew. The Aramaic appears to be the same as Sefaria, and I assume is basically "original" - Google turns the text up in various places. The English appears to be the same as in Etheridge (v1, v2, 1862–65), so should be fine. The transliteration appears to be custom. At least, the very first word, "Ve'ishtachlalu", is a Google-whack - there is only a single result and it is the Wikisource page, so it's presumably not a simple copy-paste job. It's also presumably not a "standard" tranliteration or someone would have written it on the Internet before.
I'd be comfortable declaring it some kind of PD synthesis, but whether it can ever be usefully complete is another question.
Courtesy ping @יבריב: (last globally active 2018, though). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  Keep with the backing of the scan Inductiveload added;   Delete for the transliteration which can probably be safely assumed to be user-generated and thus out of scope, and the Hebrew text which is not included in the published edition and is therefore also out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • While I certainly believe such a comparison of texts would be helpful, and possibly accepted in an annotated version, they are not present in (this) original scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
  • As @TE(æ)A,ea.: says, the comparison is not present in the original text (or, at least, not in the Etheridge scan). A complete, annotated version is not unacceptable according to WS:WWI as I understand it, and, in fact would be a rather excellent value-add of the sort we rarely see (because it's just so much work and requires specialist skills). That said, if it were considered an annotation of Etheridge, the annotations rules say the Etheridge original should be transcribed first.
  • Since the contributor is vamoosed, and not many people read/write/speak Aramaic, I'd say the chances of the comparative text being ever completed here are slim-to-none, so I'd lean delete, or at least move to user space and add a link from the index talk page so it's not completely orphaned forever. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Selassie's speech on SpiritualityEdit

Unsourced translation of an excerpt of an undated speech attributed to Haile Selassie (1892–1975), relying on lack of copyright treaty between the US and Ethiopia to claim lack of copyright protection in the US (meaning if Ethiopia establish relations, this will get US copyright anyway). However, the authorship of the text is disputed (cf. this edit, citing this thread on Wikiquote), and may instead be by either Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) or Appollo P.K Nvenge aka Amentu P.K N'venge in the book African Unity: the Only Solution (I've not been able to track down more info on this author).

The original text here gives the translator as "Author:Haile Selassie I Press" (no idea what that's supposed to be), and there's a textinfo template linking to which appears to be essentially a fansite for Selassie as Rastafari (loosely, the Second Coming of Jesus).

In any case, only if the original is by Selassie and the translation here was contributed by the same person who translated it at, is the text actually compatibly licensed. In either case it is an excerpt; it has unclear sourcing; unclear attribution; is not scan-backed; and has, at best, unclear copyright status (I was this close to speedy under CSD § G6 but there's a theoretical set of circumstances where it's not a copyvio so best to let the community look at it first). I suggest we delete it and if the full original is found with compatible licensing we re-add it with proper scan-backing. --Xover (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Undelete The Adventure of the Sussex VampireEdit

The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire had been deleted in 2007 for Copyright violation. We are now in 2020 and the story was first published in 1924, but © 1923. So I would like to check if it this story could be undeleted. The question is also valid for the following stories :

Thanks for your help. Hektor (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think we should undelete these. We can, and I will, provide scans of the original magazines they were published in, and they can be proofread from scans, for a more reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not know the scans were available. Then can you please provide scans of The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone and The Problem of Thor Bridge as well ? Hektor (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The Sussex Vampire scan appears to be this one, the only one from 1924 at the IA (they do have up to 1922: It also contains articles that are not PD in the UK, e.g. the one by Winston Churchill (d. 1965, so copyright for another 15 years). So, it cannot go to Commons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
HathiTrust has complete Strand Magazine volumes. Do you want to upload that one; it may be slightly better on the whole than the HathiTrust volumes, but I will be uploading six months at a shot, so it will be slightly duplicate (though quicker).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Three Garridebs was first published in Collier’s I noticed. Hektor (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Collier's is a problem; for some reason, HathiTrust's issues of it aren't visible. (I've communicated with them; they said that's not going to change, with a vague handwave about unclear rights.) The Internet Archive doesn't have scans of that, either. In six months the scans of the Jan. 1925 Strand should be visible (and likely they're PD now, since periodicals are often published before their cover date.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I'll leave it to the six-monthly Hathi scans for simplicity laziness. If the images are better in that one issue at the IA, they can be extracted directly from there as needed. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I've sent the first Strand volume to the Internet Archive for processing; , but it's still in derive as of the point when I write this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: If you have scans, I can make you DjVus (page image quality usually better than IA, OCR quality on average roughly on par, but MediaWiki handles text layers in DjVu much better than in PDFs). --Xover (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The first Strand volume is now on IA it seems so you can download the pdf and make one DjVu. Question will be whether it can go on Commons or if there are non PD works in it. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: The 741 MB on IA is the raw material that I had. As for Commons, one name pops out--P. G. Wodehouse, died 1975. Which saves me from the tedious job of checking every author right off, because the odds this is 100% life+70, and provably so, would be pretty low.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: File:The Strand Magazine, vol. 65 (1923).djvu --Xover (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Landmarks of Rensselaer countyEdit

Contains one chapter, which was uploaded in 2005 as a separate work. It has been marked with {{fidelity}} since 2008, and there is no indication of scans anywhere. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Marvin's Legal BibliographyEdit

A few pages of unedited OCR, with no indicated source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Internet Archive has this scan, which I suspect may be better than the Google Books scans originally consulted. The Google Books scan are this one and this one and this one. I think they are all the same. James500 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @User:Inductiveload: If I have a choice of scans, how do I decide which one to upload? James500 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500:: Generally, I pick scans in this order: most complete in terms of missing pages and images then nicest scan quality (generally leads to better OCR). The two usually go togther, and usually if you have a choice between a Google scan (black and white) and a non-Google scan (usually in colour, so easy to spot at IA), go for the non-Google scan. Google scans are notoriously low-quality, often totally omit images, have scanning defects like blurred, missing or folded pages, hands in scans, etc. If the IA ID ends in "ala", "uoft" or "rich", for example, it's a good bet it will be quite nice. If it ends "goog", look for alternatives. Digital Library of India scans (start with "in.ernet" are also generally low quality).
  • If there's only one, then you have no choice. If you discover missing or duplicate pages when doing the page list, use {{missing pages}} or {{Remove pages}} as needed, which puts the index in a backlog of works needing attention.
  • If you have two scans and both are missing bits, and in total they make a complete work, make a note in the missing page template and someone can synthesise a complete scan. You can still proofread if the scan is incomplete, pages can be moved around by admins if you need.
  • It's also allowed to proofread a page from another scan if the page is illegible, but make a note on the Index talk page to say so.
  • In your case, the [7] one looks a better bet. The good news is that as it is an IA work, you can use the IA-Upload tool, which saves you downloading to your device first. In your case, the ID is "legalbibliograph00marv". Sadly it can fail, and in that case, you have to download the file yourself and upload it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Albany Law Journal/Volume 1Edit

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one or this one), transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
James, if you'd like scans of works like this uploaded, I'm willing to help. Where are you stuck? The Google PDF is available here. (The direct link can be hard to find, it's hidden in the "Free eBook" menu on the Google Books page.) Keep and get it scan-backed. Again, I'll help as needed. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Peteforsyth: Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf is missing pages 1 and 2, and was created by mistake. commons:File:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf has pages 1 and 2. I am unable to upload the djvu from the Internet Archive with the IA upload tool, as I get messages saying an error has occurred. I do not know which of the three scans has the best OCR or image quality. It might be preferable to either delete or move Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf and create Index:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf, or upload the IA djvu instead, but I am not sure.James500 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I created the Index for the one with pages 1 and 2 (the third one in your list above). This appears the same as the second one, but the second one is missing the pages where the text isn't black - some strange Google processing has presumably happened. While replacing the scan, I also removed the Google page. I deleted the other Index page to keep things simple, as it's redundant if the current Index is complete, as it appears to be. The IA DjVu also lacks pages 1 & 2.
The OCR isn't great on any of them as far as I can tell, as Google OCR does seem to often miss the fact that there are two columns (I suppose they don't really care as it still feeds into their search corpus well enough). The IA OCR is a bit better, and we could patch that in perhaps, if the OCR button doesn't do a good job (it's currently timing out >_<). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1Edit

Two pages of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Are you offering to do this? That comes off as the imperative, which is inappropriate here. Please don't create pages in mainspace at this level of completion, especially when you leave them for a year. Nobody is under any obligation to finish any work for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I do not know how to upload the scan from Google Books. Someone would need to upload it and create the index page for me. After that, I could proofread the individual pages myself. James500 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think that your comment is incivil and unconstructive. James500 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Prosfilaes: if you do not actually intend to complete these works, as is evidenced by the fact that you have uploaded only a small number of pages, wholly without formatting, of a single volume of a larger work, you certainly have no right to demand others to complete the work for you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    My !vote was not imperative. I have not demanded anything. I have every intention of completing these works if someone will upload the scan. I stoped creating the type of pages you are nominating for deletion a long time ago. And I am getting deeply sick of being subjected to off topic personal attacks that twist my words, purport to read my mind and assume bad faith on the basis of what is, frankly, non-evidence.
    Even if you are not willing to upload the scan, it is reasonable to assume that some other editor, who is not trying to make a point, will be willing to upload the scan. James500 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I am not here to make a point—you are, it seems, “twist[ing] my words.” If you are actually unable to upload the scans which you have given, and you do not wish to use the automatic upload tools available for that purpose, you may have requested for an administrator, or some other editor, to upload the scans in your stead. When you say “[u]pload the scan” after the deletion discussion has begun, and only now indicate an interest in completing these works, I assumed that you make this request to prevent the pages which you had created from being deleted. I find your response above, (“incivil and unconstructive,”) to be a far more hasty assumption of bad faith, on the grounds of less evidence. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    Your assumption was a mistake. I indicated an interest in completing these works the moment I created the pages. The creation of the pages was a request for upload of the scans. Unfortunately, that request was apparently either not noticed or not understood. The words "incivil and unconstructive" are not an accusation of bad faith. James500 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    You wrote "upload the scan"; that is in the w:imperative mood. The creation of the pages was not a request for the upload of the scans; the appropriate way to do that is to request that the scans be uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    "Upload the scan" is not in the imperative mood. It is a !vote, not a command. If what you say is correct, then "keep" and "delete" would be in the imperative mood. If you do not like "upload the scan", how would you like me to phrase my !votes? The created pages had links to external scans. Adding a link to an external scan is a request for upload. There is no other reason to add such a link. What else could it mean? James500 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Adding a scan link is unlikely to be noticed by anyone, and if noticed it is almost certain to be interpreted as "Here is a convenience for some future contributor should anyone ever wish to work on this" rather than "Please help me upload this scan". Particularly in the main namespace, where, as a general rule, we do not have scan links (those should generally go on author pages). If you need assistance with some task or aspect of work on the project, the best way to request it is to ask on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.
    As for !votes in proposed deletion discussions, it will often be easiest for others to understand your meaning if you start with one of the usual !vote templates—{{vk}} and {{vd}}—as an overall position, and then elaborate or nuance your position in prose afterwards. It also happens to give admins an easy way to quickly judge overall community sentiment on a given discussion. --Xover (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    What Xover just said. It's not a request (or at least it will not be understood as a request), it's a helpful hint to future contributors and/or yourself. Uploading scans is fiddly and time-consuming, especially if you make the index page too, so it's reasonable that some people just drop a link if they don't plan to actively work on something. Also you should probably be using {{ext scan link}}, rather than raw links in square brackets, as at least it means one can find such links via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ext_scan_link and/or bot queries. It has semantic content: this is a link, it is external and it is a scan file. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: For reasons that I do not understand, I have found that Template:Ext scan link does not work for links to Google Books. For example {{Ext scan link|}} produces ([{{{1}}} external scan]).
    As for this work, unless someone uploads the scan for me or answers at least the following two questions, there is nothing I can do. (1) Which URL do I use to upload the scan? I suspect that might upload the web page instead of the file. (2) Do I upload the scan here or on the Commons? James500 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: There's an equals in the URL, so you have to write {{ext scan link|1=}} (the rest of the link is junk). The use of 1= is specifically documented in that template's documentation.
    For the scan, you have to upload the PDF from Google books. Find the red button that say "Ebook - Free", on the top left. Hover over it and there's a PDF link. Click that and save the PDF. The link starts Ideally, remove the first page, but I don't know if Commons still cares about that.
    Upload to Commons if it is out of copyright in both the country of origin and the US. Upload here if out of copyright only in the US, and not in the country of origin. This is a US work from before 1925, so it goes to Commons. Once it is uploaded to one of those, create the Index page here (use the same file name, but replace File: with Index:).
    The statement of "there is nothing I can do" is also misguided IMO. This is the Internet, it is made of information. For example the first hit from "how do I download books from Google Books.". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The only link that I could find is . Is that the correct URL? James500 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's asking you to enter the CAPTCHA security code to prevent automated downloads. As the instructions say: "To continue with your download, please type the characters you see below:". Enter the letters you see in the box. Then you can get the PDF. As I said, the link begins with Then you will be taken to the PDF. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The file is at commons:File:The American Jurist and Law Magazine, Volume 1, 1829.pdf. My device does not have any tools with which to remove pages from pdf files. And I do not know how to do that on Commons. Shall I just create the index page? James500 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Yes, if it's an issue, it can be replaced by a blank page easily enough when needed, so as not to disrupt the pages already in place. There is a category at Commons commons:Category:Book scans with Google Books cover sheets (to remove) you can use to mark the files if you want, but I think most people don't even bother. I also created a category commons:Category:The American Jurist and Law Magazine that will allow to to see all these volumes in a single location. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Nice job on the index and page list - page lists can be fiddly, but it looks good. I created {{American Jurist and Law Magazine volumes}} for you to put in the volumes field of the Index. You may need to adjust the file names according to how you upload them, and you can add later volumes too. I also bumped the index status to "top be proofread", since the page list is complete and the pages appear present and correct (which honestly is quite surprising from a Google scan!) and the OCR layer appears to be functional. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

American Law Review/Volume 1Edit

One page of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Central Law Journal/Volume 1Edit

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal/Volume 1Edit

One page of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@James500: because the plates break up the pagination, it's tricky to tell at a glance which scan is more complete. I would start with the DjVu (the OCR does look a bit better) and do an Index and a pagelist. Then, if any important pages turn out to be missing, they can be inserted from another scan, if present in that other scan. I can probably help with that, but not for a couple of days. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Colonel's DreamEdit

One page, containing the dedication, copied from Gutenberg, with no source specified. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  Delete - This is pretty pointless content, even compared to an average PG drive-by dumping. Scan at Index:The Colonel's Dream - Chesnutt - 1905.djvu. The dedication is proofread and it can loiter in page space until the book is proofread more. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Creeds of ChristendomEdit

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

Contested speedy deletionsEdit

Thank you for bringing these here, although I would have preferred you actually attended to my explanations and reconsidered your mistaken effort to break long-standing links. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A chambermaid's diaryEdit

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • As we are no longer using CSD to consider deleting this, M2 is irrelevant., Regarding deleting it, it has been a valid way to link to this work for over six years, plenty of time for random external sites to have linked to it. Deleting it merely breaks such links for no purpose. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    The criteria for speedy deletion are still criteria for deletion. This page, and the other redirection pages listed here, are improper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    Fair enough on the applicability of CSDs -- but M2 does not apply to these, as they are are neither new, nor have been tagged for two months. And "improper" is not an argument. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep (weak/neutral in terms of do I actually want to keep the redirect, firmer in terms of process). There's not much real harm in these redirects. This one is pretty old, so it's not impossible there are incoming links. JesseW is right that these are not speedy candidates, unless they've been soft redirects for at least two months. If you really want to delete them, that's how to do it. While I don't think we should encourage proliferation of such redirects, I'm also not overly keen to start aggressively culling the older top-level ones. Recent ones, no problem, and indeed CSD-M2 has a carve-out for such cases.
    Also let's centralise discussion of redirects on this item rather than copy-pasting to all below items? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/727-749Edit

The work is scan-backed, and organised by a different system than that which was used formerly (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

I attempted to figure out the new system, and failed. Please link (here) to the new location, and I'll see if a sensible soft-redirect is feasible. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The system is being set up through alternate sub-pages of the base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • It looks like only the pages for the first two sections have been created -- so unless I've missed something (most likely!) deleting this now would simply make existing data inaccessible until the new pages are created. That seems like a bad thing. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep (for now) The content is not scan-backed yet. Not a single hymn has been proofread in that scan. I don't think G4 applies until the scan version is at least at a equal state of completion as the work it replaces. A soft-redirect to the new location of the equivalent item in the scan would be appropriate when scan-backed content is ready. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no content on this page—the hymns which are given on that page are actually taken from here, here, and here, via {{:Jesu, my God and King}} and the like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
      • That would have been useful to have been mentioned in the proposal, no? I still question the utility of storming in an deleting the old subpages before any content has been moved to the scans. I maintain that a soft redirect to the new content, when it exists, would be a way forward and will allow the issue to resolve naturally after a few months. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Until the equivalent hymns are ready in the scan-backed version, at which point these are speediable as redundant. Soft redirects are just pointless bureaucracy at that point. But I agree that putting them up for deletion before the new pages are proofread is inappropriate: hence why I didn't delete them while processing the CSD queue, and waiting would have avoided this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/888-896Edit

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same objection. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am going to take it for granted that unless someone specifically notes any factor that is unique to this page, all the same arguments (and hence outcome) as the one above will apply. (so no need to comment further in this section) --Xover (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Auction Prices of BooksEdit

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

There is visible content on the page, providing a start to someone who wants to transcribe this work. What purpose is served in making that harder? JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The content on this page, (and on the other pages marked in a similar fashion below,) is available on the relevant Author: page, and it is generally held that pages with no content should not be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • Er, as James500 said, the links to the external scans do not seem to appear on the author page. Please be more careful to verify the facts before making such claims in the future. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content on this page is not available on the author page. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we need some clarity on policy here. This is a work that's somewhat "encyclopaedic", in that it is made up of thousands of lists of books by individual authors. So I imagine it could have some of the lists transcribed and some not and be like that for a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero actual content. It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical. Do we want:
    1. Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
    2. Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.
  • Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical (probably not here). Dumping scan-less works is not particularly helpful. It's fair to not wish to transcribe the entire work, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.
  • I'm not specifically talking about this work, mind, so the question stands even if this particular work sprouts a set of Indexes in the near future.
  • We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no content", and, furthermore, every single periodical can fall into this situation, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here.
  • If it's a periodical, I think a top-level list of as many volumes as you can figure out, ideally with dates and scan links is helpful. But creating empty volume subpages doesn't seem particular constructive. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The scan for volume 1 is at commons:File:Livingston, Auction Prices of Books, 1905, Volume 1.djvu. James500 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway GuideEdit

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

While the current content is pretty minimal, there is significant history present, for which there is no value in hiding from future researchers. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish historyEdit

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • I don't see the value in deleting this, as it provides a link to the source to facilitate transcription, but it's trivial to re-create once more of the underlying work is transcribed, so ... go ahead. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete. There isn't enough content here and there's not sign of activity to suggest it'll improve much soon. A {{small scan link}} on the author page (it already exists) and/or Portals is conventional to indicate that an Index exists and proofreading can be undertaken. Obviously no objection to recreation with more content. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Inductiveload. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Classical Heritage of the Middle AgesEdit

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same as Chronicles, above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Inductiveload on Chronicles of the Picts above. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Portal:John BurgoyneEdit

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirection page (as it was placed within the incorrect namespace) (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Just use the dated soft redirect process, as User:Billinghurst already had. There's no need to take up the time of this page on it. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete and if Billinghurst hadn't already slapped a soft redirect on it, I would have speedied the ordinary redirect directly. There's no real reason to keep this redirect around, so taking this detour is just pointless delay in this case. --Xover (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mutual Aid a Factor of EvolutionEdit

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2007 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nollekens and his TimesEdit

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2009 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


This page (and the two others given below) give the contents of the main work (War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces); as the contents were moved wholly to that page, these pages are redundant (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • OK, then redirect them. Deleting is wholly unnecessary. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete No reason for having this as a redirect; and the excerpt that's there is entirely redundant with the redirect target. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Parodies and SongsEdit

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete This is a section of the redirect target, not a standalone work. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Section of proposed redirect target, not standalone work. Improbable (and undesirable) redirect. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The life of MohammedEdit

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2008 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep redirects, redirects are cheap. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Maciej SzczepańczykEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Absent arguments to the contrary, I have speedied this under CSD§G8.

This user-based category is outside the scope of WS, as described in Help:Categorization. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Index initial checkEdit

This category is empty, and only mentioned in the documentation for Template:Index transcluded. Maybe it was added by a bot in the past, as an initial list of pages to go thru? In any case, that should be clarified, and, assuming it's unused now, maybe deleted? JesseW (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Delete, per this diff the cat is not used any more. I have updated the template docs to match the template (i.e. removed the mention). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Archaeologia Britannica.pdfEdit

This file was marked as a speedy by @ShakespeareFan00: due to the original source (the NLS) using a CC-BY-NC licence on the work (published 1707, digitised 2011) at the Internet Archive. I have moved it here for further discussion. See also my reasoning for doing so at User_talk:Gweduni#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf.

The claim of copyright by the NLS is a tricky one, as the US doesn't recognise sweat-of-the-brow copyright. In the UK it is less clear, and is more to do with a "skill-and-labour" test. It has caused a run-in with the WMF before.

The most recent guidance (not law) I know of, from the UK Intellectual Property Office, dating from late 2015 is:

Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

Therefore, I think it is unlikely (to use the word of the IPO) that the NLS's use of CC-BY-NC is valid, even in the UK. However, I do not think there is any case law to definitively prove this.

The best case (in terms of "we can bring this work into Wikisource/Commons and not start a fight") is that the NLS agrees that a copyright claim of a scan is invalid in light of the IPO guidance and agrees to relicense under some other licence, or declare it PD. Notably, the guidance was issued 4 years after this work was digitised at the IA, and I'd like to be clear that I am not accusing the NLS of copyfraud. I'm hoping this isn't coming across as adversarial, especially in light of the fantastic collaboration so far with the NLS.

So, there are a few points to think about:

  • Is the NLS willing to relicense these scans and nullify this discussion for the NLS scans.
  • Regardless of that, what do we, the WS community, wish to see done in the case where a sweat-of-the-brow copyright claim is made, in jurisdictions that do or may recognise it, on a work that is otherwise in the PD? Options include:
    • Play it "safe": reject the importation outright
    • Based on the US non-recognition of sweat-of-the-brow, import to enWS.
    • Based on Commons' official guidelines (c.f. Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag), recommend import to Commons.

Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment This is a tempest in a teapot. Commons' policy is remarkably clear: they do not honor the sweat of the brow doctrine due to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. On enWS we do not want to host any work that falls within Commons' policy, which this does, so it should be transferred there. Even were this in conflict with Commons policy, I see no reason why enWS should have a stricter policy on sweat of the brow than Commons. And which is contrary to actual case law in the UK: nobody has sued anybody on these grounds since the NPG for the very simple reason that when they talk to competent lawyers they get told they'll probably lose and it'll be expensive, and when they talk to competent PR people they're told the court of public opinion will throw the book at them and they certainly won't come out of it smelling of roses. Nobody wants to admit this is the case—because UK cultural institutions really are shockingly underfunded and needs every bit of cash they can get—but that's the long and short of it.
    In any case, the NLS can speak for themselves, but I imagine the -NC bit there was a not necessarily deeply thought through decision made in 2011 that there has been no real reason to reassess since. I'd be rather surprised if they'd landed there in 2020, but a decade ago the world was different, and institutions' digital competency was very different. --Xover (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's basically what I think, being naturally a copyright "minimalist" (as, I think, most people here are). However, I am sensitive that it might be more productive in the longer term to ask GLAMs nicely first before jumping to what could be perceived as an adversarial position (and has been in the past, up to and including actual real-life lawyers), and especially when the GLAM in question is actively working together right here and right now on rather good terms. Putting on the eyepatch and swinging the mass-download cutlass might be legal if you have a de-facto letter of marque from Commons, but the targets of the ministrations might not be very impressed. And, fundamentally, WS, Commons, the IA and GLAMs are all on the same side.
  • The second bullet (i.e. what do we do if the institution still says "no") is, IMO, basically a foregone conclusion based on the Commons stance. However, since I can see how a GLAM that has said no might "reasonably" (from their side, at least) feel miffed if we storm in mob-handed and "steal" (again, from their side) "their" (ditto) content that they paid good money (objectively probably true) to digitise, I think it's worth being clear that WS agrees with the Commons stance. There are different copyright rules here to Commons, and although they are more relaxed (US only rather than US+origin), that probably means WS should maintain a separate, if similar position. Even if the WS way is simply "on this, we defer to Commons [link to this thread]".
  • Tl;dr: foster co-operation where possible, let's not fight potential symbiotic institutions. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, and I agree with every word of that. But because this is a difficult balancing act, I think it is better to be painfully, tediously, precise and upfront about this. I certainly wouldn't advocate starting any mass download of that collection at IA without express permission and the blessing of the NLS; but the fact of the matter is that I have no control of the rest of the Wikimedia community (e.g. at Commons) and such a bulk operation can happen at any time, whether we want it to or not. The real answer, of course, is to actually fund UK cultural institutions properly, so that their incentives are to increase the reach of their collections as much as possible, rather than being forced to hoard every little thing for the tiny little cashflow it can provide. --Xover (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Previously declined for speedy deletion; rationale for nom was solely images, with no text; several books entirely empty; no source indicated; untouched for five years since creation.. It is clearly inappropriate as it stands but there may be other outcomes than deletion, so dropping it here for the community to decide. (dropping it here rather hastily so it isn't forgotten, so I may have something more sensible to say about it when I have time to look at it properly) --Xover (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick look makes me think maybe this could be a page (or just a category) at Commons.
As for a version we could have: maybe - it's 1991 reprint of a 1932 book that appears not to have been renewed for copyright (from an extremely cursory glance). Is that OK for copyright? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
With or without copyright notice the 1932 publication would have had to be renewed in 1959–1961, of which I can find no trace. The 1991 republication also appears to contain no or almost no new copyrightable material. So from a copyright perspective it would seem to be ok. But this is also a black and white scan of what appear to be colour maps and legends (~80 pages worth), and with some pages cut off and crooked. So we should definitely look for a better scan of this work. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any other obvious PD English editions available with really good images. The Stevenson translation mostly reproduces maps from Codex Ebnerianus (not the Biblical one, the other one), which is a manuscript now at the NY Public Library. There might be a proper high-res scan of that entire manuscript and we could use those? Even the very best scan of Stevenson would still be a scan of a copy. Annoyingly, I can't immediately see a source of good scans of the Codex Ebnerianus. Or find an English translation that uses maps that Commons actually has. They have quite a few though: commons:Category:Editions of Ptolemy's Geography. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)