Open main menu
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.

Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed)Edit

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 The extracts consist of those portions of the original Act that “have been repealed and no longer represent the current law.”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for the moment the difficulty of keeping such a listing current (have no other portions of the underlying statute been repealed since Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) was posted here a decade ago?), I question whether our own original listing of repealed statutes satisfies WS:WWI.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if the UK Parliament issued a publication enumerating which portions of its Offences against the Person Act 1861 were no longer in force, I would see no problem with reproducing that document here. But Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) doesn’t seem to be anyone’s work but our own and there is no indication that it was previously published.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

Could this be updated to be essentially an annotated version of Offences against the Person Act 1861? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps more to the point: is anybody actually willing to do that work? I think part of Tarmstro99's concern was that we would need to also complete and maintain such a listing, and II don't see anybody stepping up to do so. Nor even show up too object to its proposed deletion. Hence my position below. --Xover (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a policy requiring our annotated versions to be complete or maintained. Just move Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed) to Offences against the Person Act 1861/Annotated, put a header on it, and link it with {{annotation header}}, and voilà. No harder than actually deleting it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete Per nom, and my reply to Beleg Tâl above. --Xover (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep because as an annotated text it violates no policies —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
don’t know if i want to delete a cut and paste, without a scanned-backed to replace it. there are photos mass uploaded here c:Category:Historic American Engineering Record,
i would support a demonstration of an example here, given the large amount of material in HAER, that would support historic structures. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am a near-total amateur and came across this page while searching for material about Boston's Highland Railroad -- which I have yet to find. Even though it is far from pretty and almost totally obsolete, I would recommend keeping this because it does contain important information that would be very challenging to find elsewhere -- if it even still exists elsewhere. (For information and bemusement, starting in the 1870s, the Highland Railroad ran plaid horsecars from Grove Hall in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood to downtown Boston and beyond with a frequency of at least 1 every 8 minutes, which is far more frequent than the current service in 2019 and did not also call for a transfer. 2601:182:CB00:300B:344A:8F35:472:DA3 20:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Ed Allan

Index:Coleridge - La Chanson du vieux marin, trad. Barbier, 1877.djvuEdit

Barbier translation of the Ancient Mariner, This should be on fr.wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is on French Wikisource . The English text is in it too. That might be why we find it here too.. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
But on frws only the French text is transcribed. p.11 here used to have the English text and then the French iwpage'ed in, but someone removed the iwpage. Is this something we want to host here, and if so, with or without iwpage'ed French text? My immediate thought is that hosting it without the French is kinda pointless, as there are much better English-language editions (and this transcription project seems to be abandoned after doing just the one page anyway). But would that be an appropriate inclusion of a non-English work? This is a French work that happens to include some English, rather than vice versa. --Xover (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  Delete. It's a rather fine line, since we do often host bilingual editions. However, I would consider this particular edition to be a French work rather than a bilingual work, since the English text is presented in the form of a gloss rather than as part of the work itself, and the work is clearly intended for a French audience. If frWS doesn't want to fully host it, I think mulWS is the place for it. It might be worth involving frWS in the discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Can you provide some insight here? --Xover (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I would rather say   Keep, @Beleg Tâl: this is a bilingual text. True the presentation of English text is smaller (almost illegible) and placed as paratext but it's the full text (plus it's the original text as this is an English work). Anyway, even if it's deleted here, I would still very strongly advise against putting the English text on French Wikisource (which is meant to host texts in French languages), especially as it is already transcribed multiple times on : The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, so yes would be the solution (but it sounds quite strange, why not host the English text on English Wikisource?!?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: to me the fact that the English text is paratext is reason enough to not host it on English Wikisource. When we add English works with French paratext, we generally host the French paratext here on English Wikisource, rather than offloading it to French Wikisource. Does French Wikisource have a policy that prevents them from hosting their own paratext if the paratext is not in French? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: not a policy but a strong habit. And sometimes, we do also host paratext in foreign language when it's short, but - AFAIK - not when it's the entire original text. That said, I'll ask on the French Scriptorium to have more point of view (edit: done here fr:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Juillet_2019#Texte_bilingue) so until then, I suggest to put this request on hold. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON, @Beleg Tâl: My French is a bit, ah, "rusty"… Was this resolved in the discussion on frws, or do we need to keep this open a while longer? --Xover (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: No resolution yet. Just a rehash of the discussion here, and some technical resolution of a formatting problem that had stalled proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON, @Beleg Tâl, @Zyephyrus, @ShakespeareFan00: Ok, now three weeks with no movement on frWS or here. How do we move this forward? --Xover (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

IDK how long it will take for the frWS discussion to be considered closed; I would suggest that if the frWS discussion is closed without further contributions, that we proceed to delete the edition here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


Proposed for deletion on the grounds that it makes harder to actually figure out where a page is faulty.

ONE logic path for the behavior of a rendered page, makes it far far simpler to find out WHY and WHERE a Lint concern ACTUALLY broke a page, without having to run around chasing down two different versions of page determined by where it's being transcluded/rendered, through use of this template.

Deletion of this template is recommended in the interests of simplicity and sanity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Prompted by An_Essay_in_Defence_of_the_Female_Sex/Section_8/Modern which is complaining about "Mis-nesting", which is next to IMPOSSIBLE to pin down with this Template in the markup.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Delete in favour of sanity and simplicity, PROVIDED that this template is first removed from all instances where it is currently used, and a reasonable alternative method of annotating these texts is implemented instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the lint errors weren't caused by this template, they were caused by splitting italics across a template open like this:
This would break for any template that open a div, as the opening <i> is in the parent element, and the closing </i> will be in the tag provided by the template:
Some new-lines might make that work more "sane" as it's a pain to edit, but it's not an issue woth {{modern}} specifically - it would have happened with {{smaller block}} too! As I mentioned previously on the Scriptorium, methodical bisection of the text makes it easy to pin down the offending content. Delete half, see if it fixed it, if yes, the error is in the deleted text, if no, it's in the undeleted half. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm Looking at the exemplar above I find it a horrid complex mess and have trouble finding commensurate value. BUT! …the idea of a template that adapts behaviour between namespaces (think links in an original ToC), or ways to mark up a work such that it can adapt itself to different needs and different contexts, is a generally good one. I am uncertain whether this template is one concrete instance of the good idea, just with a bad implementation. For a lot of things where this kind of thing would be good, templates are not a good technology match, and this may be one such, even if the functionality is otherwise a good idea. In sum: "Hmmm". --Xover (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


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)

Oh! Lisa With These Lovely EyesEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted. --Xover (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Long held and long tagged poem with no source, no evidence of publication and unknown author. The only other place that it shows is the Poemhunter site, and that means nothing as either could be the source for the other. Time to cleanse this. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  Delete no sign of author at worldcat Slowking4Rama's revenge 23:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk)

Index:Pope John Anthem.pdf and page: nsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted, and proposed for deletion at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

High school's school song. Out of scope for English Wikisource, as not certain that it is published, nor able to be released to the public domain by the uploader. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Delete Clearly in someone's copyright and Ghana is generally pma. 70. --Xover (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete Looks like the uploader is the author of the prose content of the PDF file, but clearly has no right to the content that would otherwise be in scope. Other uploads by that user have also been deleted on Commons due to copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk)

Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976).djvuEdit

Duplicate to Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 which has already been validated. Posted in response to objections on the Scriptorum about moving the pages to the consolidated djvu.

(The only pages that were moved so far were the two Erratum pages, a move which can be reversed by an admin.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment I haven't looked in any detail, but my immediate thought is that this is a larger cleanup project. The validated version seems to be backed by individual per-page DjVus that preferably should be moved to one complete DjVu (but which may be more effort than is merited). I am also uncertain of the status of the two errata pages and the relationship between the two versions of the work. Perhaps I will understand better when I actually read the referenced Scriptorium discussion. :) --Xover (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Epic of GilgameshEdit

This work seems to have been copied from or similar site, though that site quotes

Sources: William Muss Arnolt, "The Gilgamesh Narrative, Usually Called the Babylonian Nimrod Epic," in Assyrian and Babylonian Literature: Selected Translations, ed. Robert Francis Harper (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1901), 324-368; L. W. King, Babylonian Religion and Mythology (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., 1903), 146-176 and Morris Jastrow, Jr. and Albert T. Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic on the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts, Yale Oriental Series, Researches IV, no. 3 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920).

I can see that work at All that said there is no guarantee of authenticity to the text, so it is out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Keep and move to scan to confirm authenticity —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral There's quite a lot of text there, and at a cursory glance it is not of obvious poor quality. If a match&split against a scan is possible that would be preferable to deletion. --Xover (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      Delete per Inductiveload's analysis below. If it's a synthesis of multiple texts it is going to be practically impossible to unpick and move to a scan. Better then to start fresh from a scan. --Xover (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The text here doesn't appear to be present in any of the three works listed as sources. I suspect it's a synthesis. A decent scan-based source of the poem might be the first work: Page:Assyrian and Babylonian Literature - 1901.djvu/436. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Huon of BurdeuxEdit

Incomplete work without a source, that has been long abandoned. If someone can find a text that matches then it is presuambly resurrectable, however, at this time, it is just problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Keep the "original" version, there is a scan matching it here. I'm inclined to delete the "respelled" version as an abandoned annotated edition with no chance of completion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not saying that the work is out of scope, I am saying that what we have here is valueless and abandoned in the main namespace. There are so many differences: name, pages, etc., we should ditch what is there. No one is going to work on it, and it should be despatched. We should stop having rubbish hanging around. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Billinghurst; and because even the "Original" version is actually an annotation: In this e-text, under the original chapters, letters in grey do not appear on the manuscript, but have been supplied here for clarity's sake. (For example, qd has been expanded to quod.). But just to be clear, I think what was attempted here was a very good idea and something we should give some thought to how we can achieve. But in this specific case what we have is an abandoned annotation without an unmodified original (i.e. it is outside policy). If we can find some way to put this into a policy framework and completed I would be happy to see it undeleted. I see it was largely created by The Man in Question who is still active on enwp. Perhaps they would be interested in working on it? With an unmodified original available, I think this would be a great annotated edition. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (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)

A Veue of the Present State of IrelandEdit

There are perhaps two of 250 pages of this work, in three separate excerpts, which are not scan-backed, and date to 2006. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC).

As an excerpt this text is out of scope, but it would be very good to add the whole work. Maybe a proposal for WS:POTM? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This scan is now at A View of the State of Ireland - 1809.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom, unless someone (individual or PotM) actually volunteers to work on adding the full work. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The Dragon-FlyEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
kept, disambiguation occurred to manage versions

redundant, in addition non-scan backed work for a decade. individual poems need to be included as a part of a book of poetry, in which they appear. i.e. The Harp Weaver/The Dragonfly Slowking4Rama's revenge 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Keep and {{versions}} disambiguation. Whilst it is not scan-backed, it is sourced, and would count as a separate edition,and it would also seem to be the earlier published version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  Keep, different editions. You are right that the poems published in The Harp Weaver should be moved to subpages. Since that work is currently in progress, I assume that will be done as part of the transcription effort. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: about the subpages aspect. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Books may be republished due to popularity without becoming a new edition. New editions are typically revisions of the original work. " [1] do we need to a have a page for each print example of a poem? without a revision? Slowking4Rama's revenge 13:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
For a book reprint, sure. But The Harp Weaver is not a republication of the February 1922 issue of Vanity Fair. Both editions are well within scope on their own, and there is no reason to delete one just because the other exists. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I also want to say that I think it is perfectly reasonable to replace a non-scan-backed work with a different-but-identical scan-backed edition, and I would even encourage this for works where the scan is unavailable or to large to reasonably undertake. In this case, however, what's done is done. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Keep There's no reason not to have copies of poems published in non-book works. If I had been transcribing the book, I would have created the page as a subpage; however, Slowking4 overwrote The Dragon-Fly (Millay), and I created the new page in that style.
As you can see from the HaithiTrust page, the poem is a tiny part of the page, in a volume that on HathiTrust is 1468 pages long. I hate to load single pages out of context, but I hate to load huge volumes that probably will never been completed; the Weird Tales has a much higher percentage of modern interest, but I still tend to feel when working on them that there's a lot of slow work for stuff that has largely escaped anthologization for good reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that wrt the Vanity Fair one, while ideally it should be scan-backed and moved to Vanity Fair (magazine)/date/whatever/The Dragon-Fly, can stay where it is indefinitely until such a time as someone is willing to go through the huge effort of setting up the scans and structure for the whole magazine. But the one in The Harp Weaver already has the scan and structure, so there is no reason not to move it. I would do it myself but I don't want to step on the toes of that work's proofreaders. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's not clear, I definitely approve of moving the The Harp Weaver material under that structure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
you own it; you fix it. i see you will edit war to protect non-scan back versions from a decade ago. your idiosyncratic naming style is imported from english, not Wikisource:Style guide. Slowking4Rama's revenge 13:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Done , the work is properly disambiguated, and the poems in The Harp-Weaver are properly structured. The scans of Vanity Fair can be dealt with eventually but is beyond the scope of this discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Speech on Conciliation with AmericaEdit

Unsourced fragment of a speech which is available at On Conciliation with America (Burke) (with poor style but at least sourced and complete). Would have just gone for CSD 4 but it's not exactly redundant since it's not the same version. —Nizolan (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Delete. This abridged version appears to originate from here, which could also make this reduced edit under copyright as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Recollections of Abraham Lincoln 1847-1865Edit

This work is a paragraph of text, unsupported by an image. It was dumped, and left, and is very much abandoned. Whilst it is not out of scope for the works that we host, it is out of scope as simply an extract of a work, and incomplete. Being an excerpt, and abandoned, that form is out of scope, and we should bite the bullet and delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added a scan and set up the transclusion project; deletion is no longer needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the no need to delete. These works sit there in a dilapidated state, and in the presented form are out of scope. We can delete these works and they can be resurrected when they are of a quality to present. We should not be the home for rubbish. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you have done significant work on it. [So being less strident] I think that we need to look at being less reactive to deletion discussions if the answer is always going to be "but there is a scan". If every time that a nomination is made that someone then goes and spends time doing the work, then why isn't the work being done already? There needs to be a more efficacious space here. Crap work on site, untended for years, splash a rescue effort when someone speaks about the crap. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time doing rescue efforts on crap uploads. I think that works that are in scope, like Lamon's Recollections, should be rescued rather than deleted if possible. The real issue is that it is very easy to start a work and then abandon it. This is a particularly egregious example, but this also applies to scan-backed works that are partially proofread and then abandoned. Thus Wikisource becomes littered with partial transcriptions of works which will remain unattended indefinitely. I don't think the answer is to delete them, but maybe we can find a way to encourage editors to work on abandoned and incomplete texts? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I am significantly torn on this: depending on context I agree with you both. We have too much crap sitting around with no hope of ever improving and that we should get rid of, and we should try hard to save such works rather than just deleting them out of hand. Adding a scan and an index doesn't make the two page excerpt in mainspace any more valuable in itself. That plus proofreading the whole work is awesome, but is that really the best use of our limited volunteer resources? Adding a scan + index and proofreading just enough that it doesn't get deleted is counterproductive.
I don't really have answers, but I'm vaguely thinking along the lines of "Delete" for such works really meaning "Untransclude until more of the work is completed" when a scan and index is available. Incomplete stuff that isn't sitting in mainspace is a much smaller, and somewhat different in nature, kind of problem.
But for sufficiently short or poor excerpts, where the effort to preserve it now is larger than the effort to re-proofread it later, I'm going to pretty consistently land on just plain "Delete". --Xover (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Scan of a 1911 edition - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
withdrawn, keep but simplify and establish a central style guide for the work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this work cannot be adequately represented on Wikisource, due in part to the understandable reluctance of certain contributors to update or fully document the back-end code that would need to be amended to make it possible to adequately transcribe it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


You'll need to be a bit more specific. What exactly about this work is impossible to transcribe on Wikisource? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's to do with the sidenotes and dual language layout in volumes 1 & 2. To adequately represent the author intentions in relation to this, (and I appreciate a typographical facsimile isn't feasible.) would need changes or additions to code in the Mediawiki: namespace, or in Proofread Page and other parts of Mediawiki. There is an understandable reluctance from certain contributors to sit down and implement that code. It would be a shame to loose something on which a decade has been spent trying to find a soloution, but if something can't be adequately represented, and no-one has the expertise to provide long-term soloutions, then it's unreasonable to continue to host a partial and poor attempt. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
How about instead of a deletion discussion we have a manual of style discussion to determine what features of this work it is desirable to reproduce? I don't immediately see why this work would suffer significantly worse from turning footnotes into endnotes than any other work where we do that. And if we here, and in a non-trivial number of other works, have a critical need for sidenotes specifically, perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss how that should be solved in the general case? You're right that in the status quo sidenotes will be infuriating to do in Mediawiki, but there is nothing particularly impossible about them in web pages in general (ignoring the inherent variable width of a "page" on the web that make them less useful). --Xover (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, a proper local style guide with a standardized approximation seems like the best solution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that whatever approach is used, will need to be duplicated on Latin and French Wikisource as portions are hosted on those wikis, The same issues with side-notes crop up locally on those sites as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The drop initials aren't essential, The sidenotes are in five kinds:-
  1. Side titles, which are an annotation summarisation of a lengthy passage, on some later Geo statutes these can be separated out using the approach uses. (Bold text of the sidenote preceeding the relevant passage, I'm less happy about doing this with earlier one because it's sometimes not as clear where to put a relevant "heading break"
  2. Forward references, to later Acts or works that reference this one.
  3. Backward references, to earlier Acts, (These can be easily converted to footnotes.)
  4. Translation, erratum or alternate reading notes (These can be easily converted to footnotes or SIC.)
  5. Notes on supplemental material to read, typically at the end of a statute or "chapter".

I would suggest if this is to be retained, someone sits down and takes at least a fortnight, to come up with one Documented style manual for all volumes. I am prepared to comment on this, but I don't want to be the one writing it. ONE approach, and conforming the existing efforts would of course be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If the documented style manual is to be informed by past experience, then that someone will need to be someone who has worked on these transcription volumes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Style guide goes here: Index talk:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu#Style guideBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Based solely on the description here, I would say #1 should probably go in a visually distinct (bold, or italic, or both, or...) chunk before the relevant section (I see it as close to a newspaper lede or Wikipedia lead section); #2–4 as simple footnotes/endnotes (possibly using ref groups if needed); and #5 either as a inline note (visually distinguished, analogous to #1) or a separate footnote group. What would we lose with that approach? Examples of pages where such a straightforward approach would have significant negative consequences? --Xover (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
All five groups of sidenotes can (and imo should, in cases 2–5) be represented by footnotes, though the formatting idea for group #1 is a good idea. Regardless,   Keep, obviously; the texts are perfectly within scope and the only concern is here is how best to present them. —Nizolan (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn - You've managed to convince me this is worth the effort. The actual straw that broke the binding was some junk I had failed to clean up when changing approaches previously.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Further discussion of sidenote handling can go on the Index talk pageBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Heimskringla; or, Chronicle of the Kings of Norway Vol 1.djvuEdit

Abandoning this due to the inability to represent the sidenoted content that doesn't involve an overly complex custom layout.

Deletion proposed to allow other contributors to start afresh. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a brief look at this work, and the sidenoted content appears to be very simple and well within the capabilities of our basic sidenote templates. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
See Page:The Heimskringla; or, Chronicle of the Kings of Norway Vol 1.djvu/232 for some very nicely implemented sidenotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not compatible with mobiles/tablets, where {{MarginNote}} is not an ideal solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case the discussion should be "fix mobile display", not "delete indices with {{MarginNote}}". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Old transcription efforts...Edit

Deletion requested due to low quality nature of transcription and unclear sourcing (by current standards.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

These all appear to be from The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead). Should be easy to move to subpages and scan-back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also (on quality grounds)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

These were from scans on Google Books... so if someone ever wanted to retrieve the set of volumes concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

World Conquest Through World Government : the protocols of the learned elders of ZionThe Protocols of the Learned Elders of ZionEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
speedy deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Weird improbable redirect likely created by accident. Kaldari (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Done , deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Statute table and related.Edit

Per the views of certain contributors about my tendency to implement over-complicated and convoluted solutions.

Proposed for deletion as an overly complex train-wreck, that could just as easily be done as a plain table, given that it does not implement any link processing currently.

However, this template should not be deleted until it can be cleanly subst: in respect of it's current widespread usage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Statute table/titles/entry}} Does some link processing, but given it's limitations to British Acts, the loss of this wouldn't be a great loss, as there are considerably more red-linked entries than existing ones currently.

The related templates being:

Template:Statute table
Template:Statute table/chapter
Template:Statute table/chapter/doc
Template:Statute table/chapter/link
Template:Statute table/chapter/sandbox
Template:Statute table/chapter/testcases
Template:Statute table/continuation
Template:Statute table/continuation/doc
Template:Statute table/doc
Template:Statute table/footer
Template:Statute table/header
Template:Statute table/header/doc
Template:Statute table/header/sandbox
Template:Statute table/header/testcases
Template:Statute table/sandbox
Template:Statute table/testcases
Template:Statute table/year
Template:Statute table/year/sandbox

Template:Statute table/titles/entry
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/doc
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/sandbox
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/testcases
Template:Statute table/titles/entry noyear - this was speedied under G7 author request because unused—then I discovered this link
Template:Statute table/titles/footer
Template:Statute table/titles/header
Template:Statute table/titles/header/doc

{{Statute table/titles/entry}} was subst en-masse, and is in the process of being cleaned up, the header is needed to import a TemplateStyle and so should be retained.
Template:Statute table/collective/entry
Template:Statute table/collective/header

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support on condition that current uses are replaced with a working alternative —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn provisionally as these are being reworked to make them subst:able, a re-nom will be made when that subst is possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Module:Short titleEdit

Proposed for deletion, given the views of certain contributors about overly complex templates. Most of the function of this template can potentialy be more efficiently done directly with a pipied link anyway. Delete once usagae can be cleanly subst as piped links en-masse. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Over-reacted, but will consider documentation for this, and the relevant higher level templates associated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


No code here which couldn't be implemented directly. This template should be subst and deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Related templates :-


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively it could be retained, but it should be marked for subst. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2019 (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)
Also listing the related {{numbered}} and {{numbered div}} family below, because they use a near identical technique to the previous incarnation of this template, with broadly simmilar incompatiblites.

In line with the on-going efforts to remove overly complex and incompatible layout templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  Neutral on these, I do not know how they work, but I would think a simple numbered div template should not be overly complex. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


This is an old experimental template, that is apparently unused, the issue it was trying to address eventually was as recall resolved by changes in the guidelines on how to code table split over pages, which resolved the issue this template was trying to address as I understood it. If this template is still needed then the intended uses case it's trying to meet should ideally be clearly documented. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


Marking this for provisional deletion as the works on which it is used, are now (or will be using the header formatting provided via the Score extension.

This should be removed when the conversions have been completed.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Who decided to deprecate it and replace it with directly using the score extension? Placing this text within the score extension prevents any text processing whatsoever, which is why I have always transcribed this metadata directly outside the score extension. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


Refferal because it's unused, but it was used here to do the formatting. Is having nested inline DIV's really a better way of doing formatting like this, than having a template with a readable name? If so, please suggest why. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)