Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.
Proposed deletions
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

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

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


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

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)
  • Keep. The Wayback Machine has not archived all pages.--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jusjih. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (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)
@Peteforsyth: I am still inclined to keep what we have pending someone acquiring a scan or scanning a physical copy of the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:10, 8 August 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)
  •   Comment We're rapidly approaching a year on this discussion, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Can someone who is engaged with the works please summarise where we stand and what are the remaining issues? --Xover (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: The general opinion is that the works will be entirely within scope if they are proofread from a scan of the volume of the work from which they originate. This has already occurred for a number of the above works, which have been marked with {{closed}}. The works which have not yet been proofread from a scan are:
    • Upon the upload of the volumes relevant to these articles, and the proofreading therefrom of the same, the discussion should be unanimously closed as keep. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (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 Lua error: Missing = before parameter:
    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)
  • James500: I have noticed the following pages, as well; you may wish to work on these.
  • My objections to the above are the same as my objections to the other pages, and they should be deleted in kind. As for the other pages, I believe that they should be deleted, because an insufficient amount of work has been done, and they remain as they were without the scan, woefully incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

James500 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

    • @User:Inductiveload: Do I use PD-old-assumed for all the above periodicals published in the UK over 120 years ago? Should I use PD-old-70 or a similar template on any of them? What about the Canadian periodical? James500 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @James500: I think PD-old-assumed will cover the non-US cases. Any jurisdictions with pma lengths other than 70 can use the "duration" parameter. You can use the PD-old-70 if you know the last author died over 70 years ago. Because these magazines have multiple authors and some parts are not under a name, the assumed template is likely to be the easier method. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @User:Inductiveload: Some periodicals are very old. If a periodical was published (for example) two hundred years ago, would it be permissible under commons' policy to infer from the date alone that the author must have died more than seventy years ago? If this method can be used, what is the latest date of publication for which it can be used? James500 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @James500: Commons accepts 120 years since publication as a reasonable cutoff for assuming copyright has expired in the absence of specific indication to the contrary. The number is a compromise; it's possible such works may still be copyright somewhere, but almost all will not be. See c:Template:PD-old-assumed. Note in particular that that template should not be used if at all possible: this particular case probably qualifies (many authors, some not identified, not all with easily obtainable death dates, massive amount of research to determine specific terms, etc.) but you should never prefer this template to more specific ones if more specific ones are at all feasible to use. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Xover: That is not what I mean. Can I assume that it is completely impossible for a person to live for 123 years or more and apply PD-old-70 on that basis? James500 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@James500: If the date of death of an author is not known, despite having made reasonable efforts to discover it, then PD-old-assumed is appropriate. If date of death is not known then PD-old-70 can sometimes be used, but as a general rule of thumb that template should be used when the date of death is known, at least approximately. Is the issue here that you have a work published less than 120 years ago, but where you suspect the author / authors died more than 70 years ago? --Xover (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Xover: The oldest periodical listed here is from 1829 or 1830. That is 190 years. For the author to have died less than 70 years ago, he would have to have lived much longer than w:Jeanne Calment or been three years old when he wrote it. Can c:Template:PD-old-70 be placed on that one by reason of its date alone? James500 (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@James500: I would assume that would be accepted in practice; but I don't quite understand why you would want to since this would be an obvious case for PD-old-presumed. --Xover (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Xover: I do not understand. c:Template:PD-old-presumed is a redlink. James500 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@James500: But c:Template:PD-old-assumed exists. :) --Xover (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the disagreements that arise on Wikisource could be avoided if we had a bit more of a clearly-articulated shared expectation of the minimum requirements for a page. Wikipedia more or less has this, with the definition of a "stub" and the "notability" standards. On Wikisource, it seems one has to sort of feel one's way around, and wade through numerous conversations among old-timers, before one even begins to develop a theory of what the standards are. I feel it's important to address this gap, and I'd propose our energies would be better spent doing so than on debating specific deletions. -Pete (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Comment We had this conversation years ago and reached a decision ==> Main namespace is for prepared, proofread works. If you have a listing of {{small scan link}} or {{ext scan link}} then you should be curated in the author or portal namespace or wikisource:wikiprojects. We can build, construct and curate what is around and organise to put these constructs onto something appropriate. As we have proofread and transcluded works then they appear as neat and complete works that the readers want to see and can use. I pointed out all this to the contributor early on their spree to create these pages, and put in place the scans. These constructs work fine when moved to Portal: namespace, and I suggest that is what happens with this remaining list. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 24 January 2021 (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)
  •   Delete Whilst I will agree that the work is in scope, this sole article reproduced as typed text sitting in the wilderness is not in scope. Looking forward to someone working on getting volumes of scans and coordinating the work. In the meanwhile delete, this title page and the singular article without prejudice to a proper presentation. Suggest moving the text of the single biography to the author's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Headquarters AgreementEdit

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

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

United States Headquarters Agreement for the United NationsEdit

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

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

Template:Wikipediaref x 3Edit

{{wikipediaref}} was deprecated back around 2013 as part of an effort to standardise links to sister projects. No systematic effort was ever started to remove it from use, and it is currently in use on ~2.5k pages. In addition to {{wikipediaref}} we have {{wikipedia excerpt}} (2 transclusions) and {{WikipediaExcerpt}} (8 transclusions). Their output is as follows:


Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

{{wikipedia excerpt|Hamlet}}

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.

While {{wikipediaref}} indeed produces a link to a sister project, it doesn't actually serve the same purpose as {{plain sister}}: the latter is an interwiki link and meant for navigation between the projects, while the former is meant to facilitate attribution for a copied bit of text from Wikipedia, both visually and for legal purposes (CC BY-SA requires attribution). I don't see that they conflict and I don't see that {{wikipediaref}} causes any problems, but on the other hand does provide a useful and desired function (by definition, since it's been used ~2.5k times).

I therefore propose that we 1) migrate any uses of the other templates to {{wikipediaref}}; 2) convert the other templates into redirects to {{wikipediaref}}; and 3) undeprecate {{wikipediaref}}. --Xover (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree with the proposed solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The decision at that time was that we were not going to encourage further use as it didn't make a lot of sense when 1) we were keeping description and notes condensed; 2) users can follow the enWP link; 3) the point of citing enWP was close to pointless when it changed so regularly. They could be tidied up and removed as people got to works. What purpose does the ref citation serve? I cannot see any. I don't think we should undeprecate it, as I don't see that value. Add to that the articles referenced may or may not even still be at the targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: The point of it is attribution: "this text was excerpted from elsewhere; that other place was this article on Wikipedia". For longer bits of text that attribution is necessary to fulfil the "BY" part of "CC BY-SA", but not for uncopyrightably short bits of text. The vast majority (but not all) uses of the template is in the notes field in mainspace, Translation:, Portal:, and Author: namespaces, where I agree should mostly be so short that copyright is an unlikely issue. However, we do have some exceptions where longer bits of text are warranted, and usages (and use cases) in other namespaces.
    So… how about more clearly describing how and when it is appropriate to use this template, adding a tracking category for it, and then actively patrolling its use (including removing any old inappropriate uses of it, to eliminate bad examples for people to copy)? So long as we don't functionally delete it people are going to continue using it, so we might as well grab it by the reigns and control that use. Or put another way, anything that's deprecated should go away eventually, even if it will take a very long time, and that means doing something active to get us there. --Xover (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Response by authorEdit

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

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

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

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

Act No. 3815Edit

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

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

Interrogation of Wolfram SieversEdit

This is a non-scan-backed 11-page excerpt from one volume (Vol. 20) of the full proceedings of the Nuremberg process. The excerpting appears designed to emphasise a particular aspect of the process. Xover (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It is part of the general scheme of Nuremberg excerpts contained here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep but should certainly be made part of an overall volume-based hierarchy and, of course, scan-backed.

April the 8th came certain intelligence to London from BruminghamEdit

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

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

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

@PBS: Thanks for commenting!
Yes, our written policies are rather less developed than one expects coming from enWP, and rely instead on practice developed over the years. It's really not an approach that's friendly to people for whom enWS is not their primary project, but I've complained about it so much people have started to just nod, smile, and back away slowly when I bring it up. Oh well…
Our basic unit here is the previously published work, in a specific edition. God in the Mount (1641) is a work. The History of Birmingham (1835) is a work. The latter includes an excerpt of the former, and April the 8th … is an excerpt from that. In other words, an excerpt of an excerpt. In a citation (i.e. on enWP) citing some fragment of info through intermediary sources is fine and often even preferable for reliability, but the goal on enWS is preserving and making available the works themselves as published. That we have added a scan to back the excerpt does not make it any less of an excerpt; only made possible the production of the whole work. But do I take it then that you have no interest in proofreading the entire work? At a little over 500 pages it isn't insurmountable, and it's not inconceivable that others would be interested in helping out. Xover (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with TruthEdit

Extended content

The site is non-functional in its main namespace, and we probably should clear out all our remaindered works and the templates that were pointing to the site. I don't see that it will ever be resurrected. Though I do think that we should keep a permanent record of the pages that we find in this category and record what we do delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The works as they are now are not a problem. The template(s) should not be deleted, either. If any one work is problematic, it should be nominated individually, &c. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A few of those works should be hosted here: Thine Be the Glory, Thine Is the Glory, and The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, A Warning to the Curious, Luceafărul, Lukundoo all reached the 95 year limit, Futility (Robert E. Howard) will in January. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I was about to start removing this template from every page it's on. I hope I now won't have to. I used to be an admin on Wikilivres. The site is dead. Yes, the main page is back but almost none of the links work. The site is functionally useless. And it's never going to go back to the way it used to be. Any remaining links to the useless remains of Wikilivres should be removed. The template should be deleted. Or maybe turned into a redirect to some template saying the work is still under copyright in the US. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Billy Bones's FancyEdit

Unsourced poem, where the original of this appears to be from this 1916 annotated version of Treasure Island. We'd be better off just transcribing that than leaving this around. Not to mention, if the source of this is indeed that book, there are errors in our version. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • See also The Dead Man's Chest, a contentious page once. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The original is actually a chapter in Buried Caesars, which has already been proofread. This should be turned into a redirection page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not exactly the same, but close enough; I'd consider Billy Bones's Fancy to be a Redundant edition of one of the versions published in Chapter 14 of Buried Caesars, and thus we should delete it. However, should the title "Billy Bones's Fancy" be considered a title only of this specific version (and thus redirected to Buried Caesars), or a title of the work in general regardless of specific version (and thus be redirected to The Dead Man's Chest's versions page)? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I don't really think it merits anything, even a redirect, unless we can find a title proving this title is actually in use. As I've said, the version we currently have appears to be inconsistent with all known sources that could be used for the time being, so to me it's as bad as having been made up (which might actually be the case). PseudoSkull (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Redirects are cheap, and mostly invisible to end users. I'm inclined to close this and turn it into a redirect to The Dead Man's Chest, and if anyone wants the redirect actually deleted they can open a focussed discussion on that issue. Sound ok? Xover (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Biþ On WæterælfadleEdit

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

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

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

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


Let's please delete this unformatted mess. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing it is another option, that is what I did. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The Project Gutenberg transcription (from which the current version is taken) does not match either source mentioned on the Talk: page; it should preferably be backed to a real version. (One thing to note is the title, which should be “Boädicéa;” the lack of accents carries over into the text, as well.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    be bold, but it is a version and there is no basis for deletion now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Images in some chapters of When We Were Very Young need to be moved here from CommonsEdit

Some of the illustrations in this book that were by Ernest Howard Shepard are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, such as at When We Were Very Young/At Home. This British author hasn't been dead for 70 years, and so the images are (presumably) still in copyright in the UK. So the images need to be transferred here.

This seems to have been the product of the work of User:Languageseeker and User:PawełMM at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. So, the original files Languageseeker uploaded can also just be deleted there. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I thought you had transferred all these from Commons to enWS (per Commons thread)? At least File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0078 A.png exists only on Commons. Which in itself is weird because they should have been deleted again shortly after Languageseeker requested temporary undeletion, but all 180 of 'em are still there. Xover (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Das Kapital Volume One and Das Kapital Volume TwoEdit

These two volumes of this work should be deleted as they are not scan backed, are not properly <ref>'d; they are missing references, they have revolting formatting, and plentiful weird scan characters embedded in the body.

I would suggest that it would be worthwhile planning to put this as a POTM or similar and to be a replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Delete There's fairly active work at Index:Das Kapital (Moore, 1906).pdf. This work was actually nominated but passed over for WS:MC because someone was working on it themselves (so we put Index:Left-Wing Communism.djvu in instead). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  Delete, we can do better than this. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that the Volume Two and Volume Three translations are from the Progress Publishing in the USSR from 1956 and 1959 so they also are likely copyright violations as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


This is a new creation, and it was created based on Template:Ref and Template:Note. It is an unnecessary expansion of an old-fashioned and faux means of doing references. It was used I think to avoid using the group= function of references. We shouldn't be creating more kludge when there is a perfectly acceptable means to automatically generate references. I have replaced the three existing uses. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Waldorf public school trial transcriptEdit

Unformatted copydump of a court transcript. As copydumps go, this is not a particularly bad example, but it's still below my personal quality threshold (hence the nom); it's just not so far below that it obviously falls under precedent / speedy (so the community needs to decide).

Note that it came to my attention due to lack of license template so it comes here directly from WS:CV#Waldorf public school trial transcript. But that discussion only considered the copyright issue and not the quality issue.

Pinging interested contributors from the previous discussion: Inductiveload. Xover (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mehhhh, I guess a fix-up from and the PDF at won't be toooooo hard. I'll have to dig deep for a nodule of care-ium though. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The complete works of Count TolstoyEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's frustrating, given that I speedy deleted several of the pdfs as duplicates back a few months and someone has blithely recreated them. Yes, once any proofread pages have been appropriately dealt with, delete all the pdf versions and also delete the template that lists the volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a message of some "InductiveBot" of 2021-05-17 in Page:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksof02tols).pdf/107 which says that some DJVU pages have been moved to the PDF pages. Will something like this happen again, if the PDF scans are deleted? (I'll start to copy all contents of the PDF pages to the DJVU...). - R. J. Mathar (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@R. J. Mathar: InductiveBot is a bot operated by Inductiveload If it moved these pages it was probably in response to a request someone made. I would suggest you hold off moving any pages until we figure out the background and decide definitively what indexes we are going to use. It is also probably best to let an admin do it to avoid a lot of cleanup afterwards. Xover (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
(E/C) This was talked about before, but no much seems to have happened: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05#Tolstoy_(Wiener)....
@R. J. Mathar: please do not copy the content, that's a complete waste of everyone's time and removes history. I'll move any pages if needed. Manually moving pages between indexes is rarely the right thing to do, because if you do that, whoever does the move properly will need to delete the copied pages first.
Volume 2 was missing pages in the DJVU, so it was migrated to the PDF (see the deletion log at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu). If we want to go for a full set of DJVUs, that needs fixing. Or do we want a mixed set?
If a batch upload of the missing DJVU volumes is desired, I can do that if provided with a spreadsheet of metadata as explained here User:Inductiveload/Requests/Batch uploads. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I had in mind to do some Tolstoy a while back and found this mire, when I noticed an admin assisting the disruption I stopped trying to sort it out. It is very easy to waste a lot of thoughtful contributors time with a few clicks. Can someone please ping the relevant accounts? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the templates, Template:The complete works of Count Tolstoy volumes, and the history of the other. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Church and State (Tolstoy, tr. Dole)Edit

Unsourced edition that appears to mostly duplicate the scan backed version here. Probably should be converted into redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Meech Lake AccordEdit

Copydump without any attempt at formatting, no license tags, and no actual source specified (the three links are added after the fact and point to "other copies of the accords" rather than the actual source for the text dumped here). It's entirely possible that the text is PD under either EdictGov or "government work" exceptions, but it'll take some research to figure out the details and it's more effort than I'm willing to put in for something an IP cut&pasted in 2006. Xover (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum (unsourced)Edit

A string of w:Lorem ipsum of unknown origin, unknown veracity, no source, and unknown copyright status; that poorly duplicates a fully proofread and scan-backed text of known copyright status, that also happens to be one of the prominent original examples of lipsum: Lorem ipsum (Letraset).

Note that while strictly outside scope for enWS, Lorem ipsum in general has been previously discussed and accepted as an exception to WS:WWI: once in 2006 whose link is lost to time, in 2011, and in 2017. I would suggest that if someone wants to reopen the scope-based discussion we keep that issue separate.

The 2017 discussion was almost enough grounds to delete the unsourced version (most participants that expressed an opinion supported replacing the unsourced text with a scan-backed version; while the "keep" votes were for a version of the text, not that specific version of it), but not quite. Xover (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That it is unsourced, when another sourced version is available here, is a good enough reason for deletion.
However, I think I will be copying that talk page for later reference, as the aversion to miscegenation is illustrated there, as in so many places at enWS. I see it as disagreeable. (and for later discussion at Scriptorium (note the irony in that name)) Shenme (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  Delete because it is unsourced. If there are versions different from the Letraset it would be good to have their lineages, which requires sourcing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (that is, keep). This would be a terrible loss for English Wikisource to delete this page. Statements of a number of editors, including one that has already voted here, indicate a distaste for Lorem ipsum on English Wikisource. (In non-English uses, the text is loaned from English.) This does not justify the deletion of this page, which is one of the most popular, and most consistently popular, on this project. More work should be put in to save this longer and more usable version than has been spent starting this proposal. I similarly oppose the idea of allowing unilaterally the deletion of unsourced pages where sourced alternatives exist, but that would be an entirely separate discussion. The first (April 2006, that is) discussion may be read here; this is the last edit before it was archived. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I just want to point out that I did spend a lot of time trying to save this text (though I also advocated for it to be moved to mulWS, a subject which I am not addressing here). Despite many hours of research, I found no matching source, and I strongly believe that this particular version is a self-published user-generated export from MS Word or another lorem-ipsum generator. Furthermore, the only version of Lorem Ipsum that I was able to find that met WS:WWI guidelines, is the one I uploaded at Lorem ipsum (Letraset). I applaud your desire to keep this page, but I have already spent a lot of time trying to find a way to make it compatible with WS:WWI, and I'm afraid it is just not possible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I also want to note that I have no objection to keeping the text itself in a more appropriate place, such as User space, or Wikisource space, and it is already also available in Template space at Template:Lorem ipsum#Full textBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Beleg Tâl: Should this discussion unfortunately result in deletion, I would instead prefer it to be moved to my User: space. I also oppose moving it to old Wikisource, but that is not a topic for discussion. Also, I agree with the first you made in your closing point to the last discussion, and believe that such a path should be implemented. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  Delete. The popularity of a given page is not a good direct reason we should include it. Consistency is very much more important than the argument of popularity. Having any unsourced work here makes the integrity of that work more questionable and it takes more work in research to determine the integrity of what is presented. So IMO all unsourced works, and even non-scan-backed works that link to a scan, are IMO a huge mess here and really should be cleaned up on some kind of massive scale, by either scan backing them or deleting them (and this is something with which I've met much disagreement here and is of course, as you say, a matter of another discussion). The fact that we even still have works that aren't scan backed is encouraging people to produce texts without scan backing them even to this day, and those users appear to meet little to no repercussion for this. The only time I feel it's appropriate to not scan back a work is where the original text was published in HTML or something. The huge amount of unsourced or unscan-backed works is also probably what's actively making people go to Gutenberg instead of us, which is really a shame because a scan-backed work at Wikisource is fundamentally more useful than a Gutenberg text that gives no scan. We don't need to be incentivizing this any further and the broader scale of the problem is not talked about enough. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • “[T]hose users appear to meet little to no repercussion for” “produc[ing] texts without scan backing them:” this is a good thing; users should create texts. To thing this is a bad thing, to think this a thing to punish, is to doom this project to an inevitable destruction. To desire to punish users for creating new pages is a sentiment inherently dangerous to the continuation of Wikisource. The popularity of this lorem ipsum is what has sustained it through three deletion discussions, against arguments of uniformity and “[c]onsistency.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
To avoid veering too much into off-topic territory (since this is a debate I'd like to participate in if the opportunity ever comes to do so seriously), I will make no more comments here on it after this. But every wiki has a form that is expected to be followed. On most wikis if this form is not followed when a page is created it's either fixed or deleted, and the user who made the mistake is warned about what went wrong. It is seen as an offense if done repeatedly after warned. I don't see that as a problem. When it comes to scan backing works, that originated on paper, I think this should be part of our required form in this way, because it is our unique and impressive way of proving to our readers and editors that any bit of text actually appeared in the work. It is something that distinguishes us from any other site that I've ever used and is why I picked reading from Wikisource (yes, I do that too on the side of editing) over reading from Gutenberg or other sites. Furthermore I don't think a more thorough discouragement of producing pages that aren't scan backed is going to "destroy the project", but just encourages a better form. As I've said, if more of our works were scan backed and there were no copydumps whatsoever, people would be reading from our site more actively. I understand that our transcription process is a bit complicated (I was a newbie here once before), but so is Wiktionary's, and their process has only gotten more complex as years have gone by. It doesn't make it wrong that it's complex there either, though. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
However, aside from my opinions on that matter, as they are fringe and do not represent the consensus of the community: my current argument for the Lorem ipsum unsourced work not aligning with consensus is that it has a sourced alternative, while it may be slightly different than what is presented. The popularity of the page here doesn't change that fact. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobel's BequestEdit

Non-scanned back version. The notes link to a different edition, but we have a scan-back version here. In principle we could have the two editions but I propose converting into a redirect for now. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in RussiaEdit

Currently non-scan backed, whereas we have a scan-backed version here from a different edition. If someone wants to proofread from the Index than we can look at hosting multiple editions but for now I propose converting into a redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The Emigration of the DoukhoborsEdit

Unsourced version. Redundant with the scan backed version here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcriptsEdit

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

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

The Doon School Weekly and The Journalistic Code of Ethics for The Doon School WeeklyEdit

This seems to be more of a quasi-Wikipedia article on the publication than anything else. The "Code of Ethics" may have been published in one of the early issues (~1936) but I haven't been able to find it so far. The paper is managed by students so many of the contributors will still either be alive or have died within a current pma. copyright term, but without the source its hard to tell whether the "Code" appeared under a specific byline or is attributed to the editor. Xover (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  • The text of these pages is substantially identical, and is likely from a recent (explanatory) article. This is more likely a copyright violation, but should still be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Everything in the mainspace in Category:Project disclaimersEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Geography of StraboEdit

@TE(æ)A,ea.: creator of the page. This is just the title page, there are three volumes, the index appears to have been 'saved out' as not proofread by @James500:. Is there an intention to work further on these volumes? Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments or why you are sending me notifications. James500 (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I wouldn't either, there is no information on what has been done other than a bot routine, probably things I do as I go along while doing the reading. @James500: you are invested in that work, so I notified you. My query to you, or anyone else invested, that is, contributed time and focus, is are you going to complete the transcript or can the page [in the sub-heading above] be deleted? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless someone else gets there first, I will proofread the work eventually, but I am unable to do so immediately or to give an estimate as to exactly when the proofreading will be completed. There are a number of other editors who proofread these sort of pages. I cannot confirm their plans. James500 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @James500: Of course, I am not placing expectations on anyone, just proposing that the page in 'main-space' be deleted. Give a comment on that if you wish. Cygnis insignis (talk)