Wikisource talk:Deletion policy

Add topic
Active discussions


I've just based this on the policy at the English Wikipedia for now but maybe it needs to be specialised for Wikisource. Feel free to make or suggest changes. Angela 03:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We should avoid a lot of rules until the need arises. Although some of the categories are obvious, the membership should feel that it has ownership in the process. I would hope that the people who choose to involve themselves here will have had experience in the WPs of several languages, not all of whose rules are the same. Simply importing something from the English WP, and pretending that it is adopted policy is not very considerate of the community as a whole. Eclecticology 09:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well something has to be here if pages are going to be deleted. I wasn't saying it was set in stone. The point of putting something on the page was so that it could be discussed. You can't just avoid the issue that vandalism will occur that needs to be deleted. Angela 01:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary has functioned quite well for over a year without a lot of problem over deletion policies. This project and Wiktionary tend to have more restricted scopes, and that perhaps accounts for their having fewer problems. Some NPOV issues have arisen on Wiktionary, but they've always been resolved quickly and amicably. Routine vandalism and nonsense hardly needs discussion. Wikipedia seems to attract a more opinionated and argumentative crowd, often with inflated views about the state of their knowledge. Eclecticology 08:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Routine vandalism and nonsense hardly needs discussion if the policy says these may be deleted. I don't see the point in not having a policy, even if all it says is that these will be deleted. Angela 19:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a proposal?Edit

18 months later and this is still just a "proposed policy"... I wonder what policy people are using when they delete pages here. Perhaps it's time now to move this back to Wikisource:Deletion policy? Angela 01:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it should be moved back to Wikisource:Deletion policy. I think this "proposed policy" corresponds well with the reasons given when pages are being deleted here. If nobody objects within a few days this policy should be made official policy here. --Christian S 05:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


The deletion policy was expanded following community discussion and collaboration on 02 February 2006. See User:Pathoschild/Projects/Deletion policy to compare the original version, initial proposal, and final proposal, and for links to discussions. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of unneeded redirectsEdit

When deleting unneeded redirects that do not have a serious edit history, please check incoming links. For example, I have seen Help:Guidelines on adding a new document to Wikisource (75 links) at Wanted page list. Does someone has a bot to update them to Help:Adding texts? It would take me many minutes to change them manually.--Jusjih 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright clause: add author pagesEdit

I propose that we add the following text to G6 (copyright violations): "..., or author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted." // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. This is something we've been needing for quite a while.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Implemented, per the lack of opposition and the multiple deletion precedents. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Images now at the CommonsEdit

I'd like to propose a new Criteria:

M5. Images that have been posted to WikiCommons.

The other way I can see to handle this is to alter G4 to encompass this. - illy 19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to expand A1, "Articles transwikied to another project", to cover images moved to Commons with correct GFDL compliance. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I like expanding A1, as adding a new criteria would cover only a specific situation (which won't be an extremely common situation, either). This way, we can keep our deletion policy with as few speedy criteria as possible.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that seems like a reasonable solution to me. - illy 13;48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to modifying A1 to the following?
  1. Articles transwikied to another project, or images uploaded to the Wikimedia commons with the original contributor noted.
// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
None from me. - illy 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Implemented. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarify M2 (unneeded redirects)Edit

Following discussion on the Scriptorium ("Deletions of unneeded redirects should probably no longer be speedy"), I propose that criteria M2 (unneeded redirects) be amended to the following. I've increased the 24 hours proposed in the discussion to a week, since there is little chance that external websites will link to the page so quickly. I've also decreased the time before deletion from three to two months, to reduce backlog. I've removed the note about redirects to subpages being deletable at any time, since external websites will often link to subpages, expanded the proposed definitions of 'unneeded redirect', and added a note about page moves and broken redirects.

2. Unneeded redirects created within the last week, or older redirects tagged with {{subst:dated soft redirect|"[[new title]]"}} for at least two months. Redirects to inexistant pages may be deleted at any time. Unneeded redirects include alternate mixed-case capitalisation (one redirect for all-first-letter capitals suffices), and redirects from page moves where the original title is incorrect.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with changes to time periods, but would like to consider individual Chapters pages as immediately deletable. I realize sup-pages was to broad because the would include many shorts stories that are probably linked to. But I doubt there are incoming links on the each chapter.--BirgitteSB 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There are perhaps more cases of external links to subpages than to parent pages; for example, see Amram and Preterism on Wikipedia, which link to individual verses of the bible (albeit not to Wikisource). Soft redirecting these would prevent broken links, make Wikisource a more dependable reference, and allow other sites to update those links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I concede you have the right idea. Support--BirgitteSB 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How about redirects outside article namespaces? For example, Help:Guidelines on adding a new document to Wikisource has 75 incoming links but Pathoschild deleted it as unneeded redirect.--Jusjih 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Those redirects were all from ancient talk pages, left by an older version of {{welcome}}. The top-level Help:Contents was linked to from all those pages (and the users were all or mostly inactive), so the redirect was not needed. We should be careful to allow administrator judgement in deletions as well; these criteria are good rules of thumb, but they can't cover every possible scenario. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this then mean that page moves need to be soft redirected for two months before the links are deleted (e.g. moving pages from TITLE - CHAPTER ## to TITLE/CHAPTER ##? This will be a bear in terms of cleaning up the messes we make.Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If I did a bit more reading, I'd have realized that my question was already answered.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient attempts to contact contributorsEdit

Greetings. I only recently discovered the RfD and subsequent administrative action removing the Baha'i writings in english translation from the Wikisource. I understand this came from a mismatch between the terms of use of the Baha'i Library from which these versions were sourced, and the Wikisource policy requiring permission for commercial use.

I feel that this action may have been precipitous, and find that insufficient attempts were made to contact the contributors who had put so much hard work into this, contributing various templates and other common resources in the process. No attempt was made, that I can see, to contact except through the talk page. Most of the contributors spend their time on wikipedia, and are not regularly logged into wikisource. I also cannot see any discussion as to this action, nor can I see any archive of such discussion nor voting.

Moreover, I feel it was precipitious to remove these these english language texts, in that while under license from the Baha'i Library (which is the authoritative source), they are also in publication (or out of print) elsewhere, often such that they have passed out of copyright in several countries, and such sources could easily provide alternative licensing legitimacy according to the wikipedia copyright policy.

I therefore propose that a further addition to the deletion policy be considered - that a deletion proposal should not be considered finally accepted unless reasonable attempts to contact the contributor or major contributors, by which a note on their talk page should be considered insufficient if they have submitted their e-mail into the system. In such a case, an attempt to send them a message to that registered e-mail notifying them of a request for deletion of a page. If they have not registered their e-mail, then a message on their talk page could be sufficient. (A substantial problem in the wikiverse is the inability to have a single user page for all the wikis, or to have notification of talk pages forwarded to other systems. It forces a user to lurk in several places, and things can fall through the gap). --Christian Edward Gruber 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ( talk page).

I created the templates below ({{Proposed deletion}} and {{Deletion}}) to simplify notifying users; leaving a new message every time one nominates a page for deletion can be extremely tedious.

{{Proposed deletion|various Bahá'í writings}}

Hello Deletion policy. Please note that I have proposed that various Bahá'í writings be deleted in accordance with the Deletion policy; I invite you to participate in the discussion taking place on Proposed deletions. The text will be deleted in a week if there is a general consensus of established editors to do so, or sooner if it matches a criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you for your interest in our project.

{{Deletion|various Bahá'í writings|following a discussion at [[WS:DEL|Proposed deletions]] ([[Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006/05#Texts_from_the_Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Reference_Library|archived discussion]])}}

Hello Deletion policy. Please note that I have deleted various Bahá'í writings in accordance with the Deletion policy following a discussion at Proposed deletions (archived discussion). If you would like to reopen discussion, you may appeal a deletion as described by the Deletion policy ("Deletion appeal"). Thank you for your interest in our project, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)I appreciate your frustration, but I do not believe any changes to the deletion policy are necessary. In any cases where an interested party finds out too late of the deletion they can always file an appeal as outlined at the end of this policy. Although I certainly believe in making a full effort to contact parties if I have reason to believe they are still interested, I do not wish to make a policy where nominations are invalid unless the original contributor certifies he/she has been emailed. I can only reccomend that anyone intereseted in the status of texts at WS check into the project periodically. It is not that much effort as the new message banner pops up immediately. I do this myself in regards to Commons and Meta, so I understand the situation.--BirgitteSB 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind inserting a line encouraging users to contact the contributor, but I wouldn't want to make it policy either. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Having calmed down, and done a bit more reading into the appeals process - and a kind offer from BirgitteSB to temporarilly restore the pages to allow me to backup the formatting - I can agree with Pathoschild's last comment. Encouragement is fine, it doesn't have to be policy. The only thing about "logging in" a lot is that wikisource documents should tend to be in less flux than, say, wikipedia articles, because they're documents that, when completely entered and formatted, are done. Contrast this with wikipedia articles which can be eternally in flux. So it's more likely that someone will have cause to not check in for months at a time once they've done the heavy-lifting here. I'm not saying that just to wimp out here - I see Birgitte's point, and I will attempt to log in more frequently to avoid this occurance. The whole thing would be technically ameliorated with an inter-wiki-messaging system that would allow for a harmonized talk page of some variety. Ah well. Thanks for people being so calm and rational - as I said to Birgitte elsewhere, I'll have me and the other main contributor hunt down the alternate licensing arrangements. Cheers --Christian Edward Gruber 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Precedent deletion criteriaEdit

I've noticed that certain subjects are regularly brought up on Proposed deletions, notably author categories. A new set of criteria based on precedent would allow administrators to fast track new discussions regarding such subjects, but not speedy-delete before the discussion is opened. There are several benefits to such criteria, and no disadvantages that I can think of.

  • It is easy to overview or discuss deletions per precedent (through the deletion archives). Such deletions are thus easily tracked, so they can be tweaked or removed to most accurately reflect consensus. It is easy to discuss or disagree with a deletion per precedent, much in the same way one can discuss a normal proposal for deletion. The deletion per precedent is thus much like saying, "I've deleted this page since we always delete such pages, unless anyone disagrees."
  • Deletions per precedent can have the complex reasoning of lengthy discussion behind them; for example, it would be difficult to explain the community's preference for author indexes over categories in a deletion summary box. The discussion allows links to previous discussions, explanations, comments or objections, et cetera. Such information is very difficult to convey in a deletion summary, whereas in this case one could simply use "see Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006/09#I_Love_Toys".
  • Separating these criteria from the criteria for speedy deletion makes those easier to remember and manage, both for administrators and editors who tag pages, and reduces the complexity of the policy. The seperate section would allow us to add a large number of precedent deletion criteria without reducing useability or simplicity, since nobody needs to remember them all, which in turn makes Proposed deletions much more efficient.

Proposed deletions can thus be highly streamlined by fast-tracking recurring discussions, without the risk of accidentally deleting something the community would have kept— such an accidental deletion would be visible (logged in the archives) and easily reversed (and the precedent deletion criteria adjusted if necessary). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good addition to me. It makes redundant, commonplace (but not speedy-able) deletions a bit easier to do and a bit faster to make. We won't have to wait the full week, but only a few days to delete items which we have been consistently deleting all along.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think it sounds good, although I am not sure exactly how this would work. Can we do a few examples? --BirgitteSB 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I've added the new section, "Precedent", to the deletion policy. The only criterion currently listed involves categories for authors' works; this criteria would allow an administrator to rapidly close "Category:Emily Dickinson" (Proposed deletions) by citing it. I think the best way to understand and refine the method is to try it out for a while. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unknown translatorsEdit

Category:Deletion requests/Unknown translators has too many problem articles. I need clarification of how to delete them. Wait for 7 or 14 days? Discussions?--Jusjih 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jusjih: While these pages are listed as deletions, I think the purpose of them is to give us a list of pages we need to track down translation (or source) information. I do not think we should delete these pages until we have tried to find the translator info. I believe some of these works came from Gutenberg, which doesn't always list the translator, but does say they are using a public domain work. I think that would be reliable enough that we can say the work is known to be PD without actually listing the translator.
The list is not complete, either, so I think any deletion should be held off until we have the total list. Then we can discuss how to go about doing this. In the meantime, I will try to identify the translators/source information for these works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
One intermediate solution would be to delete them, but list the works that are deleted. If someone determines the translation's copyright status, we can simply restore the work. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unneeded" redirectsEdit

I propose that all redirects are needed if an article is moved. There is no reason to ever delete a redirect created by a move. It doesn't save database space, it only causes broken incoming links. Can anyone say why it would be a good idea to delete such redirects? --Pmsyyz 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So they don't come up in searches?--BirgitteSB 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The policy to delete unneeded redirects was decided after due weight of the benefits and drawbacks. The context of the decision was the very beginning of the standardization drive after the implementation of the Style guide. We were faced with the prospect of having nearly as many redirects as actual content pages, which is a nightmare from the standpoint of maintenance. Summarised, the points considered:
  • Disadvantages:
    1. Breaks links from other websites to nonstandard works.
      The three-month delay before deletion was meant to mitigate this, since users would presumably notice and update the wiki page (or notify the webmaster of a non-wiki website). In retrospect, a longer delay may have been appropriate. However, Wikisource was small and had few incoming links. Now, soft redirects are becoming less common as more and more of Wikisource is standardized. New page titles are often standardized before any external site links to it, so there are no broken links to standardized works.
  • Advantages:
    1. Reduces clutter when using the MediaWiki search function.
      Normally, searching a title will also return matches for alternative titles. This is highly useful for valid alternative titles, but highly confusing for unneeded redirects.
    2. Simplifies the publication of any future printed Wikisource initiative.
      Any future printed Wikisource initiative would ideally include useful redirects. For example, a user looking for a particular work may be looking for the Japanese title rather than the English title. However, including redirects from nonstandard to standard titles would be highly disruptive to the organization of such a printed work.
    3. Simplifies maintenance.
      Maintenance tasks often have aspects related to existing page titles or incoming links. Having a large number of unneeded redirects increases the difficulty of maintenance by artificially populating the list of existing page titles and increasing the number of alternative titles that need to be checked and maintained. In addition, redirects have a tendency to be used because they are assumed to be valid if they exist. This adds an additional maintenance task to correct such links.
The only major disadvantage to the temporary soft redirect system is that links from websites are broken. However, links to standardized works are not broken since the titles are permanent. We could conceivably increase the amount of time soft redirects exist, particularly since TalBot now automates their maintenance. The list of short pages could be fixed by adding a lengthy invisible comment when substituting {{dated soft redirect}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nowcommons imagesEdit

Do images that have been {{NowCommons}}'d fall under the criteria for Speedy Deletion? Or are they normal Deletion? If the former, then could we please look to reflect that in these criteria. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Drew smacks himself backside to the head. It is there. :-/ -- billinghurst (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy ChangeEdit

I was just reviewing WS:CSD I was looking in response to a recent comment about speedy delete of an un-sourced version that was redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. I find two suggested changes. Jeepday (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Expand G4 to include. "An unremarkable unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version."

I agree in principle. We should remove a text not backed by scans if it is redundant to a text that is backed by scans. In the context of different editions of the same work, "redundant to" should mean (a) the editions are the same; or (b) the edition is not worth having (in addition to the scan-backed one); or (c) the edition is unknown. Hesperian 10:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Same here - though I'd rather not use any subjective wording (b.) in the policy if at all possible (scans be damned! one man's not worth having could be another man's reason for living if you follow my meaning here).

Draw the lines to stress effort/oversight is better utilized/realized elsewhere when what amounts to a redundancy has been eliminated/avoided. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to get away from subjective stuff like "unremarkable", but injected subjectivity of my own. "The edition is not notable"? "The edition is of no scholarly interest/value"? Hesperian 01:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Modified per comments "An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version."
I removed "unremarkable" and wiki linked "redundant" to appropriate guideline. Removes the overly subjective and does not bloat the text. Jeepday (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Remove G8, "Premature transclusion:" it was added in October 2011, I don’t find or recall any past or recent discussions showing community consensus for this type of deletion. I do recall some discussions on the topic LACKING community consensus.

Hmmm.... I guess the practice of having a bot create all the pages under an Index followed soon afterward by transcluding it all to the mainspace with little or no editing in between is now a thing of the past? If that is your assessment then I support your motion to remove it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't believe point 2, removal of G8, was properly vetted. We have some recent examples of "Premature Transclusion" taking place as I type. For just one example, see the dozen or so pages out of some 375 total that are currently marked "proofread" in this Index yet all the remaining "not proofread" pages have been transcluded to the mainspace. Do you consider that acceptable - be match & split involved there or not? I sure don't (and believe that obvious pitfall was whole point in the previous discussions about weening off any further usage of match and split in the future if I remember right). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Those edits are created by bot User:Phe-bot, Deletion policy generally refers to human action. Bot actions generally require community approval prior to occurring. I was not involved in the match and split discussion (at least don’t recall it). I agree that BOT creation of OCRed Index pages does not currently have community support, I am not aware of it being requested, and if it was request I doubt it would find support. We should probably discuss it at Wikisource talk:Bots or Wikisource:Scriptorium#BOT_approval_requests just to clarify community support and then update Wikisource:Bots#Unacceptable_usage (or not, depending on community). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The BOT usage is beside the point - the issue regarding the ability to select premature transclusion as a valid deletion choice was.

However the Pages were created in the Page namespace, be it done first or done afterwards, be it done using a BOT, be it due to match & split - whatever - it amounts to the same pile of bull-sh!t in the end.

WE have pages created but only marked 'not-proofread' leaving the Page namespace prematurely & en masse being transcluded into the mainspace. This, in effect, gives the appearance the work is ready for the mainspace when it clearly is not - the way I've understood it we need those Pages to be at least on the way to Proofread. If you follow the history of the same contributor as the one linked - you'll see quantity is the goal & not so much quality (defeating the purpose of the proofreading regime entirely).

Now we can debate the merits, pitfalls and so on all we like in addition the original proposal but the simple fact, here is this forum, is we were premature in removing an option that clearly is still needed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that "premature" is misleading and unhelpful; but I am in favour of, and I suspect there is community support for, deletion of pages that comprise transclusions from elsewhere of poor quality content. This is on the grounds that (a) we improve Wikisource by not presenting such content to the casual reader, and (b) nothing is lost by deleting these pages, since the content itself lives on in Page: namespace. Hesperian 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree; its not the optimal term to be used here in spite of a preference to keep the delete reasons rather short and to the point. In fact, this latest rash of "match and splits" aren't even good examples of specifically what I was concerned about prior to their introduction this week - they seem to be well planned, diligently executed and fairly consistent quality wise. Those positive aspects are not what I was thinking of when it came to the abuse of BOT runs just to create Pages in order to immediately transclude an entire work without any real proofreading taking place. Nevertheless, these recent instances carry the same negative implications because they are almost all Pages marked 'not proofread' and still being transcluded to the mainspace (& in bulk) just as any other 'proofread' or 'validated' work would be. In addition (and I don't want to single out the same contributor at all here), my rather quick check of the few previous similar instances I managed to find shows no signs of any 'going back and properly Proofreading' much of what was generated; weeks, months and sometimes years later even. This is where my previous "quantity over quality" comment came from fwiw.

This is a tough nugget to split, not only because it utilizes outside importation of content over any embedded text layer, but because the inevitable BOT switch from producing initial 'not proofread' pages with 'proofread' pages to circumvent this concern would be just as problematic if not worse.

That said, I can't think of better phrase at the moment but I'll keep thinking. The gist of which I still believe should still have to do with some established principle or policy that allows for the removal of works transcluded to the mainspace that for the most part are done "just because they can" and not so much because it is timely, warranted, proactive or just plain old acceptable. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Can we clearly define when these deletions would be appropriate? premature transclusion is extremely subjective. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Deletions under the proposed G8 are appropriate when a work has not been worked on for a month or more. In this situation it suggests that the editor has either planned too ambitiously or has learnt how to transclude and is now doing so with no real intent to proofread the pages. Both situations have occurred in the past couple of years.

I would prefer to have transclusion before Page: creation never occur as it dumps rubbish into the mainspace, however, sometimes the editor setting up the Mainspace for the POTM will prepare the transclusions while other editors are working through the Page: namespace. I find this situation acceptable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

BWC - POTM & other similar ongoing projects aside (such as Popular Science Monthly) - am I to understand you correctly that simple Page: creation (status "red") is enough for you to deem them 'ready & OK for transclusion'? I would hope the status of the range of pages being transcluded were at least status proofread ("orange") before they were transcluded to the mainspace (or at the very least, the majority of the pages in any given range of pages being transcluded have the 'proofread' status). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking more of transclusion of pages before creation. A screen full of Page:This Wonderful Book.djvu/45 Page:This Wonderful Book.djvu/46 links is the reason I've used G8 in the past to delete a page when tidying up. To me this is premature transclusion. Personally, I only ever transclude proofread pages and then only when the whole article/chapter/work (as appropriate) has been proofread. The one exception to this would be when doing a Match&Split with the intention of immediately working on the pages thus created. The results of a Match&Split is "red" pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah thats better thanks. Still, part of that goes to what I was saying earlier in the discussion. Its no secret that I'm no fan of keeping the Match&Split script so freely available for just such reasons. In most instances where M&S has been put to use, there never is a timely follow-up of any actual proofreading being done. In fact, lately the practice has been to import a copy & paste from some other source into our mainspace followed by an attempt to marry that content to a source file using Match&Split afterwards - leaving the finished mainspace product (for the most part) a compilation of nothing more than "red" pages. And thats not fair to the potential WS visitor who is expecting our (transcluded) mainspace works to be near mirror reproductions of the originals.

So when there is no timely proofreading being done, I consider those Match&Splits 'premature transclusions' that fall under the rationale for deletion under G8. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why I wrote the notes at Help:Match and split#Criteria for using this tool and why I keep removing works from Category:Index - Ready for Match and Split. Next in my sights is Category:Texts to be migrated to DjVu—the mainspace pages with Template:Migrate to djvu on them. The Match&Split link is too tempting to users who don't bother reading the Help notes about editions etc. I agree that the M&S gadget is too easy to access. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unneeded" redirects - reduxEdit

Recently, I added Women's Equality Day as a redirect to Portal:Women's Equality Day. I did this because the other projects have galleries, categories, etc, that all point to the article namespace. The redirect was deleted because, "Cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace to any other namespace." I think this policy hurts wikisource because it makes the content less available. Am I the only one who thins this? Evrik (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Author pagesEdit

What happened to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-02#Author-PD-none? In particular, we still have:

  1. Copyright violation: Content which is a clear and proven copyright violation, or content previously deleted as a copyright violation, or author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted.

(red mine) here, though it looks like it was agreed to relax that to something more like:

  1. Copyright violation: Content which is a clear and proven violation of Wikisource copyright policy, or content previously deleted as a violation of Wikisource copyright policy, or author pages for living authors whose works are all violations of Wikisource copyright policy.

(green mine, and possibly factored out into a new critereon).

Did you guys forget to actually make the change, or what? —SamB (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a general comment: Now that many of the wiki projects are "older" and will continue to age, I've found that, occasionally, files deleted on Commons for being under copyright have since had their copyrights expire. Of course at this point in time that's a narrow window, up to 9 years for Commons and 11 for Wikisource, but I just think changing "content previously deleted as a violation of Wikisource copyright policy" is something to consider. The Haz talk 06:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
@SamB: The ability to speedy delete a page needs to be separated from the perception of a requirement to delete a page where the page is not a copyright violation. There are some author pages that we will keep, some we will delete based on the content, though predominantly we delete such pages. Where they are retained it will usually be with {{copyright author}} plastered to it, and have been kept for a specific reason. It was written that way as we had people generating author pages for living or not long dead people who were not authors, and we had next to useless pages in the namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What about author list based portals where majority of the listed authors have had their works copyrighted. See Portal:Nobel Prize in Literature for example. While such list based portals are handy for navigation, the portal is misleading because works of maximum authors are still copyrighted and still others are in non-English language. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
These are mostly addressed on a case by case bases at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. Wikisource is a library, so in general if an Author has work that meets Wikisource:What Wikisource includes they are eligble for an author page. OR if the author is highly notable, an example being Author:Isaac Asimov who has no works expected to be PD for a long time to come, but that it is reasonable to assume many people may be searching a library for. Jeepday (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Surely there exists at least weak justification for collecting Author: information as it becomes available. There is no sense at all in assuming that (say) a website will conveniently maintain its information content into the unforeseeable future just because WikiSource is too shy to grab it when it was available. For example, where would the old "Bright Sparcs" Australian scientific biographies site be, if the NLA hadn't happened to take a copy of some of the biographies before it finally disappeared? AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There are two obstacles to your suggestion of collecting author information. (I assume you are talking about modern authors)
1: Clear criteria defining what authors to collect information on would need to be defined and agreed up on by the community. (It would need to exclude self promotion, review Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives for history of self promotion deletions) (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well that is the very point where my example of "Bright Sparcs" becomes problematical. I simply would never have noticed it had gone except for the fact my own grandfather had a listing. However, as I have never encountered (and don't really expect to encounter) any of his writings ever becoming available then would there have been any point in copying his entry into W/S? Frequently a legitimate transliteration project has associated book listings included by the publisher, which may refer to authors not (yet) present in WikiSource. Nobody is likely to revisit already "proofed" works just to find these entries retrospectively, so is it "wrong" to create minimal Author: records as the new names are encountered in case they subsequently prove useful?
I post the above questions provocatively, as I genuinely can see arguments for both sides. Please don't crush the enthusiastic just for the sake of the consciences of the indolent. Hmm? AuFCL (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I just leave red links as I proofread. If the author page is ever created then the links will be there waiting for it. That said, we have almost three thousand author pages with no works yet, so I see no problem in general with adding more. Even copyrighted authors can be useful, not just for information but also to make new users aware that a copyright still exists. We have {{copyright-until}} to list works that will be in the public domain at a known date in the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you AdamBMorgan, that answers at least one of my concerns very nicely. I was thinking people might not return to (say) publisher's catalogue entries which often have useful titbits about authors hard to find elsewhere (e.g. "emeritus lecturer at <obscure college>" etc.) However use of the "What links here?" feature on the red-links quite happily would serve as a suitable pointer.

I suppose the risk of a website losing funding and disappearing between the time of discovery and the time the Author: record is fairly acceptable in practice? AuFCL (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

2: Human resources to find the authors, collect and post the relevant information; Also on going efforts to keep the information current.
In my experience here at Wikisource, Step one is pretty easy. But step two is a show stopper. Browse the author profiles for those we currently have and you will easily find that there are multiple notable authors, that don’t have a page yet, of the authors we do have, a significant percentage do not have all of their works listed.
Everything done at Wikisource is done by people just like you volunteering their time. If you really care, start with the authors who have works in the public domain and meet Wikisource:What Wikisource includes when each of them has an author page with all of their works listed, then move onto the notable authors (I believe we have a list of these someplace), who have little or no works currently PD or CC. Along the way you will want to create a project and several volunteers, as just this start would be at best a full time occupation for one or more people. Jeepday (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the policy as currently worded. If a person has in-scope material that may legally be hosted here, we can create an author page for them. If they have in-scope material but none of it may legally be hosted here yet, then they must be deceased before we create a user page. The rule that we not have author pages for living persons whose works are all under copyright, is the price we pay for

(a) keeping out vanity pages; and
(b) not being swamped by pop culture reference. I'm sorry to be a pop culture wet blanket, but I hate the fact that Wikiquote activity is mostly people adding snippets from the latest movie or sitcom episode or R&B album. Do you want Wikisource RC to be full of people adding the latest episode of The Simpsons to the scriptwriters' author pages, adding Rebecca West's latest song to her author page, adding Judson Laipply's latest Evolution of Dance youtube video? Please God no.

Hesperian 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Say, isn't the policy you describe precisely (except for the difference between "under copyright" and "violations of Wikisource copyright policy") the second version I gave above, which is not on the page [yet]? —SamB (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're right. In that case, I understand the proposal to be a tightening of speedy deletion rules, to disallow unilateral deletion of author pages for deceased authors all of whose works are under copyright. I do believe I support that. Hesperian 07:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Political Speech by Australian Prime MinisterEdit

Just today I went to this Wikipedia page: which had a wikisource link to this page:

which had been deleted due to "possible copyright violation"?!?

please note the official Australian Govt. Policy on the matter: keeping in mind that Paul Keating gave that speech in his capacity as the Prime Minister at the time.

Now I don't know if the "wikieditor" was too lazy to check, insanely overzealous when it comes to deleting things or just didn't like the text of the speech, but it seems that deleting notable and important content (that does not violate copyright) like this really defeats the purpose of something like wikisource. The lack of common sense when it comes to the administration of all the various wikis is really frustrating.

The Editors of Wikisource SHOULD come up with a sensible rule to address deleting politician's speeches, because otherwise really dumb things will continue to happen without any transparency. Oh - and the general public (who cares right? this site is just for a bunch of editors awarding each other medals) - may lose access to important documents or information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The copyright statement you linked to appears to cover the website itself solely, not the works published on it or all the works by the PM in their capacity as PM. You might be interested in viewing the deletion discussion for the Redfern Speech. Prosody (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this against the Five Pillars?Edit

"Banned contributor: content created and edited solely by a banned user after they were banned, where there is possibility of bad faith. Good contributions by a banned user should be accepted, but where bad faith is possible it should be assumed." It states that bad faith should be assumed of "banned editors" but isn't that against the Five Pillars? Wouldn't it be better to just automatically open a deletion request and let the community decide if the content should stand or not, deleting something educational and valuable simply because it was created by a banned editor seems rather petty, and although it is worded that goos faith edits should be accepted, in practice bad faith can be assumed of literally every edit so a lot of good pages might end up as collateral damage, maybe it would be best ro make it a criterion for regular deletion processes, this is not to encourage "ban evasion" or anything, but good content should be judged on the content and not it's author (also described in the 5 pillars). - Donald Trung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 15:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for speedy deletion of copydumpsEdit

I have proposed adding copydumps (texts pasted in with no effort to proofread) to the list of criteria for speedy deletion. Please contribute to the proposal discussion at WS:S#Adding copydumps to WS:CSD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)