Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.

Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement

No source, no license, no indication of being in the public domain —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Found the source: — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The text of the source does not match what we have. I am having trouble finding our opening passages in the link you posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(At least, a sentence matched). @EncycloPetey: Found it, the content that corresponds to our page starts in the middle in the page 44 of that pdf, though the delimiting of paragraphs seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That means we have an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, it appears that the PDF is a compilation of several different, thematically related documents. His statement (English’d) is one such separate document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  In which case we do not yet have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • No, that is the source; it’s just that the PDF contains multiple separate documents, like I said. It’s like the “Family Jewel” papers or the “Den of Espionage” documents. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I meant to say that we do not have a source for it as an independently hosted work. To use the provided source, it would need to be moved into the containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Well these document collections are bit messy, they were originally independent documents / works but they are collected together for release, e.g. because someone filed a FOIA request for all documents related to person X. I don't think it is unreasonable if someone were to extract out the document. I wouldn't object if someone was like I went to an archive and grabbed document X out of Folder Y in Box Z but if someone requested a digital version of the file from the same archive they might just get the whole box from the archive scanned as a single file. Something like the "Family Jewels" is at least editorial collected, has a cover letter, etc., this is more like years 1870-1885 of this magazine are on microfiche roll XXV, we need to organize by microfiche roll. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @EncycloPetey since this PDF is published on the DOD/WHS website, doesn't that make this particular collection of documents a publication of DOD/WHS? (Genuine question, I can imagine there are cases -- and maybe this is one -- where it's not useful to be so literal about what constitutes a publication or to go off a different definition. But I'm interested in your thinking.) -Pete (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Why would a particular website warrant a different consideration in terms of what we consider a publication? How and why do you think it should be treated differently? According to what criteria and standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Your reply seems to assume I have a strong opinion on this. I don't. My question is not for the purpose of advocating a position, but for the purpose of understanding your position. (As I said, it's a genuine question. Meaning, not a rhetorical or a didactic one.) If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative of course.

    I'll note that Wikisource:Extracts#Project scope states, "The creation of extracts and abridgements of original works involves an element of creativity on the part of the user and falls under the restriction on original writing." (Emphasis is mine.) This extract is clearly not the work of a Wikisource user, so the statement does not apply to it. It's an extract created by (or at least published) by the United States Department of Defense, an entity whose publishing has been used to justify the inclusion of numerous works on Wikisource.

    But, I have no strong opinion on this decision. I'm merely seeking to understand the firmly held opinions of experienced Wikisource users. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    You misunderstand. The page we currently have on our site is, based on what we have so far, an extract from a longer document. And that extract was made by a user on Wikisource. There is no evidence that the page we currently have was never published independently, so the extract issue applies here. We can host it as part of the larger work, however, just as we host poems and short stories published in a magazine. We always want the work to be included in the context in which it was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    OK. I did understand that to be TEaeA,ea's position, but it appeared to me that you were disagreeing and I did not understand the reasons. Sounds like there's greater agreement than I was perceiving though. Pete (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unclear what you are referring to as a "longer document." Are you referring to the need to transcribe the Russian portion? That there are unreleased pages beyond the piece we have here?. Or are you saying the "longer document" is all 53 sets of releases almost 4000 pages listed here (https://www.esd.whs.mil/FOIA/Reading-Room/Reading-Room-List_2/Detainee_Related/)? I hope you are not advocating for merging all ~4000 pages into a single continuous page here, some some subdivision I assume is envisioned.

    Re the policy statement: I am not sure that is definitive: if someone writes me a letter or a poem and I paste that into a scrapbook, is the "work" the letter, the scrapbook or both? Does it matter if it is a binder or a folder instead of a scrapbook? If a reporter copies down a speech in a notebook, is the work the speech or the whole notebook. etc. I am pretty sure we haven't defined with enough precision to point to policy to say one interpretation of "work" is clearly wrong, which is why we have the discussion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    The basic unit in WS:WWI is the published unit; we deal in works that have been published. We would not host a poem you wrote and pasted into a scrapbook, because it has not been published. For us to consider hosting something that has not been published usually requires some sort of extraordinary circumstances. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    From WWSI: "Most written work ... created but never published prior to 1929 may be included", Documentary sources include; "personal correspondence and diaries." The point isn't the published works, that is clear. If someone takes the poem edits it and publishes in a collection its clear. It's the unpublished works sitting in archives, documentary sources, etc. Is the work the unpublished form it went into the archive (e.g separate letters) or the unpublished form currently in the archives (e.g. bound together) or is it if I request pages 73-78 from the archives those 5 pages in the scan are the work and if you request pages 67-75 those are a separate work? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    I will just add that in every other context we refer to a work as the physical thing and not a mere scanned facsimile. We don't consider Eighteenth Century Collections Online scanning a particular printed editions and putting up a scan as the "published unit" as distinct from the British Library putting up their scan as opposed to the LOC putting up their scan or finding a version on microfilm. Of course, someone taking documents and doing things (like the Pentagon Papers, or the Family Jewels) might create a new work, but AFAICT in this context it is just mere reproduction. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    In the issue at hand, I am unaware of any second or third releases / publications. As far as I know, there is only the one release / publication. When a collection or selection is released / published from an archive collection, that release is a publication. And we do not have access to the archive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    We have access, via filing a FOIA request. That is literally how those documents appeared there, they are hosted under: "5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(2)(D) Records - Records released to the public, under the FOIA," which are by law where records are hosted that have been requested three times. And in general, every archive has policies around access. And I can't just walk into Harvard or Oxford libraries and handle their books either.

    My point isn't that can't be the interpretation we could adopt or have stricter policies around archival material. Just that I don't believe we can point to a statement saying "work" or "published unit" and having that "obviously" means that a request for pages 1-5 of a ten report is obviously hostable if someone requests just those five pages via FOIA as a "complete work" while someone cutting out just the whole report now needs to be deleted because that was released as part of a 1000 page large document release and hence is now an "extract" of that 1000 page release. That requires discussion, consensus, point to precedent etc. And if people here agree with that interpretation go ahead. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    For example, I extracted Index:Alexandra Kollontai - The Workers Opposition in Russia (1921).djvu out of . My understanding of your position is that according to policy the "work" is actually all 5 scans from the Newberry Library archives joined together (or, maybe only if there are work that was previously unpublished?), and that therefore it is an "extract" in violation of policy. But if I uploaded this instead, that is okay? Or maybe it depends on the access policies of Newberry vs. the National Archives? Or it depends on publication status (so I can extract only published pamphlets from the scans but not something like a meeting minutes, so even though they might be in the same scan the "work" is different?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    If the scan joined multiple published items, that were published separately, I would see no need to force them to be part of the same scan, provided the scan preserves the original publication in toto. I say that because there are Classical texts where all we have is the set of smushed together documents, and they are now considered a "work". This isn't a problem limited to modern scans, archives, and the like. The problem is centuries old. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    So if in those thousands of pages there is a meeting minute or letter between people ("unpublished") then I can't? MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way beyond my ability to follow it. However, I do want to point out that we do have precedent for considering documents like those contained in this file adequate sources for inclusion in enWS. I mention this because if the above discussion established a change in precedent, there will be a large number of other works that can be deleted under similar argument (including ones which I have previously unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

for example, see the vast majority of works at Portal:Guantanamo —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(@EncycloPetey, @MarkLSteadman) So, to be clear, the idea would be to say that works which were published once and only once, and as part of a collection of works, but that were created on Wikisource on their own, to be treated of extracts and deleted per WS:WWI#Extracts?

If this is the case, it ought to be discussed at WS:S because as BT said a lot of other works would qualify for this that are currently kept because of that precedent, including most of our non-scan-backed poetry and most works that appeared in periodicals. This is a very significant chunk of our content. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, that would classify encyclopedia articles as extracts, which would finally decide the question of whether it is appropriate to list them on disambiguation pages (i.e., it would not be appropriate, because they are extracts) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extracts are only good for deletion if created separately from the main work. As far as I understood this, if someone does for example a whole collection of documents, they did the whole work, so it's fine, it's only if it's created separately (like this is the case here) that they would be eligible for deletion. Editing comment accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We would not host an article from an encyclopedia as a work in its own right; it would need to be part of its containing work, such as a subpage of the work, and not a stand-alone article. I believe the same principle applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of our non-scan backed poetry looks like this A Picture Song which is already non-policy compliant (no source). For those listing a source such as an anthology, policy would generally indicate the should end up being listed as subworks of the anthology they were listed in. I don't think I have seen an example of a poetry anthology scan being split up into a hundred different separate poems transcribed as individual works rather than as a hundred subworks of the anthology work.

Periodicals are their own mess, especially with works published serially. Whatever we say here also doesn't affect definitely answer the question of redirects, links, disambiguation as we already have policies and precedent allowing linking to sub-works (e.g. we allow linking to laws or treaties contained in statute books, collections, appendices, etc.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

They are non-policy compliant, but this consensus appears to have been that though adding sourceless works is not allowed, we do not delete the old ones, which this, if done, would do. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Hunminjeongeum

Although the scanbacking was started in the Korean Wikisource, it seems to be stuck, see here. The work can be undeleted after/if the proofreading process of the original is finished. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you deleting, the Hunminjeongeum??? Do you know you cant do that?? Who are you and why you want delete such important work?? Makes no Sence. NO! Resits (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow, such a bad atitude! Ur deleting colaboration from users, and not colaborating anything, Ur sabotaging, open work. If there work to be done, in proofreading of scans, why u deleting ALL translation in full page formate?? U cant do that!! So, this page is all good, tranlated. And u wanna delete it, and have bad scans not profread? makes no sence. vote against here. discrescpet for users colaborations! Resits (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that policy says "present" and "complete" and avoids saying words such as "proofread" or "validated". If we want to require proofreading, understandably, it would be helpful to clarify that is the expectation by setting it out. Right now it is compliant with the terms of the policy AFAICT, MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point. "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki". It looks as if it complies. -- Beardo (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Complete" could certainly be taken to mean "validated" or "proofread", I expect that was the intent behind the wording, but especially between "proofread" and "validated" there is a significant difference as we know. I would support an update / clarification to include a quality statement in the policy. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I interpret "where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation" that if the text in the original language has only been partially transcluded, then it should at least cover the part which is translated into English. I can't see what "at least as far as" could mean otherwise. -- Beardo (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have always understood that it should be at least "proofread" because the status "not proofread" does not mean anything. But I agree that it would be better to have some quality statement included in the policy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

If "Complete" = "Done" = "Validated" i.e. gone through ALL stages of the proofreading process, the policy statement "where the original language version is complete" could be read as "where the original version is validated" as far as the English version (e.g. if the first 10 pages are validated and the next 10 pages are only proofread, the English translation can cover the first 10 pages but not the first 11), but that seems especially strict. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

"Completed" is used to mean different things in different places, so it really does need to be defined here.

By the way, this propsal really seems to have rattled some cages ! (See the recent change which I undid). -- Beardo (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: as far as I'm aware we almost always take "complete" to mean "proofread" (or for a mainspace page "is a transclusion of a proofread index"). — Alien  3
3 3 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And also the other way: we never understand "complete" as "not proofread". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

{{incomplete}} specifically refers to "are not available on Wikisource in any form, either as text content or page scans." Note any form so specifically no requirement on whether it was proofread against the scans or even for the text content any quality marker. As we specifically separate completeness from both scan-baking and even {{OCR-errors}} which is listed as errors a separate category form completeness. That may be how it is interpreted given how things have evolved but not how it is actually written out in our templates and policies. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The rule clearly says that the work must be scanbacked. So it is not completeness of the transcription in any form that is required, it is the completeness of the scanbacking process. While we may discuss whether "complete" means "proofread" or "validated" (and I agree it would be better to have it specified in the rule), it definitely does not mean "not proofread". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"Completeness of scan-backing process" is ambiguous is my point. Do we consider works that were match-and-split but still-to-be-proofread scan backed?

• Yes, with "scan-backed" meaning all subpages of are transcluded from scans while "incomplete scan-backed" means only some subpages have been migrated, while others are still left in main untranscluded. E.g. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would be considered a scan-backed work.
• Yes, with "scan-backed" meaning all pages of work in main are transcluded and all pages of the work are transcluded. "Incomplete scan-backed" means that all pages in maing are transcluded from scans but not all portions of the work are present yet. E.g. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would be considered a scan-backed work.
• No, "completely scan-backed" means completing the scan-backing process to either proofread or done. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz would not be considered a "scan-backed" work.

On here now we recently deleted The Indian Orphan as "redundant to a scan-backed copy" but Forget Me Not (illustrated annual)/1825/The Indian Orphan is not proofread and hence according to the proposed definition isn't "scan-backed". So is that message wrong? MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"scan-backed" and "scan-backed and complete" are different things. As far as I understand it, "scan-backed" is just your first point: all the text comes from a scan. "scan-backed and complete" implies that the scan-backing is reasonably complete (in which I'd place that "reasonably" somewhere near "at least proofread except for problematic or empty pages").

(On the specific case of The Indian Orphan: that was a self-published extract from a 1836 reprint, claiming to be the 1824 work; from this perspective being actually based on a scan of the real 1824 work was already enough to make the other one redundant.) — Alien  3
3 3 15:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Urd/1907/Pianist Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen

Translation that isn't scan-backed in the Norwegian Wikisource. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• They are just not linked: https://no.wikisource.org/wiki/Urd/1907/Pianist_Sigvart_H%C3%B8gh-Nilsen --RAN (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton: the nows page is not scan-backed. — Alien  3
3 3 15:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Can you rephrase what "scan-backed" means in this context? The scans are housed at Commons: File:Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen biography in Lordag on July 27, 1907.png Are you requiring that Wikisource must house the scans, rather than Commons? Isn't this something requiring a fix, rather than deletion? --RAN (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It means that the page on noWS has not been proofread against the scan. This would need to be done at no:Indeks:Sigvart Høgh-Nilsen biography in Lordag on July 27, 1907.png by someone at noWS, before we can host the user translation here at enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Why do we need an index page for a magazine article just 5 paragraphs? Aren't indexes for whole books? --RAN (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

People should be rather adding whole works rather than single articles. I'm not saying you have to finish it all, just that when setting it up for work, instead of working on little parts here and there to be recomposed when there are enough of them, it'd be better to set up the index once and for all, so as to be done with it. (Of course, you are then free to only proofread and transclude a few pages of that.) (Well, that's what we'd do anyhow. But I suspect the NOWS people are probably not huge fans either of disconnected articles.) — Alien  3
3 3 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• This has been discussed multiple times. A magazine article or a newspaper article is a complete work. That is not a reason for deletion. We have over 500 The New York Times articles ranging from 1851 to 1929 and as far as I can tell, the closest to a complete issue is one single day in 1929 with an index, the rest are single articles with no index, because an index is not needed for a single article. --RAN (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  An index is necessary for something to be scan-backed. I might be tolerant of some other way of linking the scan, but this page doesn't have any link to a scan to check it. That's the whole point of the scan-backed requirement, that anyone can check the text versus the scan.

  We permit single articles to be posted, but it's a lot easier when you load scans for the whole work as originally printed. Ideally, it would be nice to have an magazine or newspaper here. I'm more conflicted about newspapers; on one hand, it's unlikely we'll transcribe an entire newspaper, but on the other, so many newspaper clips are tiny texts that were never meant to stand alone; they feel like much worse violation of our no-excerpt rule than full chapters of a lot of books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Note that many magazines come in volumes so we are talking about uploading 6 Months or a year, etc. While it might be preferred to upload the whole issue it certainly isn't necessary. The two pages proofread here can be easily be moved when the whole work is uploaded to replace it when someone wants to.

  Among other things, it means that know you need to go through and check all 500 pages for copyright status which may not be easy, so to get this one article I would need to go through 6 months of Norwegian writers to see what their death dates are to determine whether it is suitable for commons or not. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Magazines were originally printed in issues, and uploading them as issues would be better than uploading one page. I've found that volumes are sometimes too large to upload. In this case, since this is on no.WS, which presumably only takes life+70, I don't think it would be unreasonable to upload just one page. OTOH, for works on en.WS, I'd rather an issue be uploaded to here for concerns of Commons copyright instead of an excerpt uploaded to save that checking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  It is reasonable to tradeoff having clearly licensed content on commons serving both NO WS and EN WS to doing localized uploads, and I am not sure what NO WS's policies are around content that isn't PD in Norway / the EU anyways. It would certainly be reasonable on their part for their admins to not want to deal with files / content that put them at risk for infringement. Even going through copyright clearance and redaction for a whole issue might be a pain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Does that mean that English Wikisource cannot have user translations of works that are PD in the US but not in their home country ? Or what ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Say pg. 10-15 of a magazine isn't, but like here pg. 1-2 containing the article of interest for translation is in the PD in both countries. The point of discussion is whether to just upload the joint PD parts (pp. 1-2) but or whether we need to upload the whole issue to provide scan-backing and create the index file. My main point is that it isn't a trivial ask to the contributor to do so and may cause complications. I personally don't see the value in having an additional 20 pgs. in Norweigian a magazine lying around in the index file scan just for completeness in exchange for these additional complications. 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Separately, this causes issues for scientific journal as well, for example, I have held up scan backing Layered Architecture for Quantum Computing because the scan is of just the article, not the issue and I don't know what the policy to do actually is: https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.2.031007. I can't reassemble the articles (user compilation), i can't upload the individual article if we have a whole issues policy. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Is anyone arguing against that? Yes, in that case just upload pages 1 and 2. But in general when uploading to enWS, not life+x, I'd rather see the whole magazine uploaded to enWS rather than one section uploaded to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's your choice, but I don't think we should mandate people commit copyright infringement in their own country if they prefer not too. I am fine with a discussion going, "hey I saw you uploaded only pages 5-7, we would prefer if you uploaded the whole issue" and they responding by saying "I'd rather not because it's still copyrighted where I am." MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Then ask someone else to upload it if it's available online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I believe www.wikisource.org will take works that are public domain in the US but not acceptable for copyright reasons on their language's Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Imagine requiring someone to load an entire issue of a newspaper, just to load one obituary, just because we want to have the obit to document a particular fact about that one person. If it can be read from start to finish, it is a complete work, whether a news article, a magazine article, a journal article, or an advertisement. We even have several works that are incomplete because parts of the complete document have been lost to history. --RAN (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Imagine that. We require people to upload the whole History of the United States (Beard) even if they just want, say, "PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY", and you're complaining because you just want to upload a tiny snippet of one issue of a work. You only want to document a particular fact about that one person; perhaps Wikisource is not the place to do that. Just upload the obituary to Commons, perhaps.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• That is the strawman fallacy. My argument is magazines articles and newspaper articles, and your argument is about a book. Books are usually read from cover to cover, magazines articles and newspaper articles are meant to be read individually, and are complete works. --RAN (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a strawman; it's not really a logical argument at all, and neither is your "Imagine requiring...". You're complaining about having to cross the street to pick up your mail to a postal worker who walks 10 miles a day.

  Non-fiction books are often used in parts, often only the subjects or fields that the reader is interested in. Obituaries aren't meant to be read individually; people don't buy the newspaper for just one obituary. They read the obituary page at least, and usually newspaper readers read the headlines and other parts. Particularly "to document a particular fact about that one person" also applies to tiny parts of nonfiction books, and sometimes even tiny parts of fiction books.

  Again it wasn't a logical argument; it was a statement that arguing that you shouldn't have to upload so much since you just want "to document a particular fact about that one person" is actively going to irritate certain of us, and it's not something that Wikisource actively supports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476)/Annotated

Dates back to early 2008 (thus interestingly, this work is probably one of our earliest uses of ProofreadPage!). We now use the template {{SIC}} (and similar templates) for noting where typos and errors in the work exist, and all the annotations I can see here are simply noting where the typos are within the work. So, is there a point to having this separate "annotated version" that I'm not seeing, beyond what {{SIC}} can now provide? SnowyCinema (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: Would you be willing to do the work of moving these footnotes to {{SIC}}s in the text? (We'd better do this first if we're going to delete the annotation.) — Alien  3
3 3 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Yeah, I'll do it. Just give me a little time, though. (I'll announce here when I start on that.) SnowyCinema (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Autobiography of George M. Craig (1939)

This work has allegedly been written in 1939 but I suspect it has never been published anywhere which would mean it is not elligible to be hosted here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Well, we have many unpublished letters transcribed here, and even guidance about transcribing manuscripts, so I don’t see why this wouldn’t count. The main issue is that we are lacking a scan, but that’s not a requirement for completed works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am afraid no works which have not been published anywhere can be hosted under current rules. The fact that a work has been published somewhere is a sign of its notability. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's not entirely true. WS:WWI has a provision allowing for unpublished research that meets specific criteria. Our policy distinguished between works created before or after 1930, not published. I'm unaware of any provision forbidding the inclusion of all works that are unpublished. There may be additional grounds under which this fails WWI, but lack of publication alone is insufficient as a criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the header of to WS:WWI states: Wikisource, ..., exists to archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history, and to present these publications ....

It is true that for works created after 1930 there is an exception mentioned regarding unpublished scientific research. However, this specific work does not fit under this provision.

Besides, WS:WWI specifically excludes self-published works. Thus it would not make sense to accept works which nobody published at all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We have more than a few manuscripts, hand-written documents, and other unpublished copies of works. If you believe all of these should be deleted for not being published, then that's a separate discussion. My point is that we do not exclude works solely on the basis of not being published. That is not a criterion sufficient in and of itself to exclude a work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We routinely exclude works solely on the basis of being self-published. Not being published at all is even worse. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, if you believe that we should remove unpublished texts, simply for being unpublished, you should start that discussion, since it has not been a reason for deletion in the past. Since that is the only reason for nominating this text, I vote to  Keep. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

It is a part of current policy, as shown above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It is also not true that "it has not been a reason for deletion in the past," on the contrary, works have commonly not been accepted based on this reason:

• Quoting you from User talk:PoliticalBuff: Wikisource is a library, and we curate published works.
• or from User talk:Humble Ayankwo#Unpublished works: All works must have been previously published.
• Quoting Billinghurst from User talk:Krantmlverma: If it has not been published previously, then Wikisource is not where the work should be.
• or from User talk:Liuenming: If a work has not been published, then it is not within our scope.
• Quoting Prosfilaes from User talk:Blumagik202: we are a collection of existing works, and don't include unpublished contributions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Quoting an explanation made to a brand-new contributor, intended to provide the broad sweep of what we do, is disingenuous. That first quote was specifically regarding a user-created list. The second, an original work of literature written by the contributor. The comments provided the generalities without covering contingencies and details. Or should brand-new contributors be given the full sweep of every possibility in their introduction to the community? Those comments were intended to explain that we're not a place for people to post their original literary compositions.

If we do not host any unpublished works, then we should not have Index:The Vercelli Book.djvu, because that's an unpublished medieval manuscript on parchment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The Vercelli Book has been published e. g. by the University of Turin and by others too, thanks to which its authenticity can be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The copy I pointed to was not. It is a manuscript copy, not a published copy. If we only host published works, then we can't host a manuscript copy. Likewise we have Zodiac Killer letter, December 1966, which is a poem carved into a desk, and Text on the Column of Victory in the grounds of Blenheim Palace, which is text on a monument. Neither of these are published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

We have the scans of the original manuscript and these scans had been published before they were uploaded to Commons. You may disagree with this reason, but it is the reason why I will not nominate it for deletion, and if somebody did, I would vote for its keeping. Zodiac killer letter was also published, otherwise it would not have the copyright tag it has. If you have a look at the discussion at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2023#Template:PD-Disavowed (closed by you), you will see that the contributors to the discussion agreed that it had been published. I think it was also published in some newspapers. We also have the scan of the letter which was published at various online places too, although the uploader failed to note where they took it from. I think it was published in some books as well. Again, thanks to the fact it was (quite widely) published, there is no problem to verify its authenticity. However, the work we are discussing here, has not been published anytime and anywhere. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You have two issues here: one from a discussion about a template where some of the commenters have talked about items that bore the template, and an issue about scans.

A discussion closed by me in accordance with what the commenters had discussed, though I did not personally voice any opinion on the issue, and the discussion centered on the need (or not) of a particular template. The matter was never investigated to determine that all had actually been published. Those who commented said they probably had been, and a few suggested that they might not have been published. Are you suggesting that saying something was probably published is sufficient reason to keep? Because I don't see any evidence presented in the discussion you've pulled in to demonstrate publication, nor was any actual effort made to check.

With regard to the second point: if a wrote out an Emily Dickinson poem in nice lettering on a piece of paper, scanned it, and transcribed it, Wikisource would host that copy? As long as someone else had published that poem elsewhere? You're saying that the copy we host does not itself have to be published at all, only some version of it has to be? So we can host unpublished editions, as long as we have a scan, even a manuscript, and as long as some other edition of that text exists that was published? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I am afraid this discussion is getting too far away from the original point. So just briefly: in the linked discussion multiple people clearly consider ZK letter to have been published (not just "probably published") and rightly so, because it was published, as I have also shown above. As for your Emily Dickinson example, Wikisource would not host that "edition", but not because it was not published. It would not host it because it would be selfpublished. Honestly, I do not understand why you want me to react to more and more unrelated examples and I suggest not flooding this discussion with these further. Let's focus on the main point: Works which were apparently not published by anybody anytime are unverifiable, are not in our scope per WS:WWI and were deleted in the past too. Various border cases can be discussed in other discussions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: "Works which were apparently not published by anybody anytime are unverifiable." I firmly disagree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: "your Emily Dickinson example, Wikisource would not host that "edition", but not because it was not published". So we do host works even if they are unpublished. I am forcing this issue because, as you have demonstrated, old discussions here get pulled as used to support future decisions. And a claim that WWI in some way might prevent unpublished works from being hosted, which was also the sole reason given for nomination, is in fact the very issue under discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Please, do not twist what I have written: I did not write that we host works even if they are unpublished, I did not mean it either and I am sure you are aware of that. The reason would not be that it was not published, because in your example it would be published. The reason for excluding would be different, i.e. selfpublication. I repeat my appeal to focus on the main point of this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I say again: If you are going to claim that lack of publication is the reason for deleting a work, then discussion of that point is the main point of this discussion. So, how would my hypothetical effort be self-publication, but the transcription under discussion is not? Wouldn't the monument example I gave then be self-publication as well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Without scan backing there is no way to verify the authenticity. Given the three criteria for post 1930 created works, it fails the scientific, or analytic and artistic works as unpublished. It also fails the first documentary source criterion as it is not an official work by an official body. The only possible inclusion would be "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.". but without providing a source to verify: "The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction." it currently fails before getting to that question.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

WS:WWI says "Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1931 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable." So WS:WWI clearly provides for never published work to be included. The division between pre-1931 and post-1930 works here I've thought to more of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law; recent works are more likely to be self-publishing, whereas 95 year old works, if they're vanity projects, at least they're vanity projects people still care about. Whether we extend this to a work that's merely 85 years old is a discretionary thing. I would like scans, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as you have also pointed out, this provision is for works created before 1930, and there is also the condition that it has to be verifiable. None of these apply to this work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The original creator of the page has recently noted on the item's Talk page that he is in possession of the original documents. If he can provide a scan, that would make this verifiable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the first page of George Craig’s autobiography. I can provide all of this works

William Morris

The first page of George Craig’s April 1939 autobiography

William L. Morris (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding the following comment which was put in another section: — Alien  3
3 3 08:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I am George M. Craig’s grandson. I have the handwritten and typed copy of this document left to me by his daughter Bennette Craig Germain. I could provide pictures of them if I knew how. I am writing the history of his life. The autobiography tells you why his life is important. He led a very exciting life witnessing bank robberies and working with Arthur Stilwell buying right of way for his railroad and working as the townsite manager of port Arthur when spindletop came in. I have many of his letters and pictures about these times. He also kept standard oil from taking over the oil industry in Texas by helping rivals like work around the stringent laws that made refining crude into usable products. —unsigned comment by William L. Morris (talk) .

Template:Poem-on and Template:Poem-off

Template imposing arbitrary wiki formatting on content, as opposed to respecting sources. Made around 2010, only 70 uses (some of which ought to get deleted too but that's another question). — Alien  3
3 3 20:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Left margin/i

This is explicitly block template applied to spans, which is incorrect code. Note that there is a template redirect Template:Lm/i and edits made to Template:Left margin/doc that would need to be considered as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Re the technical merits, actually, I thought it would be a problem too, but on checking it doesn't lint (as long as you don't put blocks inside it obviously), so it's probably fine.  Keep. — Alien  3
3 3 08:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Based of https://stackoverflow.com/a/18933182/13259751 I don't think it's wrong from an HTML point of view? I explicitly marked it with {{span-based-template}} in the documentation too so that people don't put block content inside of it.

According to the p element specification it must contain phrasing content which include the span element. So HTML specification-wise nothing wrong with what I'm doing.

As to why I made this template you can see an example use at Page:ADA155378.djvu/42 (ignore the font mess, this work is stil a work in progress). Here there is an indented "block" inside of a paragraph, so I cannot use {{lm}} as it would break the paragraph, hence the need for a span to make a margin. Virinas-code (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Checked on Special:ExpandTemplates too and it does not violate H:DIVSPAN as it only produces a span inside of a p. Virinas-code (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete This is simply replicating a hanging indent. Use {{hi}} instead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

{{hi}} is block based and only makes the first line be not indented. It cannot work on complex layouts such as Page:ADA155378.djvu/43. Note that in the doc for {{lm/i}} the example shown cannot be replicated with {{hi}} if I'm not wrong. Virinas-code (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to use a simple colon? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

A colon is the closest thing there is to {{lm/i}} currently. However (correct me if I'm wrong, paragraphs are weird) using colons breaks the paragraph, while {{lm/i}} doesn't (since it's a span). As seen in Page:ADA155378.djvu/42 my goal is to explicitely not break the paragraph. (and semantically speaking colons don't really represent indentation but rather definition lists so it's weird to use them for styling, but this is not the place for such a debate) Virinas-code (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is it important to not "break the paragraph" here? What's different on this situation from every other similar situation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Upon further inspection colons do break paragraphs. They just look like they don't thanks to a { margin-top: -0.5em; } rule. I believe making a separate template that does not have to resort to such "hacks" for in-paragraph margins is a good idea. Virinas-code (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another issue with colons is that they use a 1.6em wide space, while the work I use {{lm/i}} uses multiples of 1em for indentation, like 8em. Reproducing those with colons implies overriding behavior of colons to make them 1em-sized and repeatedly typing :::::::: every indented line. Hence I think making a single template to indent entire parts of a paragraph is the better solution.

To be clear I'm not saying this is the only solution. I just think it's the most appropriate here, and since the template neither breaks H:DIVSPAN rules neither duplicate what {{hi}} does, there is no reason to remove it. Maybe moving it outside of {{lm}} to a small, deicated page is the thing to do? That way it doesn't interfere with normal work but I can still use it in my proffreading (which uses quite uncommon formatting). Virinas-code (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the spelling mistakes or if my messages sound rude, it's very late and I'm a bit on edge lately. If you feel like my behavior isn't appropriate please tell me. Virinas-code (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

US Reports Volumes scans template

We have two templates for US Reports Volumes, {{US Reports volumes}} and {{List of United States Reports scanned volumes}}. I'm thinking we delete the second one and rework the first one to be of a similar format to {{United States Statutes at Large Scans}}. ToxicPea (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Notes

This and The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Glossary should be deleted for being both from an unsourced edition (now scanbacked) as well as possibly failing WS:WWI. The notes page includes several sections named "Questions and Topics for Study". Nighfidelity (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Those come from this edition https://www.google.com/books/edition/Spenser_s_The_Faerie_Queene/PI09AAAAYAAJ in case anyone wants to scan back a modern edition. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What about The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Sonnet to Sir Walter Raleigh, The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Letter to Sir Walter Raleigh, and The Faerie Queene (unsourced)/Book I/Dedication to Queen Elizabeth? (Also from the unsourced edition.) — Alien  3
3 3 07:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Authors from A History of Mathematics (1893)

• Author:Alexander III of Macedon
• Author:Callisthenes of Olynthus
• Author:Julius Oppert
• Author:Pythagoras
• Author:Œnopides of Chios
  •  Delete No known surviving writings —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Author:Democritus (first English translation 1939?)
• Author:Eudoxus of Cnidus (ditto)
• Author:Eudemus of Rhodes (is he an editor?)
• Author:Pherecydes of Syros
• Author:Hippasus of Metapontum
• Author:Philolaus (some fragments survive, unsure if translated)
• Author:Hippias of Elis (given translation is copyrighted)
• Author:Eratosthenes (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Bryson of Heraclea
• Author:Hermann Hankel
• Author:Theodorus of Cyrene
• Author:Timæus of Locri (generally considered a fictional character)
• Author:Christian Ludwig Ideler
• Author:Ernesto Schiaparelli
• Author:Helicon of Cyzicus
• Author:Theætetus of Athens
• Author:Leodamas of Thasos
• Author:Neocleides
• Author:Leon
• Author:Theudius of Magnesia
• Author:Hermotimus of Colophon
• Author:Amyclas of Heraclea
• Author:Cyzicenus of Athens
• Author:Philippus of Mende
• Author:Pappus of Alexandria (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Joannes Stobaeus (is being a compiler sufficient for authorship?)
• Author:Euclid of Megara
• Author:Theon of Alexandria
• Author:Hypatia (editor of the surviving text of Ptolemy's Almagest)
• Author:Hypsicles of Alexandria (I think this is fine for the supposed authorship of Book XIV, but did he write anything else?)
• Author:Damascius
• Author:Zeuxippus
• Author:Eutocius of Ascalon
• Author:Heraclides Ponticus
• Author:Geminus of Rhodes
• Author:Philonides of Laodicea
• Author:François Viète
• Author:Nicomedes
• Author:Diocles
• Author:Perseus
• Author:Hero of Alexandria (first English translation 1941?)
• Author:Zenodorus
• Author:Hipparchos
• Author:Heron the Elder of Alexandria
  •  Delete, no sources given to indicate that this person is different from Author:Hero of Alexandria —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  They have entirely different authority control including the list of works attributed to them in WorldCat. That said, I can find no English translations of this author either. —Uzume (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Author:Ctesibius
• Author:Charles François Maximilien Marie de Ficquelmont
• Author:Heron of Byzantium
• Author:Theodosius of Bithynia
• Author:Dionysodorus of Kaunos
• Author:Theon of Smyrna
• Author:Serenus of Antinouplis
• Author:Menelaus of Alexandria
• Author:Nicolaus Copernicus (I would be surprised, but I can’t find one easily)
• Author:Habakkuk Guldin
• Author:Isidorus of Alexandria
• Author:Syrianus
• Author:Thymaridas of Paros
• Author:Georg Heinrich Ferdinand Nesselmann
• Author:Lucius Octavius Cornelius Publius Salvius Julianus Aemilianus
• Author:Sosigenes of Alexandria
• Author:Flavius Odoacer
• Author:Theodoric the Great
• Author:Franz Woepcke
• Author:Sridhara
• Author:Carl Anton Bretschneider
• Author:Charles Martel  Delete No known work, even in French. Yann (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Author:Al-Ṣābiʾ Thābit ibn Qurra al-Ḥarrānī (widely studied in the Arabic world, unsure of translations)
• Author:Muḥammad ibn Jābir al-Ḥarrānī al-Battānī
• Author:Plato Tiburtinus
• Author:Azod od-Dowleh Panah (Fana) Khusraw
• Author:Shirdil Abu'l-Fawaris
• Author:Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Ismāʿīl ibn al-ʿAbbās al-Būzjānī
• Author:Abū Sahl Wayjan ibn Rustam al-Qūhī
• Author:Abu Hamid Ahmed ibn Mohammed al-Saghani al-Asturlabi
• Author:Abu Bekr Mohammed ben Al Hasan Al Karhi
• Author:Abu-Abdullah Muhammad ibn Īsa Māhānī
• Author:Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Hasan Khazini
• Author:Alhazen
• Author:Khawaja Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan Tūsī
• Author:Mīrzā Muhammad Tāraghay bin Shāhrukh
• Author:Ghiyāth al-Dīn Jamshīd Masʿūd al-Kāshī
• Author:Bahā' ad-Dīn Yusuf ibn Rafi ibn Shaddād
• Author:Otto the Great
• Author:Otto III
• Author:Hermann Weissenborn (1830-1896)
• Author:Adalbold II of Utrecht
• Author:Adelardus Bathensis
• Author:Francis Raymond de Sauvetât
• Author:Johannes Hispaniensis
• Author:Gerardus Cremonensis
• Author:Zag de Sujurmenza
• Author:Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen
• Author:Campanus of Novara
• Author:Leonardo Pisano Bigollo
• Author:Dominicus Dominici de Viseu
• Author:John of Palermo
• Author:Nicole Oresme (There's a 1956 translation by Charles Johnson published simultaneously in the UK and US of "De Moneta". It looks like it failed the required US copyright notice or registration and thus would be PD-US)
• Author:Simon Stevin
• Author:Thomas Bradwardine
• Author:Richard of Wallingford
• Author:Simon Bredon
• Author:Maximus Planudes
• Author:Manuel Moschopoulos
• Author:Johannes Müller von Königsberg
• Author:Scipione del Ferro
• Author:Lodovico Ferrari
• Author:André Duchesne
• Author:Ludolph van Ceulen
• Author:Gilles Personne
• Author:Pierre de Fermat
• Author:Johannes Kepler (while it says that most translations are from late 1900s, I can’t find any earlier ones on a preliminary search)
• Author:Evangelista Torricelli
• Author:Pietro Antonio Cataldi
• Author:William Buckley (note that redirect “W. Buckley” is unrelated)
• Author:Justus Byrgius
• Author:Johann Hartmann Beyer
• Author:Albert Girard
• Author:Jacques Pelletier du Mans
• Author:Bonaventura Francesco Cavalieri
• Author:Vincenzo Viviani
• Author:Claude Mydorge
• Author:Charles Julien Brianchon
• Author:Jacques-Charles-François Sturm
• Author:Joseph Diaz Gergonne
• Author:Bernard Frénicle de Bessy
• Author:Guidobaldo del Monte

I have made some preliminary checks and couldn’t find anything for these authors. I did for some others, which I’ve already added. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Author:Pythagoras has not been tagged, and it links to a letter attributed to him as author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, Author:Julius Oppert has not been tagged. We're less formal than Commons, but I still think it quite important when discussing an author for deletion to mark it for people who may have the page watched but not this page. has a bibliography that gives English titles for some of his works. HathiTrust isn't working great for me today, so I can't find any of those sources right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest breaking it up into pieces, nominating giant lists is bad as makes it really hard to discuss cases.

• https://archive.org/details/classicsofmodern00knic has selections from both Kepler and Copernicus in it. Was the 1939 translation by Wallis actually renewed ? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Fermat's works are in https://archive.org/details/sourcebookinmath0000davi

MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That second has others too, e.g. Cavalieri. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Some more:

• ibn Shaddad:
• Gerard of Cremona: https://archive.org/details/b20458563/page/155/mode/1up
• bin Shāhrukh / Ulugh Beg: https://archive.org/details/cu31924012303800
• Adelard of Bath: https://archive.org/details/cu31924012267781/page/n3/mode/2up

Especially the Arabic/Latin names take some time because they have various forms etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Three more translations

• Andre Duschene
• Claude Mydorge: English translation by Oughtred
• Sturm: On the solution of numerical equations, 1835 Spiller

MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Viete / Vieta: MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The DNB says for Richard of Wallingford: " There is an English translation in MS. Digby 67, ff. 6–12, and another translation of chapters 1–5 in Digby Roll" MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Bradwardine had one of his prayer's translated MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sridhara is translated here .08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

for Hero of Alexandria. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Prosfilaes: I finished working on it late, so I didn’t have time to tag all of the pages; I intend to do that soon. MarkLSteadman (and in general): Could you cross out the names for which you’ve already found works? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am not sure I follow. Take Pythagoras, should I just go and update without comment? Are you saying the works on his page listed aren't works and I should go nah I think they are, strike off? Or for Copernicus / Kepler and others, need to clarify whether excerpts from their work qualify, or do we need the whole 1939 Ealiis translation to be accepted as PD-non-Renewal? MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • I did this exact same system recently without problem. If you can find (1) any of their works, in any form, (2) in English, (3) in the public domain, then please (a) add those to their Author: page and (b) strike out the name on the list I made above. The bar is quite low, as many (for example) ancient Greek writers survive only through small fragments. As for contested works, (that is, where there is historical controversy over authorship,) the general practice is to have an Author: page and list the work, marking it as contested. For the 1939/1941 mentions, those were just translations which I could easily find. (I’ve finished tagging all of the pages. Your hyper-link to the Hero of Alexandria work is broken, by the way.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Not answering my question. Is the intent here that the standard for Pythagoras no longer qualifies and it is up for discussion? That a quick look at Richard of Wallingford DNB article linked to the page says "a middle English translation exists" but that isn't sufficient and it is up for discussion? MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Like I said there are all sorts of different questions mixed in here:

    • Authors that have works in English translation already, presumably the assumption is that those shouldn't be crossed "as already found works" out because they weren't sufficient in some way (such as Pythagoras, Stobaeus, Hypsicles). E.g. if the Pythagoras fragments are sufficient than other Greek authors in fragments? what to do about them? Just cross those out but then delete Pythagoras?
    • English authors whose scientific works are in Latin. They might have various archival records in English, were those checked and fund insufficient (e.g. whether such English works are still copyrighted...)
    • Political figures: We have letters and speeches quoted in other works, e.g. the 34 letters of Alexander the Great listed here: which are excerpted out of works like Arrian and Plutarch which we have in translation e.g. The Anabasis of Alexander/Book II/Chapter XIV). And then we have for we have quotations in accounts... Can I just cross it and link to Arrian?
    • Copyright questions about translations, especially post-1930 US works and non-renewals: e.g. the 1941 Loeb "Greek Mathematical Works", various theses etc. These need to be checked (e.g. I did a quick scan in the 1968-1970 records / Stanford DB and did not see a renewal). Are you claiming that volume is copyrighted or for some other reason that volume isn't valid? Should I just list that volume and cross it out even though you say "(first English translation 1941?)" and specifically highlight this translation?

    MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Gilles Personne is translated in 1932 here which looks US origin without renewal. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oresme's Treatise on Money is here: (1930). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Poems by Peletier are translated in this anthology: (1900) MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Author:Hypatia is now considered to be the editor and reviser of Author:Ptolemy's Almagest. As editor of this significant classical work, she qualifies as an Author for Wikisource purposes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a PD partial translation of the Almagest? None of Ptolemy's works link to a translation. 13:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw3cnp exists. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t3320gv07 is a version of the Almagest, in an incredible merged form with all manuscripts plus modern information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep — we keep finding reasons to keep various individual pages on the list. Can we close this discussion with no further action taken, and create new discussions for individual pages or smaller groups of pages that have similar circumstances? (e.g. authors known to have no extant works, authors known to have no PD translations, group of pages where a cursory search didn't confirm whether any works exist, etc) —unsigned comment by Beleg Tâl (talk) .

• That was one of the goals of this discussion: to get people to find available works. If I were to create a new discussion, it would just have all of the authors listed here less the ones already identified. And, clearly, no one else would make a new discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want requested texts, go to WS:Requested texts. 13:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

"I want discussion" therefore I want you all to do loads of work and I won't bother to even reply or update when you spent an hour finding a text and if you don't it gets deleted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration

The original on svWS is not scan backed, so a user-created translation cannot be hosted at enWS per our translation policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Diogenes99 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The word "scan" is used only once in the policy and is not defined in a way that supports compliance or makes it possible.

"A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation." Diogenes99 (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the policy could perhaps be better worded, but that is still our policy. If you scan-back sv:Kvinnans förnedring och upprättelse using the procedure described at sv:Wikisource:Korrekturläsning, then we would be able to keep Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration, but otherwise we will not be able to keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Diogenes99: do you intend to scan-back the original? — Alien  3
3 3 12:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please delete Translation:Woman's Degradation and Restoration. It's is not worth the time to inteprret the word "scan" since scanners are not used anymore. Most documents are photographed. Diogenes99 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Diogenes99: scan refers to a digitized files, as are available online on websites such as https://archive.org. The MediaWiki ProofreadPage extension lets us transcribe on-wiki page by page, with the document, so that people can check for and find errors more easily.
As Beleg said, sv:Wikisource:Korrekturläsning covers the process on the wiki in question. — Alien  3
3 3 21:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Judith

The actual text is not being trasnslated. The "translation" currently on this page consists almost entirely of footnotes from some undetermined source. It is 99% footnotes, with no text for the notes to attach to. This violates Wikisource:Translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Aside from the Foreword, all of the annotations are linked to actual translated text. And I can see that the actual text IS being translated. The presence of annotations in a user translation does not appear to violate WS:T, although they probably violate WS:ANN (in which case they should be moved to a separate annotated page as required by that policy). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: a relevant passage from WS:ANN: "This policy does not apply to original translations of non-English works which do not otherwise add new information to the work; for more, see Wikisource:Translations. More elaborately annotated works may be created on Wikisource's sister project Wikibooks."—the footnotes at Translation:Judith do add a significant amount of new information to the work, and the annotations are indeed quite elaborate, so Wikibooks might be the answer here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In the past, we have always aimed for literal translations, but more importantly: What text? Where? Where is the original that is being translated? Per WS:T "An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation." --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That information is provided in the linked page Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible. But you're right, a link to el:Ιουδίθ should be added to that page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now added a link to el:Ιουδίθ to the page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That link points to a text with no scan-backing, so the conditions of WS:T are still not met. There must be a scan-backed copy in the original language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO the WS:T#Grandfather rule applies, since Translation:Judith was already in progress as of July 2013 (even though it is true that very little progress had been made at that time) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This: is what the translation looked like in April of 2025, so I disagree about it being grandfathered. It consisted of only two sentences, with no identified original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It was also part of Translation:Bible at the time, which did have significant progress. (unrelated to this discussion, but it should be noted that Translation:Bible should be moved to Portal space at some point, now that it has been split into separate works) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"Bible" is a collection of texts gathered under a single project. It's not a set collection of texts, as different versions include different sets of books. But I still maintain that, since it had only two sentences, grandfathering does not apply here. Nor does grandfathering afford carte blanche to do anything and everything, without regard for policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree about "Bible" in general; I'm just noting that in 2013 the user translation of the Bible was one project. And I also agree that grandfathering should not afford carte blanche (we do need to do get rid of those footnotes, and I think WS:ANN's suggestion of using Wikibooks is a good one). I just don't think we need to delete the user translation of Judith outright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If there had been a sizeable translation to start with, or if the expanded translation had a scan-backed source, or if the translation were more than a mountain of user-created encyclopedic content, then there might be a case for keeping the translation. But it's not scan-backed, it's mostly encyclopedic content consisting of annotations, and the grandfathered portion was two sentences. At best it might belong on some other project, but it isn't Wikisource content, and it isn't compliant with our policies on inclusion, translation, or annotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: "they should be moved to a separate annotated page as required by that policy". We're required to have a plain, unannotated text, after which a separate annotated version in another location in permitted. But for user-created translations, that violates WS:T, since only one user-created translation per text is allowed, not two. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That's probably why WS:ANN explicitly excludes user-created translations tbh —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This makes sent to me as translations are dynamic and collaborative and that can cause conflict with many of the annotations which tend to assume a fixed published text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Votesmall —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the courtesy ping and the support, Beleg Tâl. I guess I don't understand what the problem is here? Judith is an extremely corrupted text so the footnotes in the translation are extensive to compare the various manuscripts that differ substantially. I am new to WikiSource so I haven't read every rule page on this website yet. I saw the following on WikiProject Bible:

"Don't hesitate to add footnotes. All kinds of footnotes are welcome, including if you're really not sure about how something should be translated. Either another editor will see your footnote, and fix the text, or it is a place where translating well is really difficult, and this info is good to be passed on to the reader. (In case of ambiguity in the text, put the other possible renderings in the footnotes.)"

Maybe it's my fault for not checking more rule pages, but I didn't think I was doing anything wrong since WikiProject Bible actually enocurages the use of footnotes. If my footnotes, which are primarily concerned with comparing the different manuscripts consulted, violate the WikiSource policy, then idk maybe I'll try WikiBooks instead, but I'd like to have this information out there since it's based on years of careful study. Sorry if I'm coming off annoyed, but I've spent years of my life working on Wikipedia and other similar websites just to see a lot of hard work get deleted for technicality reasons. This isn't my first time at the rodeo, so if the entire page is going to be deleted, I'd appreciate a notification so I can back up my work first. (Votesmall (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC))

You're right, the problem isn't the existence of footnotes per se. The problem is that Wikisource exists to provide a platform for the primary text itself, and not to provide a platform for original content. Our annotation policy allows for "original translations of non-English works which do not otherwise add new information to the work", which is to allow for footnotes explaining translation choices and alternate readings and so forth. Looking at your own translation of Judith, however, it appears that most of the content of the page is historical context and commentary, which is tangential to the work itself. Even this could be overlooked (IMHO) if it were not for the fact that it comprises such a significant proportion of the content there. So the problem isn't that there are footnotes, but that the bulk of the content of the page consists of original encyclopedic content, rather than the text of the work itself.

This is also complicated by a second problem, which is that user-based translations created since 2013 are only allowed if the original text has been proofread against a scan of a published copy on the original language's wikisource (i.e. el:Ιουδίθ should be backed by a scanned publication as described at Help:Proofread). There is some disagreement whether this applies to Translation:Judith, since it was started before 2013, but just barely. So that needs to be resolved also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just giving you an update: I have removed all the footnotes on the page. I have kept the foreword and the parts of the translation I have done so far, but I will not be contributing to the Judith page any further since it is probably getting deleted, and there's no point. I'm not going to die on this hill, because I have better things to do than go back and forth over something I'm doing for fun (because, with all due respect, this thread isn't my idea of "fun"). It just frustrates me, because I was only trying to help. Thanks for your guidance on this, Beleg Tâl. (Votesmall (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC))

George Borrow (Winnie Parry Original)

Welsh-only transcription. This should probably be moved to another language Wikisource. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Also Thomas Pennant (Winnie Parry Original) - both should be in cy.wikisource.org -- Beardo (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Thomas Pennant (Winnie Parry) and George Borrow (Winnie Parry), which are unsourced translations of the above. (I suspect they are user-original translations, in which case they fail WS:T until/unless they are scan backed at cyWS) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I am the translator of the English version under discussion. The Welsh original texts are public-domain articles from *Y Llusern* (1907). I would have no objection to the Welsh transcriptions being moved to cy.wikisource.org if that is considered more appropriate. The English versions are my own translations of those public-domain Welsh texts. Since this nomination was opened, the translation of “George Borrow” has been published on the George Borrow Society research page, where both the source and translation are clearly identified. The original Welsh text is “George Borrow” by Winnie Parry in *Y Llusern* (1907), available via Welsh Journals Online. I would be grateful for clarification on whether publication in that form addresses the WS concern, or whether the translations are considered inadmissible on English Wikisource regardless of external publication. Mortal Ken (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mortal Ken: in order for us to host a user-created translation, a scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki. This means that you need to use this procedure to add the original Welsh text to Welsh Wikisource before we can host the English translation here on English Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The original Welsh text of “George Borrow” (Winnie Parry, Y Llusern, 1907) has now been added to cy.wikisource.org with scan references from Welsh Journals Online covering the relevant issues (Ionawr, Mawrth, Ebrill 1907), and the text has been transcribed and verified against those scans.

The English version is my own translation of that public-domain Welsh text.

I understand from the comments above that the requirement under WS is that the scan-supported original must first be present on the appropriate language Wikisource, and this has now been done.

I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether this satisfies the structural requirement for hosting the English translation here, or whether further steps are still required. Mortal Ken (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It has to be scan-supported using this procedure; simply linking to the scan is insufficient. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this might be more helpful for you: Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — that is helpful clarification. For avoidance of doubt, the underlying text of Y Llusern (1907), including the Winnie Parry “George Borrow” article, is in principle public domain due to its date of publication and authorship status. However, I understand that Wikisource’s requirement is not only about the copyright status of the text itself, but also about scan provenance and integration into the ProofreadPage system (Index + Page structure backed by a Commons-hosted file). At present I have access to digitised scans via Welsh Journals Online, but I am confirming with the National Library of Wales whether those digitised page images are cleared for redistribution on Wikimedia Commons. Once that is clarified, I will proceed either with Commons upload and full Index/Page integration, or with an alternative structure if required.Mortal Ken (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. By the way, it may be helpful to note that a simple scan of a public domain work is also in the public domain, even if the institution who made the scan claims to own the copyright; see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

To add, the user translations should be placed in Translation space, not in the main space - so those two need to be moved. -- Beardo (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Done - and I've left {{dated soft redirect}}s so as not to disrupt this discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

To update - "George Borrow (Winnie Parry Original)" was moved to Welsh Wikisource but has not been scanned-backed. @Mortal Ken - are you going to scan-back that ?

"Thomas Pennant (Winnie Parry Original)" has gone from here bit I can't see on Welsh Wikisource. I don't know what happened there. -- Beardo (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably the archive has only gone as far as to state that it is likely to be legal to do so. I've dragged my heels in expectation of an application form, which has not appeared. I take this to mean that the matter is uncertain, and I dare not scan-back. The original scans remain available in the Welsh Journals Archive. Thank you for your patience and kind advice. Mortal Ken (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

1926 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer

All project disclaimers were deprecated a few years ago, with the previous ones being grandfathered to Wikisource:Project disclaimers. As this was made well after, should this be deleted? Nighfidelity (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Post-2013 Bible translations with no scan on the appropriate language Wikisource

The following books included in WS:WikiProject Wiki Bible were created after 2013, and lack a scan (or sometimes any page at all) in the appropriate language Wikisource; and as such they violate WS:T and should be deleted.

• Translation:2 Kings (2018)
• Translation:2 Chronicles (2018)
• Translation:Nehemiah (2018)
• Translation:Hosea (2019)
• Translation:Jonah (2015)
• Translation:Nahum (2022)
• Translation:Zephaniah (2014)
• Translation:Malachi (2024)
• Translation:Letter of Jeremiah (2016)
• Translation:Prayer of Manasseh (2016)
• Translation:Psalms (Greek) (2017)
• Translation:1 Meqabyan (2023)
• Translation:2 Meqabyan (2026)
• Translation:3 Meqabyan (2026)
• Translation:Psalms (Syriac) (2017)
• Translation:Prayer of Solomon (2024)
• Translation:1 Clement (2018)

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: I am explicitly ignoring the question of incompleteness, either now or in 2013. Some of these are complete, some are barely started; and some that were barely started in 2013 are excluded as meriting a separate discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, how about adding a scan in the appropriate language Wikisource? I do not know whether scans are already available on Commons, but I found this scan on Internet Archiveː 2 Kings 2 Chronicles Nehemiah Hosea Jonah Nahum Zephaniah Malachi. I am willing to work on adding the scans to Hebrew Wikisource, but I would need some guidance in how to do so. Thanks in advance, Sije (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You can see our documentation on setting up a scan here: Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I uploaded the scan at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bibliahebraicaad00hahn.pdf Sije (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

PSː Any help from other users would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Sije (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: the original Hebrew needs to be scan-backed at heWS (he:מפתח:Bibliahebraicaad00hahn.pdf), before the translation can be hosted here on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I began to work on that as well. Sije (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Updateː As Dovi created and uploaded a higher-resolution PDF file, I created a new index at Index:Biblia Hebraica.pdf. I am now planning to copy and paste the 8 pages already created at the previous index (Bibliahebraicaad00hahn.pdf; pages 441-448) to the same pages of the new index, after which the previous index can be safely deleted. (Please note that these indexes contain the entire Hebrew Bible in its original Hebrew, including the books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Nehemiah, Hosea, Jonah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Malachi, that were nominated for deletion; so that those pages should please not be deleted as long as you see me working on the index pages. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated.) Thanks in advance, Sije (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

PSː I didn't add {{translation index|he}} to the new index (as Beleg Tâl did here) because I didn't know how. Sije (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Delete 1 Clement, as the Translations page is mostly notes and references, with only the header line to the book being any kind of actual translation. There is a Loeb volume from 1919 that could be transcribed at Greek Wikisource, but this is an outdated edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:DNB drafts

The category and its contents have no use for Wikisource, being drafts for Wikipedia articles from the Dictionary of National Biography. Nighfidelity (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ping @Rich Farmbrough. — Alien  3
3 3 08:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me know how this is inconveniencing you and I will fix it. Rich Farmbrough, 08:18 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nighfidelity: are these pages causing any specific problem? If not, then usually for userspace pages custom is to leave it be. — Alien  3
3 3 10:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

They contain hundreds of invalid templates and red links. See User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/W/i/William Billington for example. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Nuremberg Chronicle

German-only unscanbacked text at de:Schedel’sche Weltchronik. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That looks like Latin to me, but the principle is the same.  Delete There are also a number of subpages (with nothing on them) which should go too. -- Beardo (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for you statement.

The blank pages are there because when I looked at the pdf through the Cambridge Library, there were blank pages.

Please let me know what to do

Personisgaming (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Blank pages should be handled via the ProofreadPage extension, as documented here: Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading#Blank pages. We don't create separate subpages for each page of the original document. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you...I will put the "No text" on the blank pages - where applicable

Personisgaming (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Personisgaming - you haven't explained what is your intention. As the main text is German, it should be on English Wikisource. Or are you planning to do a translation into English? In that case. it should in Translation space - i.e. called Translation:Nuremberg Chronicle.

Either way, there should not be separate pages in mainspace with just "no text" in the notes. "Without text" is one of the flags that can be placed on Pages in the Page space - see Page:Nationalism.djvu/10 and Page:Memoirs of celebrated women of all countries (IA memoirsofcelebra00abra).pdf/4 for examples. -- Beardo (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Beardo ,

Thank you for you post, I am trying to be as communicative as possible to reply in your most recent comment, so I will do the best I can.

To answer your question, I am planning "to do a translation into English," from the links below.

Treasures of the Library : Nuremberg Chronicle Cambridge University

Nuremberg chronicle | University of Sydney Library University of Sydney

I have some questions about this what is a translation space? I am very familiar with the typical functions for general articles (ie Wikipedia).

Personisgaming (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Personisgaming: our policy for translations does not allow us to host an unpublished translation, unless you have already added the original Latin text to Latin Wikisource, using the ProofreadPage extension as documented here. After you have completed this, you can add your own translation to English Wikisource in the Translation: namespace as documented here. This is not Wikipedia, and their typical functions for general articles don't apply here; you can find an overview of the differences here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: the earliest English edition of this text was published in 1941, and no scans are available online. A web-based edition is available here if anyone is curious, but it can't be hosted on enWS due to being second-hand. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Syrinx (Theocritus)

Created recently. Not scanbacked and the original greek-language entry isn't proofread. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not finished yet...; wikisource translations by definition aren't scan-backed, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

All translations made after 2013 are supposed to be scanbacked in both Wikisources. See the translation policy for details. Nighfidelity (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, can you quote the relevant section; I'm not sea-lioning, genuinely can't see where it says I need a scan of a pre-existing/published (translated, into and in English) text as backing for an into-English translation I just drafted, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

From the "Wikisource original translations" section:

A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation.

and

Works existing & accepted prior to July 2013 (or after significant policy updates) which somehow no longer meet the new/current criteria for inclusion in moving forward – some degree of reasonable accommodation to keep & grandfather-in such works should be sought after first and foremost whenever possible.

Nighfidelity (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So what is needed is that there is a scan-supported text in Greek on the Greek wikisource. I see that has now been done, so I think that the English translation can remain. -- Beardo (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Pardon me, but wouldn't this translation also have to be scanbacked from the same index, Μεταγραφή:The Greek bucolic poets (1912).djvu. Although, that index is bilingual and is also at the English Wikisource as well (Syrinx (Edmonds) and Index:The Greek bucolic poets (1912).djvu). Nighfidelity (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

NB this is a carmen figuratum—the poem is supposed to look on the page like a syrinx; whatever their other merits, the other versions at Syrinx (Theocritus) fail at this, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

In an unrelated note, why are the other translations at Syrinx (Edmonds) and Syrinx (Paton). They should be subsections of the books which contain them. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Laws of the Game (1863) (draft)

There is no work or edition of a work called Laws of the Game with this specific content. Our text is in fact an extract from a much longer newspaper article, see File:The Football Association (Bells Life in London) 1863-11-28.png. I propose deleting this text as an extract. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Translation:Likutei Moharan

Original not scan-backed as required by WS:T. Although a few chapters were added prior to July 2013, as required by the grandfather rule, others were added later, and the vast majority of them have not been started yet. Moreover, starting work on them is not enabled by the new rule anyway, until the original is scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Nissimnanach, would you be able to upload a copy of Likutei Moharan to Commons just like you did with Tales of Rabbi Nachman (here)? It would be a shame to have the Likutei Moharan deleted due to lack of a scan-backed original.

Noteː I found a copy at Hathitrust (here), but I was unable to download more than one page at a time. Any help from other users would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sije (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Would this work? The author passed in 1810 so the required 100 years for public domain has lapsed. It's a 1966 New York print. I think we would want up through page 420 because after that starts a Parparot L'Chokhmah commentary by E.S. Shick who passed in 2015. https://hebrewbooks.org/19055 Nissimnanach (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The abovementioned print already exists on Wikimedia Commons (here ). Since a suitable source scan is available within the Wikimedia ecosystem, deletion seems premature. The issue appears to be the lack of ProofreadPage integration on Hebrew Wikisource rather than the absence of a source scan. I request that the translation be retained while scan-backing work is undertaken. Any help from other users would be greatly appreciated. Nissimnanach (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Even better, the 1874 edition has just been uploaded

The Gathering of Moharan

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%98%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8%22%D7%9F.pdf

It has been listed on the Translation: page and on the he:w page in External links.

Anyone who can please help with the ProofreadPage integration, thanks much! Nissimnanach (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Subpages of User:TheodoresTomfooleries with user translations

The following are user translations that (1) are not in accordance with WS:T, which requires the originals to be scan-backed, and (2) are misplaced in the user space instead of the translation namespace. User space is not intended as a repository for texts that are not eligible to be hosted in other namespaces.

• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of Angola (1975)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of South Yemen (amended, 1978)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of the French State (1944)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of the Italian Social Republic
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of the RSFSR (1978)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Draft of the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic (1990)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Old English Bible

Besides, there are two more subpages that are redundant to Index:Конституция СССР (1977).pdf and so there is no reason for hosting them in the user space either.

• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977)
• User:TheodoresTomfooleries/Constitution of the Soviet Union (1977)/Section I

Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose absent any copyright issues. The translation guideline doesn’t apply to user pages, and we generally don’t subject user pages to deletion-level scrutiny outside of copyright issues. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The translation guideline specifically states that user translations can be hosted in the translation namespace only. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Do not misstate policy. As I said, the translation guidance doesn’t apply to user pages; and, as you it is only a guideline, it is not a mandatory command. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

    ping @User:TheodoresTomfooleries - can you let us know what is you intention with these pages ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

    WS:T is policy, not a guideline, and a guideline generally trumps "we generally don't"s that have no real consensus and have not been written down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

    I do not misstate anything. The policy clearly says: "Wikisource original translations will be hosted in the Translation namespace." Thus, all other namespaces are excluded from hosting Wikisource original translations. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per "User space is not intended as a repository for texts that are not eligible to be hosted in other namespaces."--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Kalivyah/1977 (1981 amendment) Soviet Constitution

Subpage of User:Kalivyah, a user translation that (1) is not in accordance with WS:T, which requires the originals to be scan-backed, and (2) is misplaced in the user space instead of the translation namespace. User space is not intended as a repository for texts that are not eligible to be hosted in other namespaces. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose absent any copyright issues. The translation guideline doesn’t apply to user pages, and we generally don’t subject user pages to deletion-level scrutiny outside of copyright issues. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The translation guideline specifically states that user translations can be hosted in the translation namespace only. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Do not misstate policy. As I said, the translation guidance doesn’t apply to user pages; and, as you it is only a guideline, it is not a mandatory command. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

    This user only made a handful of contributions almost two years ago. This page does look abandoned.

    ping @User:Kalivyah - are you still about ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

    I think that we can assume that this is abandoned.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hunmongjahoe

Unfinished user translation without scan-backed original. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - along with the issues noted in the nomination, there's very little content translated, and two of the pages which do exist have extensively broken markup (e.g. broken templates on Hunmongjahoe/諺文字母 and a strangely laid out diagram on Hunmongjahoe/平上去入定位之圖). Omphalographer (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The New Review/Volume 12/The Time Machine and its chapter subpages

I just came across The New Review/Volume 12/The Time Machine, and moved it to The Time Machine (The New Review), following Wikisource:Style guide#Serialized works in periodicals. The original work was published in five parts, each containing a few chapters, but these chapters have also been transcluded separately under The New Review/Volume 12/The Time Machine (chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and an Epilogue) which aren't part of the structure of the original magazine. As a result, I'd suggest deleting these chapter subpages (and The New Review/Volume 12/The Time Machine, which is currently a redirect). --Yodin^T 17:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete. Just to make it a bit clearer, now The New Review/Volume 12/The Time Machine/Chapter 1 is redundant to The New Review/Volume 12/Number 68/The Time Machine, etc. In fact, they could be speedied as redundant. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Countdown

Is there any use for this template? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - as best I can tell, this was only ever used as part of Template:PromoteElection - which was added to the Scriptorium to promote the 2011 WMF board elections in Special:Diff/2943121, removed a few hours later, and deleted in 2016. Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Index:"Become a nurse - Your country needs you" - NARA - 513583.tif

Imo out of scope. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - this is not a substantial written work; the few words of text on this poster can easily be transcribed in the image description on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. There is another seperate page also: Page:"Become a nurse - Your country needs you" - NARA - 513583.jpg

Actually, there are many of these pages from the nara collection. I think I'll make another post for these. Neon700 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:Noinclude

Does not seem to have any use. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

NASA News Release 96-122

This is just a blogpost. Nighfidelity (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikisource should not try to mirror the Internet. It is stored at archive.org which is a much better and more faithful way for archiving web than Wikisource is. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

DEI Related Contract Cancellations by DOGE (January 20–31, 2025)

This is just a table. ToxicPea (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per "Reference material" under WS:WWI. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-nonIsrael

Unused. Additionally, the user who created it has their username redacted. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the username being redacted is really relevant. I'm guessing this is about non-copyright restrictions on Nazi propaganda, maybe? It's probably fine to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Without a link, say to a particular exemption under the copyright acts, this is useless in terms of guidance. If there are particular categories of works that are legally restricted in particular countries and we want to categorize that, it should be done under some other system than the PD-tags which just adds confusion (e.g. obscenity laws, blasphemy laws i n Islamic countries, lese majesete laws in places like Thailand, propaganda laws, etc.) unless it is actually done through copyright (say the King James bible in the UK under crown copyright). MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Multiple unfit pages, mainly from the NARA project

Hello all, I think many, if not all of these pages should be deleted. Most are just images with very little text, or are not linked to any index/work, or aren't transcluded or even proofread meaningfully, although sometimes validated, are out of scope, or in a different language. I've already had some that I was sure about speedy deleted, but I think for the following someone else should also have a look. Although some may also already be ok for speedy deletion.

(I haven't gone and added a delete template to every single page.. I hope that's ok., if you disagree with certain pages you can just edit the list)

• Index:You talk of sacrifice... He knew the meaning of sacrifice^ - NARA - 535236.tif
• Index:"WHY HELP GREMLINS" - NARA - 516157.tif
• Index:"Be ready for your war service-Join the Red Cross Student Reserve" - NARA - 513930.tif
• Index:"Military Courtesy" - NARA - 515010.tif
• Index:Social Security Poster of a Mother and Her Child - NARA - 195886.tif

Pages without Index:

• Page:"-AND WE'LL CONTIUE TO FIGHT FOR LIBERTY" - NARA - 535665.jpg
• Page:"...and back us up in a war job" - NARA - 513848.jpg
• Page:"An ostrich only thinks he "covers up." - NARA - 513846.tif
• Page:"WANTED - 13 BILLION FIGHTING DOLLARS" - NARA - 516024.jpg
• Page:HAILE SELASSIE - EMPEROR, WARRIOR - NARA - 535684.jpg
• Page:"WE ARE HELPING TO STAMP OUT SYPHILIS" - NARA - 516062.jpg
• Page:"WITH DECORATIONS" - NARA - 520154.jpg
• Page:Avenge Pearl Harbor. Our bullets will do it - NARA - 534787.jpg
• Page:COL. EDWARD O. GOURDIN - COMMANDING OFFICER 372nd INFANTRY - NARA - 535682.jpg
• Page:FRED R. MOORE - HUMANITARIAN, EDITOR, LEADER, 1857-1943 - NARA - 535620.jpg
• Page:Florence Earle Coates to Miss Katherine Brégy Envelope (1912).jpg
• Page:Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg
• Page:MoH&H title.jpg
• Page:Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300059.jpg
• Page:WarnerBrosCoralineCorsets page14.png
• Page:West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Number One Hydro-Electric Development 01.jpg
• Page:Whack the Jap on the back of his lap^ Let's go - everybody - keep `em firing^ - NARA - 534760.jpg
• Page:"A menace we must beat" - NARA - 513738.jpg
• Page:Battlefield of Pleasant Hill. Surveyed and Drawn by Lt. S. E. McGregory By Order of Maj. D. C. Houston, Chief... - NARA - 305634.tif
• Page:Burma Civil Liberties Poster - NARA - 5729921.jpg
• Page:Do it right but fast. Make this year Hitler's last - NARA - 535147.jpg
• Page:Winners July-August Slogan Contest - NARA - 534195.jpg
• Page:Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300244.jpg
• Page:Produce For Victory^ - NARA - 534366.jpg
• Page:Spectators in front of a large sign on Nixon's motorcade route in China. - NARA - 194413.tif
• Page:Yogi Bear with "don't feed the bears" message - NARA - 286013.jpg

Neon700 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete I don't see any use for these on Wikisource. There are only a few words, these can be transcribed on Commons on the file pages. Yann (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• The whole constitution would be eligible, no particular reason to keep the single one page by itself.

These two deserve individual nomination as (arguably) complete English works:

• "Military Courtesy" - NARA - 515010.tif" seems to have English text to be valuable on its own. It was published as the backside of Newsmap https://catalog.archives.gov/id/66395108, so it would be good to have an individual nomination to be clear whether the issue is lack of content or the fact it is only one side.
• "Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300244.jpg" This one isn't an extract (it's the whole English-language document) and has text. However the tables of name itself is arguably "Reference material" under the WS:WWI, hence why I would suggest an individual nomination under that criterion.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have always wondered about these old NARA works. They would be very difficult to properly proofread, as we would be trying to replicate the very image-centered formatting of the text. On the other hand, these are complete works, in the public domain, with English-language text, so it’s only on the grounds of there being too little text, which may require a new deletion rationale. As for individual items:
  • Index:"Military Courtesy" - NARA - 515010.tif should definitely be kept, at least on these grounds (although the text isn’t exactly legible).
  • Page:Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg is redundant to Index:COTUS (1787 Edition).pdf, which has already been cleaned up.
  • Page:MoH&H title.jpg is redundant to Page:The Marriage of Heaven and Hell - copy D.djvu/1.
  • Page:Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300059.jpg also looks good, except that it’s in German.
  • Page:WarnerBrosCoralineCorsets page14.png is redundant to Page:WarnerBrosCoralineCorsets page14.jpg.
  • Page:Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300244.jpg is a very close call in my mind.
• TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• I deleted some empty pages. If someone thinks these are really OK here, I don't mind. But Page:"WE ARE HELPING TO STAMP OUT SYPHILIS" - NARA - 516062.jpg doesn't make sense. Yann (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Page:Burma Civil Liberties Poster - NARA - 5729921.jpg and Page:Spectators in front of a large sign on Nixon's motorcade route in China. - NARA - 194413.tif aren't in English. Yann (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses @MarkLSteadman @TE(æ)A,ea. @Yann

• For Page:"Military Courtesy" - NARA - 515010.tif the higher quality image is already on commons: File:WW2 Uniforms Rank insignia US Poland USSR China France Britain Newsmap Vol 1 No 48 3-22-1943 US Government National Archives NARA Unrestricted Public domain 26-nm-1-48 002 cropped.jpg Since no work had been done I think we can delete the one Page already for lack of content and I can add the link to the better commons file on the nara project page, with remark about the other page in the archive.
• Page:Illustrated family record (Fraktur) found in Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land-Warrant Application File... - NARA - 300244.jpg and others have already been deleted (for lack of content?)

As for the remaining ones, I think it makes more sense to delete them even if they could be included here, as the work needed with the image formatting etc. hasn't been done or even attempted, yet some are even validated. And if someone really wanted to do that work they would have to start from scratch anyway.

Lastly, I just found:

• Page:Florence Earle Coates to Miss Katherine Brégy Envelope (1912).jpg is a duplicate of Page:Florence Earle Coates to Miss Katherine Brigy Envelope (1912).jpg
• Page:WarnerBrosCoralineCorsets page14.png a duplicate of Page:WarnerBrosCoralineCorsets page14.jpg

Neon700 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete all. As I implied in the DR for "Become a nurse", Wikisource transcriptions should be reserved for works which are primarily textual and which contain substantial amounts of text. Single images which incidentally contain small amounts of text - like slogans on posters, writing on envelopes, or text inscribed on photographs - can be transcribed in their image descriptions on Commons; the Wikisource transcription process is neither necessary nor appropriate for these images.

(One particularly vexing problem with these transcriptions is that it is unreasonably difficult for visitors to reach the file description from a Wikisource page - for instance, there is no obvious path from Page:HAILE SELASSIE - EMPEROR, WARRIOR - NARA - 535684.jpg to File:HAILE SELASSIE - EMPEROR, WARRIOR - NARA - 535684.jpg, where the origin and history of the artwork is described.)

Omphalographer (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Index:ORDINANCE 2 ORDINANCE CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND POSITION OF CITY ASSESSOR IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA.pdf

This is superfluous to Page:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1937.pdf/2. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Index:Monitorul Oficial al României. Partea I 2008-02-22, nr. 139.pdf

A partially completed translation, which seems to have had no work since 2023, and there seems to be no version on Romanian Wikisource, so it wouldn't meet the requirements for a User translation anyway. -- Beardo (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Alabama State Constitution of 1901

Compilation of the book Constitution: State of Alabama (1901) and subpages containing unsourced collections of amendments. Only the 1901 publication should remain (although it should probably be renamed), while the compiled subpages should be deleted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• The “compilation” is a later issue: this was originally the full constitution, sourced to the most modern copy (including all of the amendments); but when it was scan-backed, it was scan-backed to the original version, without amendments. Thus, the scan-backed material here should be separated to Constitution: State of Alabama, and the original text kept with the amendments as unsourced. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Fact Sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy

This is transcription of a webpage. Specifically https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg_663340/xws_665282/xgxw_665284/202205/t20220507_10683090.html. I can't find a scan for this. -- —unsigned comment by ToxicPea (talk) 24 September 2026.

Fact Sheet: Cooperation Between China and Pacific Island Countries

Same as above ToxicPea (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Fact Sheet: U.S. Interference in Hong Kong Affairs and Support for Anti-China, Destabilizing Forces

This one has a scan at https://www.crowell.com/a/web/kHsDaEhP7gvjxZixQZ8Ln8/4Ttiv8/Fact-Sheet-US-Interference-in-Hong-Kong-Affairs-and-Support-for-Anti-China-Destabilizing-Forces.pdf but I'm pretty sure that's secondhand so it doesn't count.

Translation:Self-Written Epitaph

User translation whose original is not scan-backed at the appropriate language wiki, as required by WS:T. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Subpages of Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran

I suggest deleting the following subpages of Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran as Wikisource is not a gallery of images.

• Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran/Biographical Articles
• Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran/Telegrams
• Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran/Preserved Documents

Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete the documents are all on Commons. The is absolutely no point just having them all in galleries here.

Also Portal:Documents seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran/Shredded Documents. -- Beardo (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Constitution of Malaysia

Poorly formatted text which is unusable in this form. I nominate it for deletion per Wikisource:Deletion policy#Precedent: Copydumps. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Index:Battle Hymn of the Republic.jpg

This is redundant to Index:The Atlantic Monthly Volume 9.pdf. Page:The Atlantic Monthly Volume 9.pdf/156 should be deleted and Page:Battle Hymn of the Republic.jpg should be moved into its place. Additionally The Atlantic Monthly/Battle Hymn of the Republic should be moved to The Atlantic Monthly/Volume 9/Number 52/Battle Hymn of the Republic. ToxicPea (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Category:Modern Money Mechanics

This is a work based category (G8). MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)