Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:PD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposed deletions
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

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

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


Nominations[edit]

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



File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf[edit]

File was moved from Commons, but basically issues from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf need to be solved. Either the unfree images mentioned cut from the PDF and new version reuploaded while old revdeleted, or as per Wikisource:Copyright policy#Fair use it should go away. --Base (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The scan of the work is the scan as has been released and is the copy of the text. I would Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for the file, and the reproduced text. The issue of any claimed images is related to the discussion on WS:S about the proposed change on exemptions to copyright where they are part of a reproduced work, so images for me are undetermined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghanistan[edit]

This was once a valid template, but Afghanistan has adopted a life+50 copyright law[1], and has joined the WTO[2] as of July 29, 2016 and thus that is the URAA date for Afghanistan; all Afghani works published by authors alive in 1966 or later are now copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior to that discussion, we should be relicensing existing works, and dealing with the template to find out whether we have suitable existing templates to cater for the works, or we need to update this template for specificity. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of author based categories[edit]

I think that author-based categories should be deletable under the speedy deletion policy so that we don't have to raise a discussion every time one pops up. They probably fall under rationale G5 (beyond scope) so the policy itself wouldn't need to be modified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed but perhaps a new G8 criterion? Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There was a general discussion here to which we can link. If we are going to add it to the criterion, then we need to have supportive documentation of why they are out of scope for what wikisource includes, and how we explain the few that escape the reasoning. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The System of Nature[edit]

The System of Nature (1770) by Baron D'Holbach, translated by Samuel Wilkinson. No edition data.

A work that is not scan-supported, there is the introduction and first chapter, and many empty chapters. If we are to have this work then we should get a scan and proofread from that. This is abandoned and unlikely to be finished. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I found no scan at IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to be this scan on Google Books, and this copy of the same scan on HathiTrust, and it seems to be a cut and paste from this webpage. A split and match seems an idea; it's a lot to work on, but certainly a worthy work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here's the 1820 translation by Samuel Wilkinson on IA https://archive.org/details/systemofnatureor13holb -Einstein95 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a fan of that edition. Besides the serious misattribution on the title page to the wrong author, and the obscurity of the translator, that scan contains only volume I. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

undo deletion request[edit]

I notice that two or more pages were deleted in 2013 following a deletion discussion that was closed as keep: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2013-10#Various_Poe_collections. This came to my attention when an admin deleted a nonsense recreation (apologies) and another linked to deletion archive (thanks). Many of the Poe pages were organised as best as I could, and I put some time into conserving others contributions where possible, though I can't see the page history to know what happened here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, great to see you're still here from time to time. The base page of Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems was overwritten with vandalism in May 2018, then speadily deleted as "G1—No meaningful content or history", which is clearly an error. I have restored and rolled back. The subpages have been there all along. I've restored The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe, so at least you can see what was deleted — let me know if you want it deleted again. Hesperian 05:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, no, I've read it wrong. It was, as you say, deleted in 2013 as a result of the PD discussion, then recreated with nonsense in May 2018, and re-deleted. Anyhow, they are both restored for now so that you can make sense of what should be done with them. Happy to re-delete if necessary. Hesperian 05:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The community voted to delete these because there was neither a scan to back the work, nor was there any content from that work. The page "Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems" is a pseudo-title page with links to copies of the poems, but not links to copies from that edition. If someone finds a scan of the work in question, we would certainly host that, but not the kind of pseudo-work here. The same is true of "The Prose Romances of Edgar A. Poe". We don't have anything here from either work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you clarify "The community voted to delete these" please? I'm not seeing anything.... Hesperian 01:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you not follow the link at the top of this thread to the 2013 Deletion discussion? Or did you just see it archived under "Kept" and not read what the discussion actually said? Although some titles were kept as a result of the discussion, the others were deleted for having no content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It is evident that Hesperian reviewed the relevant discussions, if that is what is meant by your question, and that I disagree that there was any consensus to delete or my request would not have taken this form, i.e undelete. Another admin thought they could delete without reference or explanation, the actions of that account are often mysterious to me and attempts to communicate directly are always ignored. Did you review the previous discussion when redeleting, or did you not notice the page had history when you did that? Pardon any insinuation, but users who are so often correct are unused to reversing their positions. So are jerks, but that is not what I am implying. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I noted that the pages had existed previously, and a community decision had been taken to delete them five years ago. So the pges had not existed since 2013. The only "new" content in 2018 was created by an IP who created with the content "This is a book by Edgar Allan Poe which is a collection of a lot of books that I don't know because I haven't even read the book so um this is all your getting about it unless someone decides to edit this page" This content did not seem worth keeping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep if the works can be updated to be withing scope. Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems is now self-contained though incomplete, and should be kept. Prose Romances has a scan here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I would prefer that this discussion is restored to the admin notice board when complete, and that users give an explanation when they override others intentions. The link is already noted above, and does not serve as an adequate explanation of the actions undertaken. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Double quotes and redirect[edit]

A template like this is contrary to our guidance in Wikisource:Style guide and I would encourage us to remove the template and replace its use with standard double quotes. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agreed. But it will take someone quite a bit of work to eliminate the usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We could start by using straight quotes in the template itself, and then using a bot. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: it has a variety of characters plugged in to be used, so a straight replacement may not be possible. I would suggest that it I would run a bot through and replace, and remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteMpaa (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This template was updated to use straight quotes, and is still useful for the slight padding and other esoteric uses. I'd suggest to mark it as deprecated and discourage its use, but since it is no longer contrary to our style guidelines I do not think it needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable[edit]

This work is moribund and has been for about ten years. It is a copy and paste from Bartleby. Of the many pages in the work we only have a few, and if we needed the work we should go back and get the scan and work from that,

Noting that there are disambiguation pages containing and we should purge those pages of links if we delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete including all existing subpages. In addition to disambiguation pages, there are some accompanying Talk pages that will also need to go. The work can easily be recreated more authoritatively from scans if sufficient interest arises. Tarmstro99 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't find a scan of this exact edition (1898, published by Henry Altemus), but there are lots of scans of other printings out there. When I have a chance I'll put a scan behind it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Biographia Hibernica[edit]

Another long-abandoned work in the copy and paste style. Not many biographies there, though some detail with them. It may be worth trying to get scans if the work is not overly extensive, otherwise it falls into let us tidy it up, and someone can do scans whenever. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Prosody (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We do have scans of this work in progress (see Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu), but little progress has been made since they were posted in 2010 due to problems with the scans (missing and/or duplicated pages in both volumes). I will see whether I can find better scans elsewhere. Tarmstro99 16:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and migrate to (corrected) DjVu (Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu, Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu). Tarmstro99 16:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Collection Efficiency of Filters versus Impactors for airborn fungi[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be a contemporary work (it cites a report from 1998), so unlikely to be in the public domain unless it was prepared by a government author. No authorship or publication info provided. Long abandoned by the original poster. Tarmstro99 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The source file for the text contains no text; it is an image only. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If you look at the earlier version of the image all will be made clear. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing up the mystery. However, I still move to delete, since the added annotation is not part of the original photograph. It would be more appropriate to give the annotation in the file information at Commons, or in an image caption for the image's data item. For me, this falls outside the scope of what Wikisource does. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Note also, I've reverted the edits made to the original image. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization on grounds of scope. I’d also lean towards deleting the other image-only pages linked by User:Azertus, but they should probably have their own discussion first; because if we delete 10 pages on grounds that mere captions for an image do not qualify as source texts (unless, of course, included as part of a larger document in which the image appears), that may qualify as a developing precedent-based exclusion suitable for mentioning at WS:WWI. A fuller discussion should occur before adopting what is functionally a “there must be more text than just a caption” policy, which is why my deletion vote for now is limited to USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization. Tarmstro99 15:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    The issue here is that the "Caption" seem to have been written or printed onto an existing image. Posters which consist of an image and text, both of which were present on the poster at the time of printing, are not at issue here. This instance consists of text added afterwards, which we normally do not transcribe here; much like library stamps, ex libris information, handwritten notations, etc. And in this case, the base document consists solely of an image, with no text whatsoever. Single image-only items clearly fall outside of WS:WWI and belong at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you would be more favorably disposed towards the other pages listed above by User:Azertus, which is fine. I personally do not see much value to our collection in transcribing a three-line slogan from a poster that is not part of a more substantial work, but opinions can vary. I believe we are in agreement on deleting USS Arizona, Upon Completion of Modernization, however. Tarmstro99 14:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Offences Against The Person Act, 1861 (repealed)[edit]

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

Could this be updated to be essentially an annotated version of Offences against the Person Act 1861? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009)[edit]

This is an early version of a state law that was later passed in another form. This version was apparently used during markup of the bill as it proceeded through the Oregon legislature; it includes markings noting where new text has been added to, and existing text deleted from, the prior revision of the bill. The final version of the legislation was passed and signed by the Governor with changes not shown in Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), and the final version of the law (Oregon Laws 2009, chapter 838) is available here. The text of legislation often changes, sometimes dramatically, between its original introduction and its eventual passage into law, but I see no real value in our preserving an unenacted interim revision of a bill that was superseded by later language. Tarmstro99 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If the version we have exists in published form I would still keep it as technically in scope, while working to ensure the final edition is available and properly disambiguated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging this and for the details about its history. I tend to agree with Beleg Tal and will try to dig into it and help get it to a better state. -Pete (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this text is now backed by a published source document. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm iffy on the copyright. Does {{PD-EdictGov}} cover drafts? My reading of the license is that actual legislation that passed would be covered because it is an edict of government. A draft is not an edict, is it? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
At the federal level, even draft legislation would surely be public domain under Section 105 (as a work created by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment). As far as other governments are concerned, I’m not aware of any state governments who have drawn a line between draft and final legislation. Those states who have been most active in asserting copyright over their laws have argued (wrongly, I think) that even the final, enacted laws are covered by copyright. (Oregon has been especially active in this regard, so there is a non-zero risk that they would take exception to Oregon House Bill 2500 (2009), but the courts have been pretty sympathetic towards groups like Carl Malamud’s who have been attempting to provide broader free access to legal materials.) The recent controversies around copyrighting legislation have involved the assertion of copyright by private entities (not governmental bodies) who drafted model codes that were later adopted by a government; the question has been whether the government’s adoption of the private entity’s work as the law negates the private drafter’s copyright. On that question, the courts have gone both ways; but nothing in their analyses would suggest that governments themselves may assert copyright in their own draft legislation. Tarmstro99 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To the foregoing I should add that, unless other editors still have concerns about the copyright, the migration of the original text to the published source document suffices to resolve my stated concerns. Although I think the discussion should be left open for a few more days to permit any further comments, following that time I’m inclined to close this out with a result of Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Tarmstro99 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mamdouh Saif in the Middle Eastern press.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.--21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
If this is truly released into PD, then this should be transferred to Commons and deleted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes it should. Recommend you discuss with uploader to verify source and claim to public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete : no source; no license; no evidence of PD; and more than a month with no response from the uploader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Historic American Engineering Record - Boston Elevated Railway Company photographs and information[edit]

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

If we're sure either of those is the same "edition" (even if the indices are additional material not previously included -- maybe the original cut-n-paster didn't want to deal with complex data grids?), then possibly we could go the match-and-split route? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I did match-and-split on a text like this recently, with zero proofreading and tons of OCR crap, and based on my experience I would far rather proofread from scratch than from this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
don’t know if i want to delete a cut and paste, without a scanned-backed to replace it. there are photos mass uploaded here c:Category:Historic American Engineering Record,
i would support a demonstration of an example here, given the large amount of material in HAER, that would support historic structures. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Author:Ahmed Deedat[edit]

@The revealer: has added this author page. He has a VIAF entry, but are there any works by this author we can host? Generally, we do not retain pages of Authors with no hostable works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I did a preliminary search, and the few works I found with a copyright notice contain a non-derivative restriction. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

{{large}}, et al[edit]

We have a series of deprecated templates:

They were replaced in 2010 by the {{larger}}, {{smaller}} (etc) family. The reason they were not made redirects is that the usage wasn't linear and there were subtle differences in the results -- {{large}} became {{xx-larger}} etc. (Or, at least, that is my understanding; I wasn't around or paying attention at the time.) The original PD discussion can be found in the archives here.

Either way, these templates are now banners that say "this template is deprecated, use <other> template instead.". For example, {{large}}:


Stop x nuvola.svg This template has been deprecated in favour of {{x-larger}}. A redirect does not exist, as this template had subtle differences with its replacement(s), and confusion may arise. Please do not create a new template with this name, to prevent confusion with replacements.


I have confirmed using 'what links here' that these templates are unused in the Index, Page, and main namespaces, and the remaining uses are archives of Scriptorium or WS:PD and what looks like a sandbox/cheatsheet of a long-inactive user.

As such, I propose that we either delete these templates, or create permanent redirects to the similarly named template. For example, {{large}} would permanently redirect to {{larger}}. My reasoning is as follows:

  • These are common typos for the correct template, and they mean the same thing: "make this text extra small" and "make this text extra smaller" really do mean the same thing, semantically.
  • The reason that the original template was deprecated in this other fashion was because they were heavily used at the time and since the replacement process involved "subtle differences" the banner was used to ease confusion for the process. This was 8 years ago, though, and since then nobody has used these templates so any confusion should have been long alleviated.

I didn't want to go ahead and do it myself since the current implementation was the result of a community discussion/concensus. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support redirecting, since the templates are not in use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support redirecting except {{small}}, which is currently the poster child for use of the deprecation template. If we want to redirect that one, we should find identify another template to use as an exemplar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on further reflection. There is a difference between font-size:small; and font-size:smaller;, and we shouldn't use {{small}} to approximate the behaviour of the smaller keyword. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Er, {{small}} doesn't approximate the behavior of font-size:small either. It approximates a big ugly banner:
Stop x nuvola.svg This template has been deprecated in favour of {{Smaller}}. A redirect does not exist, as this template had subtle differences with its replacement(s), and confusion may arise. Please do not create a new template with this name, to prevent confusion with replacements.
Not that nuances in CSS relative font-sizes should mean anything in template names. That's why we have {{fine}}. (Nor is {{smaller}} defined using font-size:smaller either: it uses 83%. This makes sense, since smaller is a relative keyword and it would just make the font-size the next relative size smaller than its parent, whatever that may be.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hamlet in Gregg Shorthand[edit]

Is Index:Tales From Shakespeare - Hamlet - Printed in Gregg Shorthand.djvu within our scope? It's a copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet printed entirely in shorthand, a notational form that I can't imagine we'd be able to support here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume the underlying language is still English, in which case the work is technically within our scope. However, since we cannot duplicate the shorthand, we would have to display the entire contents as a series of images. We have not shied away from this in the past.Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: I do not intend to support this method of displaying a work, only noting that it is not against our policies, and is compliant with precedent. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Like Beleg Tâl, I'd say it's pretty clearly in our scope. However, @Jasonanaggie:, why did you upload this and how did you plan to handle it? It's probably worth deleting the Index page unless someone actually has a plan to work on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way we can implement the shorthand character set? Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There is only one way I know that is feasible: create an image for each character in the set, upload it to Commons, and embed them in the text LIKE THIS. The only other way I can think of is to find or create a custom font that implements the character set, then somehow convince the devs to add it to mw:Extension:ULS; but there are about a dozen outstanding requests for font additions and modifications that haven't been looked at in years, so I don't think that is feasible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Both of those would break for screen readers. Then again, I'm not sure how useful the experience would be for screen readers in the first place, since the novelty of the work is only in the typeface. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: not all works need to accomodate screen readers. Chopin Nocturnes Opus 9/Number 2 was added recently with some acclaim, and it isn't screen reader friendly either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not familiar with a Wikimedia policy which prefers to exclude a decent subset of disabled users; I would appreciate a link to one if you have one handy. Rather, most of what I know indicates we should support such users -- for example, we should include "alt" text on images. Additionally, the ULS solution will not work on mobile -- ULS is disabled in the Minerva skin used by the mobile view -- and I do know for a fact that there is an effort to improve support for mobile users. (I've always found sheet music to be a bit on the edge; having dabbled in writing a lilypond interpreter for screenreaders, it's kind of border line since the end result is purely audio and it's within the realm of possibility that a screenreader will support it.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There's not been any rule we should only upload works that work with screen readers, and we preserve original spelling and punctuation, even of old works that, unedited, would pose a significant problem to screen readers. Commons images often have the most basic of descriptions; if you can't see, nothing will tell you that File:At the Earths Core 1922 Dusk Jacket.jpg shows two people, one male, one female, with the man firing a bow at a flying dinosaur. It strikes me as more valuable to makes those more accessible to screen readers than to reject works that won't be accessible to screen readers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Er, I don't really have any opinion about uploading works that aren't valid with screen readers. Any PDF without a valid text layer isn't going to play nice with a screen reader unless it comes with OCR software -- and I'm no expert in how that works. Commons can do whatever they want with their image descriptions and policies and whatnot.
When we proofread works, we proofread as text. The text is compatible with screen readers. For that image you linked to, which I assume is a book cover, the graphic isn't the important part. The important part is the "At the Earth's Core" and author's name text. Images should have alt-text anyway (our own help page for adding images links to Wikipedia's extensive W:Help:Pictures page, which discusses this; not only is it important for screen readers but also in case commons is slow/glitches/has connectivity issues and the image doesn't load.)
If you don't care about disabled users with screen readers, then care about mobile users. I would be supremely unhappy if I go to read a work and then it uses up all of my data because it suddenly downloads 900 mb of images instead of text without warning. Or people with slow or rate limited internet. Or people who browse without images because they're behind a corporate or government firewall, or because they're on a metered connection. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The text is compatible with screen readers? Really? There's a screen reader that can handle Wið Ymbe Nim Eorþan?
It's trivial to dismiss something as unimportant, but if it's truly unimportant, than why bother having it? I could dismiss all the text of "At the Earth's Core" as unimportant; go see w:At the Earth's Core, that will tell you everything truly important. A blind person could well want to know what the cover looks like, more than just what you think is important. Images should have alt-text, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and the alt-text rarely tries to convey that.
It's not that I don't care about users with screen readers; I simply think we shouldn't throw away something just because it can't be used by them.
Lastly, B&W images, especially vector graphics, are tiny. File:Gregg_abacus.svg is 1KB. Clicking on The Sea Lady loads a 204 KB image without warning. If you want warnings, then that's discussable, but Hamlet in Gregg Shorthand is not going to be a standout work in our collection for data size. If you browse without images, you won't get to read the book. You also won't get the full effect of America's Best Comics/26, no matter what we do with it. That's a personal choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should also be noted that this is not a transcription of Shakespear's Hamlet, but a transcription of Charles Lamb's retelling of the story. It's value therefore is somewhat lessened. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I would move to delete this. If you consider Gregg shorthand like we would a font in a computer document, the only novelty in the work is the use of the typeface. It would be like trying to transclude "Hamlet - Printed in Blackletter" or "Wuthering Heights in Hieroglyphics." If this is, as EncycloPetey pointed out above, Charles Lamb's "version" of Hamlet, I would propose finding the text of that to preserve and then nixing the shorthand entirely. (The blackletter is not entirely an apt comparison since it's 1:1 with the Latin alphabet, but a phonetic script like hieroglyphics or runes would be more analogous.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The text of Charles Lamb's version exists at: Tales from Shakespeare/Hamlet. Though we do not yet have a scan-backed edition here, there is a link to an external scan of the 5th edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a different font; it's a different script. There's no reason for us not to preserve the few English works published in non-Latin scripts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that if it's not technically feasible, and if there's no user who wants to commit to seeing the project through, then it should be excluded. It's preserved inasmuch as it's been uploaded to Commons. The text is preserved at the link provided by EncycloPetey above. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. As I said before, this text is contrary to neither policy nor precedent. Novelty is not a requirement for hosting a text here. I will also say that "Hamlet - Printed in Blackletter" (or runes) or "Wuthering Heights in Hieroglyphics" would also be in scope and welcome at enWS if an editor is willing to make the effort to proofread them. If Jasonanaggie (or another user) is willing to create the images and thus proofread the text, there is no reason to exclude this text from our website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
And how would someone with a screen reader be expected to read it? Without some consensus and/or a policy related to alternative scripts/alphabets it's not clear on how such a thing should be transcribed in the first place. A literal translation? Eg. each character in the Gregg shorthand represents a phonetic sound -- do we transcribe the sounds in English as the image alt-text? Using the phonetic alphabet? Etc. Also it hasn't been touched in over a year so I would say that it fails the "if an editor is willing to make the effort" test.... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In the absence of a site-wide consensus regarding how to transcribe it, it is up to the proofreaders of the work itself to establish a guideline (ideally documented on the Index talk page). I've provided the uploader an example of how one might go about doing so (using the method that was used for Insular letters until about six months ago). I've also linked to examples of another method that would work, that has been used for sheet music and comic books that we are hosting. As for your last comment, there are a few works on my list of works in progress that I have not touched in over a year, and yet I do not consider them abandoned as I do intend to get to them all eventually. For that reason I would prefer to defer to the uploader's intentions on this matter. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
At what point, then, do we consider works abandoned? Because this one has managed to show up in this discussion with no validated pages, no proofreading guidelines on the talk page, and pretty much nobody sure of what in the world to do about it after a year. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, your advocacy to remove works is sort of puzzling to me. What does it matter if there is another tome on the bookshelf, if you aren't having to assemble the bookshelves yourself? Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For more difficult works, such as this one, when it is abandoned without even guidance for how someone else could step in and finish it I believe that it is better to not attempt it at all. This isn't a tome on the bookshelf; this is a collection of paper sitting in a box in the garage waiting to be assembled into a book at some point, but without instruction for how it should be put together. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie: have you abandoned this work? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say I will find other volumes to add before I would get around to this problematic one, though I still think it would be fun to do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Locked global account[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we keep and use {{Locked global account}}, or discard the drama as unnecessary? The template seems mainly to be used on Wikipedias and on Chinese and Korean projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point of it. Of what practical use is it? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
the existence would be a drama-pot for wikpedia admins to mark accounts with no activity, and hence, no disruption here. and more maintenance for admins here. (they might have a better case at meta) i did not know ip’s could create templates. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Unless there is a fundamental policy change (remember to update at least both {{Main Page header}} and Help:Adding texts if there is!) Main Page still declares: “Welcome to Wikisource, the free library that anyone can improve.”. So of course IP's can (and should be able to) create template-space entries. Whack-a-mole could not be so much, err, "fun"(?) otherwise… 114.74.56.136 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
as much as i support ip editing, when ip’s go directly to template space, without any other contributions, it leads to the impression that experienced users with vindictive grudges are socking. it is a vindictiveness i would not support. i would know more about whack-a-mole than you. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I am not unaware of your background (I do do some research—don't be afraid!) However it is quite wrong to assume a virgin IP edit is in any way significant at all. It might be a regular user making a first-time "forgot to log in" edit… or a javascript-can't-handle-slow-connections stuff-up, or a ticked-off former user who wants to buck the system and make a protest while at the same time making a pertinent contribution… The take-home point is: evaluate the quality of the contribution, not the contributor — or lock down your policy because you are too lazy or jaded to behave rationally…

In any case any half-competent administrator is already aware (even out the corner of their eye) of system-provided utilities like Special:AutoblockList (locally empty) or Special:BlockList or Special:GlobalBlockList (and their equivalents at meta) which perform much the same duty as {{Locked global account}} without the manual overhead. Oh! I forgot the "look at me: I am being an administrator wannabe" factor… There is a very special corner of Hell already picked out for those particular lusers…

Or are we talking about lazy and incompetent administrators? Either way, ordinary users don't care at all about this template, whether it exists or not. It does not perform any detectable useful function other than massage the egos of the useless amongst us. Am I wrong? Symbol delete vote.svg Delete it. 114.74.56.136 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The line between lazy and efficient is thin; it is not rational to spent huge amount of time to judge every contribution if there's ways to filter edits quicker. Most useful edits are from logged in users, and most deliberate vandalism is from IP addresses. Moreover, contributions don't stand alone; both works and templates develop best when users take responsibility for them and keep them up-to-date and working in the changing environment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: And you have just proved the point. Lazy oversight. What you are in fact admitting to is that stated policy is not adhered to in practice and that, frankly is despicable. For shame! 114.74.56.136 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
If there is doubt regarding this template, it should be addressed to WM community how it is releated to issue and how it's used. Maybe, or not, then they must advice for that. 109.102.200.227 10:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral though I also fail to see the benefit of tagging such accounts with a template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Where the template is about globally locked accounts, it should be managed for those with few or many edits where they got banned on different wiki-project and/or locked. That {{Locked global account}} should be placed on locked users. 109.102.104.128 13:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's extra maintenance work for admins with no tangible benefits for the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok @EncycloPetey: do you wish to get template deleted? However, no need to get it out, we already managed to embed documetation of template: Template: Locked global account/doc. 109.102.104.128 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@109.102.104.128: thank you for documenting how to use this template. Please also explain why we would want to use this template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: It very simple. Template appears to different projects, when admin accounts and community must manage to tag globally locked users. 109.102.104.128 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
On English Wikisource it is never the case that admin accounts and community must tag globally locked users. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This template appears to be the creation of a single IP who is the only person using the template. No admins have used the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why to say should be deleted? They with admin rights should try this for tagging locked users. 109.102.104.128 18:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
We with admin rights want to know, why it should not be deleted? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As per answer above. It would be so hard... when local accounts should be identified as locked by an steward. 109.102.104.128 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why should they be identified as locked by a steward? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Because it while has edited after same day, then steward has to manage to lock it, as it appear to be banned or if he did commit cross-wiki vandalism. See Global locks, at Meta-Wiki. 109.102.104.128 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure: I tryed other account, but Frayae, User:Revive Iwknes MEMo Gb and few others only. Agree, if is community resolution. 109.102.104.128 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Based on the discussion above, I don't see the purpose of this template. As a smaller wiki, we have fewer people to maintain the templates on this site. Who is supposed to go around hanging this template on user pages? Admins? a bot? I do not believe this has any long-term usefulness -- those who need to have the permissions to see users' pre-existing blocks -- and only adds excess work and noise to the site, plus extra maintenance responsibilities to support functionality that has little to no tangible purpose. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Index:Correspondence of John McLoughlin, Nathaniel J. Wyeth, S.R. Thurston, and R.C. Winthrop, Pertaining to Claim of Doctor McLoughlin at the Falls of the Willamette—The Site of Oregon City.pdf[edit]

This is a redundant scan of the one used for Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1/Documents from issue no. 1. It has incomplete metadata. Subpages should also be deleted IMO. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with nomination reasoning. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Adventures of Ann[edit]

Do we have a standard policy (and boilerplate) for drive-by copy-paste contributions? Our contributor of the Lowell articles has added another text filled with scannos, but which has no backing scan for proofreading. This sort of thing happens often enough that I think we should have a standard notice, but if we have such a thing, I do not know where it is. If we do not have it, then perhaps we can draft one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This particular user has had ... issues with understanding WS policy. I believe we may have discussed this on the Administrators' Notice Board. I would lean towards deleting this work and once again attempting to explain to this user the processes and policies we have in place here. I don't believe this is a widespread issue moreso than an issue affecting a very small subset of users, most of whom are good faith one-time contributors. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
why not just convert to match and split? https://archive.org/details/adventuresofanns00freerich/page/n5 -- shouldn’t be too hard to knock out. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is match and split working again? It wasn't the last time someone asked about it. In any case, I'm still hoping we can get some boilerplate to deal with the next time this occurs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been using M&S to good effect in recent months, FWIW. -Pete (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally it seems like M&S in this case is like validating the "work" of a user who is refusing to work with the community and follow the community's agreed upon processes and policies. Nothing against the process in general, but perpetual cleanup of incorrect content seems like it is taking away from time we could spend in other areas. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I am in general opposed to deleting works that are in scope and easily fixed, especially when (as User:Slowking4 points out) a scan is readily available for match and split. However I do agree that there should be an mbox of some sort to indicate "this work was added with minimal effort, and if it isn't brought up to snuff it will be deleted without further notice" (perhaps speedied as A3 Works without authorship information). I've been using {{no source}} and {{no license}} and similar mboxes to that effect in the past, perhaps these could be modified to state that failure to add the required info will result in proposed or speedy deletion as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
it is unclear to me that the "not scan backed" backlog is increasing. or that the answer is to delete new not scan backed, when we have thousands of ancient ones. (i.e. 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aehrenthal, Aloys Lexa von, Count) and yes, if we have a maintenance category or tag, then we could work the backlog. just because you do not want to fix other people’s uploads, does not mean others will not, or that the solution is deletion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Patients in mental institutions[edit]

It doesn't appear like there's an active effort to digitize these, so it might be best to remove them from the main namespace until someone decides to work on them. Prosody (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep since they have scans behind them and can easily be picked up by any interested editor. They should be tagged {{incomplete}} and I would also suggest to ensure a TOC is added on the main page so that readers can see that the works have contents and that those contents are not yet available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Maryland state laws relating to specific railroads[edit]

If there were any active work going on with the works in this list it might be appropriate to turn it into a portal, as such the works that currently in Wikisource are already all listed under the more general Portal:Maryland General Assembly and Portal:Transportation and communications. Prosody (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete along with Maryland state laws relating to the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road. Realistically it should be made into a portal, but as you say once cleanup is done the converted portal will be very sparse. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)