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.



Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifest[edit]

Previously discussed at WS:CV as a copyright issue (kept). Original PDF was deleted with minimal discussion at Commons, and an undeletion request declined citing privacy concerns. As best I can tell regarding copyright, this is simply {{PD-ineligible}}.

However, a recurring issue in all the previous discussions was whether the data is in scope per WS:WWI. It was highly relevant in 2014 at the time of the incident, so it was probably smart to keep it at the time for that reason alone, but now that it has had time to fade into history a little bit I think we should assess properly whether this is worth keeping. And let me be clear: the same factors that make this ineligible for copyright (lack of original expression) also argue that this is not within scope for Wikisource. Arguments to the contrary that turn the work into being a copyright violation are probably not particularly effective. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is clearly in scope as a documentary source, being "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". I also agree that this is {{PD-ineligible}}. We will need to get a hold of that PDF for local hosting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The PDF can be retrieved from w:File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a raw list of passengers on the relevant flight that IMO bears little resemblance to … constitutions and treaties [and] personal correspondence and diaries.. It does, however, sound quite a lot like 1. Lists;… 3. Tables of data or results, better known as Reference material, to me. However, the full report on that accident—which presumably includes that list in an appendix somewhere—would clearly be a documentary source. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reference material is also in scope if "it is published as part of a complete source text". As far as I can tell this PDF is a complete source text, or do you have evidence to indicate otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The exception for a "complete source text" refers to Reference data that is provided as part of larger publication (tables, appendices, etc.) is perfectly acceptable. The passenger list is just a dump of data from the airline's booking system (it's literally a tab separated dump of some rows of the database with minimal formatting: I've written the code to produce such about a gazillion times for various purposes over the years); unlike the complete accident report that would include such data as a table or in an appendix. That a mere data dump is "complete" does not ipso facto turn it into a "publication"; and reference material is not in scope on its own, it is merely "perfectly acceptable" if it is here because it is a part of a work that is in scope. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that by publishing this data dump as a complete PDF document, AirAsia has turned it into a documentary source that is evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events (the other stuff listed there are just examples and their similarity to the document in question is of no relevance). The entire contents of this documentary source is reference material which is published as part of the complete source text as released by AirAsia. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, it is still a valid interpretation of WS:WWI and therefore in my opinion this document should be kept regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
There appears to be a fundamental disagreement on the best course of action for this work among the (two) participants in this discussion. I would therefore request wider community input to enable a proper determination of consensus. All input would be valuable for that purpose: "keep", "delete", "dunno", "don't care", and whatever else you think relevant would all be helpful in that regard. --Xover (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Beeswaxcandle: As the only two still-active participants in the previous discussion, do you have an opinion on this issue? --Xover (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion and the community made a decision at that time. I generally don't revisit discussions unless there is a specific change in the circumstance around the decision. Generally we would live with previous discussions whether we agree voted for or against it, whether we agree or disagree with that decision. [Don't pick scabs] — billinghurst sDrewth
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: This seems like a fairly un-controversial piece of documentary evidence. It's not particularly mind-blowing, but it's real, and it was part of a then-current event. Assuming it really is {{PD-ineligible}} in the places needed, that is - it's PD in Indonesia because it's not a "work" there. Does it also need to be PD in the US, and if so, is it? If it is PD, recommend scan-backing to the PDF and tidying up. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: The copyright issue was settled well enough in previous discussions, whose conclusions I agree with: this is ineligible for copyright in the US due to not rising above the threshold of originality (it's just a dump of their passenger database). For works that are not eligible for copyright protection at all in the US, we don't need to care about the usual URAA and status in country of first publication stuff (AIUI).
    The question at hand in this discussion, and which is what has made it linger without resolution, is whether it is in scope for Wikisource. The question was raised repeatedly in previous discussions, but never addressed directly (the context then was copyright); and in this discussion I and Beleg Tâl reach diametrically opposite conclusions (and Billinghurst robustly refuses to address the issue). --Xover (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is in scope of WS, and it looks like it falls under PD-inelligible. If kept, it should be backed by the PDF document. However, if Commons declined the document for privacy reasons, can we ignore this concern? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: We have no local policy that addresses privacy beyond what the WMF Terms of Use impose. This is also a well-publicised public record (you can bet this same list of names scrolled across the TV screens of a bazillion news broadcasts at the time), and not all that sensitive, so whether we host a copy of it is of little matter in that sense. I brought up the Commons deletion mainly because it smacks of being a knee-jerk deletion. I don't personally think we should give Commons' decision excessive weight in this particular instance (others may of course disagree). Iff we keep it we'd need to upload it locally instead of on Commons, but we do that all the time anyway due to the differing copyright policies.
    That said, I do agree we should consider privacy in such cases in general, and particularly when, like in this case, it's just a list of victims names. But to me that falls under the scope issue that prompted this nomination: where is the value we bring there? Why do we need to host this mere list of names stripped of context? As a data appendix to the full air accident report, certainly; but when stripped out on its own like this? I just don't see that it falls within scope as defined in WS:WWI (which is, as all our policies, way too imprecise and handwavy for comfort, but…), and if it does then I don't see why it should be. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, we should definitely take privacy issues into account and the value of the bare list of victims’ names is so low that it cannot overpower this concern, no matter whether we take it as a separate issue or as a part of our scope. So finally I come to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

History of Delaware County[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept; now scan-backed, and within general scope

The preface of the work of the same name, with no other work done. Incomplete since 2010 “extraction.” As there is no impetus for the completion of this abandoned work, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As usual, I move to migrate this to a scan-backed edition of the full work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Scan is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I am afraid that this work is going to follow the following typical scenario: an abandoned work is nominated for deletion, then at least the scan is uploaded and title and contents pages (which were not even proofread) are transcluded, and after this the work is quickly abandoned again. Unless sombedy declares that they are going to work on it, I vote for deletion of the abandoned work from the main namespace while keeping it in the index namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete mainspace as abandoned extract and per Jan above. Index: and Pages: can stay. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'm going to hold off on closing this for a bit in case anyone else would like to chime in, but based on the above the outcome here looks like deleting the excerpt/incomplete mainspace transclusion and keeping the Index:/Page:-pages/scan. --Xover (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I would be glad to work on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's excellent news! I see Beleg Tâl has already uploaded a scan and set up an index and basic transclusion structure for it. Do you need any other help getting started? I see a lot of your work recently has been on non-scan-backed texts. Are you familiar with the whole scan→index→page→transclude setup we use here? --Xover (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I have not, and need help! I have been transcribing single articles from newspapers. I would love to contribute to larger projects. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'll follow this up on your talk page. --Xover (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Daughter of Heaven[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept; now scan-backed and within general scope — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned transcription, which is incomplete..

Closest edition I could find on a quick serach is - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47218
Scans of a near identical edition at - https://archive.org/details/daughterofheaven00gaut/mode/2up

Suggest deletion of the unsourced version, and upload of the actual scans instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The contributor added the text very short time ago and had already had some other non-scan additions before. It may be a good chance to show them the preferred scan-backed way of contributing, so if you were able to upload the scan and match the current work to the scanned pages, there is IMO a good chance that the original contributor may continue with proofreading. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is now scan backed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I note that no progress has been made since Beleg Tâl scan-backed it and am inclined (as should be no surprise) to question whether we need the excerpt sitting in mainspace under those circumstances. That being said I have not yet formed an opinion on how best to deal with this specific case. --Xover (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep work in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Help:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres[edit]

I was an admin on Wikilivres and I'm very sorry that it's gone. But it is gone. It's been offline since the middle of August 2019. That's six months now. It's obviously not coming back. Keeping a load of dead links to it on Wikisource is only going to make Wikisource look bad. I think Help:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres should be deleted and all links to the defunct site should be removed. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Note There is a related discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikilivres is gone. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As I mentioned in the other discussion, my initial take is that removal of Wikilivres links cannot be reliably automated, so if we delete this template we will also have to manually go through all transclusions and manually remove them. There's around a thousand of them so a bit of work, but entirely doable. --Xover (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, also, this affects {{wikilivres page}} too. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, I propose Template:Wikilivres page for deletion too. Unfortunately, that means that all the pages on which it appears will have to be deleted as well. I understand that most of the links to Wikilivres will have to be removed by hand. I will try to help by removing as many as I can. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    We should be really careful with deleting pages with Template:Wikilivres page, because some of them may have meanwhile slipped into PD and so should be restored instead. For example The Poems of Sappho were deleted here as a copyvio and moved to Wikilivres in 2013, but now it should be in public domain, as the work was published in 1924 (see Author:Edwin Marion Cox). There can be many cases like this and other may follow in the near future too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's more complicated than that. I've checked, and our Poems of Sappho was an extract from that book, and nowhere near the complete text. It extracted the Greek text and English translations of a few poems without the text of the book that Cox wrote, leaving us with less than 2% of the actual book. So, for that work, it would be better to start from scratch with a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I agree with Poems of Sappho. However, we should be cautious before we delete all the mentioned pages and no mass delete without checking should be performed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: Just to be clear: there is no proposal here to delete any actual works. All that's proposed is to delete the (now dead) links to works on Wikilivres. The reason I caution against automation above is because the templates and links are used in very variable ways on Author: pages etc., so automated removal would be likely to leave such pages with various forms of breakage.
    Regarding undeletion: we certainly have the technical means to undelete any page we've previously deleted, and pages that were deleted only due to a now-expired copyright should be undeleted. Sadly we have no good system to track these and rely entirely on users requesting undeletion at the right --Xover (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)time.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for Help:Wikilivres, as an archived page tagged with the {{historical}} notice. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for Template:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres page, but we should check every use of the latter for cases like Poems of Sappho and localize or delete as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment

  1. at some point I will need to be undertaking maintenance to special:interwiki for both wikilivres and bibliowiki links. If we know that there is a complete collection at "WayBack machine" or close to, then we can maybe update the interwikis if it is a universal static replacement. If the stem of the urls have variance, then that will not be possible, and we will have to do a removal.
  2. If we need to kill the links interwiki links in {{header}} and {{author}}, then that just becomes a simple task of killing those visible link components s in the respective header templates, and not fussing about removing until someone is maintaining those pages. We can put tracking categories in place.
  3. If we need to kill templates in the body of works, we can just neuter the templates, and then run a bot through to remove.
  4. Don't forget to check for "bibliowiki" components as that used to be a name in the mix.
  5. We can probably look to redirect all templated links to Help:Wikilivres and add some additional information about the site's demise.
  6. Generate a list of deleted works, with the dates that they can be resurrected, and keep that list on Help:Wikilivres and tick of those as we recover them, or determine not to do so.

billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep If nothing else, mark historical. There is no value in deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Senator Paul on Impeachment of President Trump[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept the speech, though I have redacted what I guess is the contentious quote in section, firstly it isn't his quote, and we have previously redacted components of other people's works submitted to US Congress. I have also deleted the earlier edits. I have left the citation of source. If anyone believes that this is too far, or not far enough, then please make a note below and the closure and that can be addressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
correcting statement, I misread the text, and the quote was indeed the author's a compromise of redacting names has been made. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for deletion because Xover would rather eternally bitch about how it should have been nominated, than just nominate it themselves. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. We are not censors. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong keep For the same reasons I wrote above, but please don't use language like this @Hesperian:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a public domain speech published in the Congressional Record and viewable on C-SPAN as I noted on the talk page for the document. Objections to this are that the speech allegedly includes the name of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment of Donald Trump. Nowhere in the speech is any specific name alleged to be that of the whistleblower. Even if it alleged that a specific name was that of the whistleblower, I do not see any local policy that this would violate nor any part of the Terms of Use that this would violate. Claims about "privacy" do not seem valid given the widespread media coverage of this name as that of the whistleblower, including social media posts by the President of the United States, and numerous fact-checking organizations and media outlets have found no law prohibits identifying the alleged whistleblower. Again, this speech does not identify anyone as the whistleblower, but even if it did it would not change the fact there is no policy grounds to remove the document.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I just feel gamed here, especially with The Devil's Advocate explaining how there's absolutely no reason at all for him to have transcribed this text, no, not one, it was totally random. If we want to transcribe the Congressional Record, let's transcribe the Congressional Record, not one excerpt from it that is a hot potato in some political game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was random. Not every part of the Congressional Record is of such historical significance that we would have any reason to copy it over. One might be inclined to copy over every Senator's comments from the Congressional Record on impeachment, though a lot of it would be redundant talking points. Either way, I think it is pretty clear Paul's speech on impeachment is of historical significance and it is in large part because of the political controversy surrounding it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hesperian, proposed deletions is not a space to play games. See above: "This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy". When somebody asks me to consider deleting something, I expect them to explain me the point in detail, especially which rule has been violated and in what manner and extent it has been violated. I have learnt nothing of that kind, your "resoning" shows only some frustration which I know nothing about and you are misusing this site to cure it. So I am suggesting to speedy close the proposal and if somebody really thinks that the work should be deleted, they can open a new proposal with proper rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems unfair to the person who just voted delete.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Jan: I have opened this discussion in good faith. Allegations have been made that community discussion on this is being stifled; this will not stand, man. Hesperian 03:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • fairly ambivalent about the work, though Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as it is within scope, and that I don't personally agree with the politics of our RW contributors, that is not the discussion. I would also be completely comfortable redacting the works in question, and./or having them reappear at some into the future, and we could apply the template logic per {{copyright until}} to redact the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This serves only one purpose, and it's not a good one. There is a reason why no mainstream media carry the full text. As to policy, that goes back to the Foundation, which has mandated policy on the protection of biographical information about living people. This selectively chosen transcript furthers the agenda that Rand Paul pursued when he gave the speech, which is to intimidate and endanger those who dare to speak truth to power. JzG (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • JzG, you've just revealed yourself as politically motivated: as concerned with the welfare of "those who dare to speak truth to power" rather than with the welfare of English Wikisource. In any other venue, I'd applaud you. Hesperian 23:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I love the irony there. You think TDA is motivated by pure dedication to free knowledge, when choosing to transcribe just this one speech that no mainstream source transcribes? JzG (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
No. Hesperian 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @JzG: I am wondering whether you could address your argument with respect WS:WWI. Every person here contributes based on a place of interest, and that is why we manage to usually escape the enWP issues of conflicted interest. If it has been published, then documents of all views are within scope, whether I personally welcome them or not. We have upsetting racist works here; we have works for and against the right to vote. As a library we host it, not determine its value. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep this work appears to be clearly in scope and compliant with policy, (despite being problematically annotated with wikilinks) so I see no reason to delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • delete do not feed the paul trolls. text dump without a side by side scan. upload the congressional record and build the index first. minor historical footnote of interest to only ideologues, like his foray to Howard University. speeches on the floor are a dime a dozen, more suitable to a blog. Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think any Senator's floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history could be considered a "minor historical footnote" and the only real question should be distinctiveness. Paul's speech is obviously distinctive among the various speeches due to the political controversy alone. No doubt there are other Senate floor speeches on this matter of note beyond Paul's and Romney's speeches. Would have no problem with those going up and may put some of them up myself. Doubt the Congressional Record in general is going to be as noteworthy historically as these speeches, but if people think differently they can address that by making their own contributions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
      • i find your escalating english wikipedia drama here is inappropriate. clearly you have a POV to push. the effusive praise for a junior senator, over and above the actual source material gives the game away. "floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history", and all the floor speeches on the second presidential impeachment in history, are not here either. if you are going to drive by text dump, you should understand, those "not scan backed" get deleted, if no one steps up and does the work. see also Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-08#IN_THE_MATTER_OF:_STEPHEN_GLOVER_ROWE,_D.M.D._License_No.:_4121 Slowking4Rama's revenge 15:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
        @Slowking4: Whilst I recognise your expertise in WP dramaz, you have been in a few, can I suggest that you keep your personal opinion about what and why people contribute out of a DR. Truly inappropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
        what's inappropriate is repeatedly pushing outing material of private people upon every project; you have a precedent about libelous material that may happen to be published somewhere; and have The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster/The Reply to Hayne - when he publishes his great speeches we can transcribe them also. Slowking4Rama's revenge 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        "Within scope" is within scope. Our motives have never been judgement previously for what we contribute for works within scope. I don't judge yours or others for what they bring within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Obviously, I published this here because it just happened. Wikisource didn't even exist during the Second Presidential Impeachment Trial. If you think there are some significant Senate floor speeches from the Clinton Impeachment Trial then please point them out for us or publish them. No one is stopping you. As far as being "not scan-backed" I looked at the policy beforehand and there is no suggestion lacking a scan is worthy of deletion. The Featured Text guidelines says a scan is ideal, but that an online source satisfies the criteria. If linking the relevant source material on the talk page is appropriate sourcing for a document appearing on the front page, then it is obviously appropriate for inclusion. Only reason for requiring sources is to authenticate the contents and I don't think anyone here seriously doubts the authenticity of what has been written. I copied this directly from the online PDF of the Congressional Record available at the official government site for Congress.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral First of all, it is very irresponsible of us to not delete and salt (prevent recreation through page protection) this text until the community makes a proper determination of whether we should host it at all. A plausible concern has been raised that it may contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to a third party, and until that risk has been properly assessed against other factors by the community our first priority should have been to prevent or mitigate that risk. Our failure to do so does not speak well of us; and I still urge that we should do so until the community's conclusion is ultimately determined.
    There are several issues that should be addressed for this text.
    Starting with the simplest, as a speech published in Congressional Record , Vol. 166, No. 23 (February 4, 2020) it would seem to be obviously within scope. It is an excerpt of that publication, which would put it outside scope, but it can easily be argued that the speech constitutes a separable work in its own right, so I do not think this is of particular concern in terms of scope.
    That it is an excerpt does bear on quality though, as does also its lack of scan-backing. The work is certainly not up to modern standards, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, our actual policies are old and do not reflect those standards. Neither does the community generally tend to delete texts on this basis. I do not think this issue constitutes more than a quibble.
    Also related to the quality are the use of links in the text, which violate our annotations policy. However, this is a matter easily remedied; has not historically been considered grounds for deletion on its own; and, personally, I think our annotations policy is too strict (and confusingly written) to start with.
    The obvious issues being addressed, we get into more complicated aspects: are there any factors that stem from the law that we need to take into account?
    The first and most basic is copyright. Speeches are often iffy, and speeches by elected officials (i.e. those who sometimes speak in their role, and sometimes as a candidate trying to be elected to that role) doubly so. I had to do quite a bit of reading to make sure I could even sensibly address this. However, on that basis, in this particular case I cannot see that there is any question that the work is covered by {{PD-USGov}}. Representatives are considered to be officers of the US federal government for copyright purposes, and a speech on the House floor is unequivocally made in that capacity (regardless of whether one suspects the motives of it to be posturing for the benefit of future voters). To the degree there was any lingering doubt, its publication in Congressional Record should put that to rest.
    Then there's the issue central to its controversy: would hosting this transcript violate any law with regard to protection of whistleblowers or protection of personal information, or other related law?
    Serious media organizations have refused to publish the identity of the whistleblower that Paul is trying to out here, which should definitely give us pause. However, as far as I can tell, they are doing this out of concern for journalistic standards and media ethics. Wikisource is not a newspaper, and we are not journalists; those standards would be an ill fit for most of what we do. We certainly can and should learn from them, but we cannot reasonably apply them here directly. I have not been able to find any law that would directly prohibit journalists from revealing the identity of the whistleblower. There are any number of laws that prohibit many different entities from doing so (as a form of "retaliation"), but none that I can see that would apply to journalists or to Wikisource. There are arguments being made that various laws that do not address this directly have the practical effect of making its publication illegal (think "criminal negligence" or "endangerment" and similar), but I cannot see that these are obviously correct or can obviously be said to apply here absent case law or a legal analysis addressing our situation directly. Whether these arguments represent an actual liability for the WMF or contributors is, in other words, something WMF Legal will have to determine.
    Beyond the law, there is however an argument that hosting this text would be irresponsible and unethical of us. Any claim that Paul does not here deliberately identify the whistleblower is either hopelessly naïve or deliberately obtuse. Any argument that hosting this will not contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to the whistleblower is not reality-based.
    However, one can certainly argue that our contribution to that risk is small. The identity is published in the Congressional Record, and has been published in several places that do not apply mainstream journalistic standards. In particular, sites whose primary demographic are the very groups that are most likely to engage in harassment or violence toward the whistleblower have already published their identity.
    The biggest additional factor that I can identify is that by hosting it we lend it the imprimatur of the Wikimedia movement in general, including the borrowed authority of Wikipedia, and whatever weight Wikisource on its own carries. By hosting just the speech, and not the entire Congressional Record, we afford it an implication of notability and importance it would not otherwise have; and by hosting it at all we contribute to giving it an authority likewise. We are also a lot more findable than many other sources of this information.
    I acknowledge those factors, and certainly think we should weigh them, but I do not see that they carry a very large weight. We are not Wikipedia, and our contribution to those factors is very small in the big picture. Judging solely by those factors we host several texts that are far more problematic.
    In addition, it is as fundamental to Wikisource that we are not censored, as things like verifiability and neutral point of view are to Wikipedia. The nominator put it succinctly and forcefully in their original discussion, and I encourage everyone to read that argument rather than the… let's call it an "expression of frustration"… on display in this nomination. Our starting point must be, I would argue, that we cannot judge of the contents of a work by standards that will shift with the seasons and fashions. I have personally proofread texts that contain horrible anti-semitic propaganda; works putting on display the systematic male chauvinism and casual racism that historical works are rife with. Eventually Vladimir Nabokov's best known work will become available to us, and we will need to deal with its controversial subject matter. If we were to censor all texts whose proofreading I need to hold my nose to get through, we would have very little left. If we were to censor all texts that offended someone's olfactory sense we might as well just shut down the project.
    However, even with that basic stance, I think we should exercise caution with texts that are specifically intended as some form of propaganda, that for other reasons carry some actual potential for harm, or where there is significant gaming the system surrounding it. Here the concern is harm to others and harm to the project. That's not to say the presence of those factors are automatically exclusionary; but when those obtain we need to treat the situation with caution, wisdom, sensitivity, and nuance.
    And the bottom line for me is that in this instance we have failed in this. Based on the observable evidence of the handling of this text, I am very concerned that our processes are neither mature enough nor robust enough to deal responsibly with such texts. And if we cannot deal with them responsibly then we must simply not deal with them at all, with all the downsides that implies. I am currently leaning towards delete for that reason, but I am very much torn on this issue and absent the current mess I would very likely have landed on keep.
    I strongly urge all community members to think carefully on this issue and express their opinion (for either outcome, obviously). --Xover (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The point about Paul not identifying the whistleblower in his speech is a factual one. In this context, his discussion of the whistleblower is because his question was publicly rejected by the Chief Justice during the impeachment proceedings on the grounds it named the whistleblower. His question was, in fact, the only one rejected in such a public fashion. Given his question did not identify anyone as the whistleblower, it seems the Chief Justice's conclusion is that the name itself could not be read regardless of context. At the same time, that question cuts to the heart of certain concerns driving those opposed to the impeachment, which is that this was a long-running aim and was more about ending Trump's policies by any means necessary than addressing real or perceived misconduct.
    It is also worth considering that if the whistleblower were one of the people named in that question, then it goes to the heart of the proceeding itself as suggesting the motivations of the whistleblower were also more about politics than integrity. Eventually, the whistleblower's identity will be an established part of history and if the person alleged is the whistleblower, it will inform a lot of the historical understanding about the impeachment. This would still be true, though somewhat less so, if it turns out Paul never actually named the whistleblower. One way or another, I don't think anyone could credibly argue that this speech would not be relevant to a historical understanding of the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history.
    As far as the "reality" of whether someone will be harassed or face physical violence, I think the former is so vague and broad as to be a certainty when any person is named as part of a controversy and using it as an excuse to not discuss or document allegations of misconduct is more about censoring damaging information than about protecting others. With the latter the prospects for violence remain remote as with most cases. There is also an inappropriate imputation about motive here that somehow the purpose is to expose that person to harassment and violence so as to silence that individual. In reality, the reverse is true as those accused of outing the whistleblower want him to testify and be cross-examined. Rather, those arguing for protecting the whistleblower are the ones who do not want that to occur.
    Part of the issue here is there is a lot of consideration for near-term issues with regards to this speech. I do not believe any Senator's speech on impeachment would be a "minor historical footnote" or somehow be less significant or important than the rest of the Congressional Record. Numerous major media outlets have covered Paul's speech, though not transcribed it, and not all Senator speeches on impeachment have been covered as extensively. The random routine procedural orders and communications about D.C. city bond issues stand little chance of being more important or significant. No issue with publishing more of the Senate speeches on impeachment or the complete public record of the trial proceedings to include Senate speeches, but the Congressional Record itself would be a bit excessive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    "Near-term issues" are the important ones here. There will be no problem in uploading this text in five or ten years. I don't believe there's value in Wikisource hosting one item out of a set, seemingly chosen only because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, mainstream media, and Wikipedia have decided that it's inappropriate to mention the name of someone that Rand Paul had no qualms about mentioning. It's disruptive to the Wikimedia community.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    Again, I don't have a problem with even more speeches being put up and I don't think anyone else would have a problem. I put this up after seeing the speech from Romney here and can imagine several other speeches noteworthy enough. Technically, as I argued previously, all the speeches could be put up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see valid arguments on both sides, and I don't wish to weigh in at this time on the final decision. However, I strongly agree with @Xover: that this should be deleted and salted -- or at least redacted and revdeleted -- pending the outcome of the discussion. It reflects poorly on us if we cannot create an environment for reasonable deliberation pending a clear outcome. -Pete (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    The fundamental problem with that approach is it demands everyone here to discuss the propriety of the work without all being able to review the ostensibly objectionable material. Given it has been up for over two weeks without incident, there is no clear reason why it needs to be deleted or redacted before a decision is reached.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    That is absolutely not true. (a) Redacting a name in no way impacts the ability to assess the merits of the argument above, and (b) redacting the entire document doesn't have that much impact either, since there is plenty of news coverage describing what happened. Either approach would (obviously) better serve the interest of reaching a decision without making the point moot, or pre-supposing a certain outcome. -Pete (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    A source document and video are linked on the talk page. Is it your position those should also be deleted from view? How do you expect regular contributors to discuss this if it is made impossible to review the material here? The reporting about the speech is easy enough to find, but the speech itself takes a little more effort and a lot of the reporting mischaracterizes the speech in a way that prejudices discussion in favor of the "delete" argument. I don't see how deleting and salting the page is somehow not pre-supposing an outcome as it suggests there is something here so horrible that it requires such extreme measures.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    I never said anything about removing links, you're arguing against a straw man here. Also, deleting and salting the page was only one of my suggestions; the most straightforward would be to simply redact and revdelete the individual's name. Simple, not horrible, and no imposition on reasoned discourse. You're being obtuse, and my sense is that you're "winning" this argument by tenacity and attrition. I don't approve. Carry on if you must, but I'm not impressed. -Pete (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Letter of request regarding Gangwon Fire Headquarters Delegation Visit to Washington DC Fire & EMS Training Academy[edit]

Hello sir. I want to keep the article but I was curious to know whether it fits the wikisource article criteria. My decision to make a contribution was by below wikisource introduction in wikipedia and also [1]. Please delete or keep it by admins' and people's judgement. thank you. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The project's aim is to host all forms of free text, in many languages, and translations. Originally conceived as an archive to store useful or important historical texts (its first text was the Déclaration universelle des Droits de l'Homme), it has expanded to become a general-content library. The project officially began in November 24, 2003 under the name Project Sourceberg, a play on the famous Project Gutenberg. The name Wikisource was adopted later that year and it received its own domain name seven months later.

@Choikwangmo9: This document does appear to satisfy our copyright policy. It would fall under the "documentary sources" part of our inclusion policy. It appears to be missing some information: where can other editors get a copy of the original to compare this copy against? If you have a hard copy or a PDF, you should scan and upload it to Wikimedia Commons for this purpose. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is the original letter. thank you sir. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I see no reason for this work to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: We have usually required documentary sources to be related to notability, and I don't see that this rates for notability for any article at the Wikipedias, it is simply a general piece of correspondence. We have previously deleted other documentary sources for non-notable people. How do you see that this is different? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    Our definition of notability has nothing to do with articles on the Wikipedias or not-notable people, but is instead based on editorial control and publication. If you are suggesting that this be deleted as a self-published document, then I am open to hearing your arguments to that effect. However, documentary sources that are issued by organizations are frequently hosted and kept regardless, so I am not sure what precedent you are basing this on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: We are a library, not an archive, and that is how we wrote the WWI to have a component of (historical) documents relating to notability. The notability aspect around documents is that around manageability of our scope. How many 18th century wills of insignificant people do you think that we should have? How many non-descript process letters of any government or organisations do we collect—unless they are supporting something like a WP article, something of notability. Random letters from fire fighters inviting themselves to visit other fire fighters are archival in nature, what is our purpose of hosting. That this is self-published adds to my issues with it living here, what purpose does it have? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am inclined to say this document is out of scope as having no independent notability per Billinghurst above. But perhaps Choikwangmo9 could explain why they believe this text is worth retaining? Is there some special significance to the visit this text refers to? Are any of the persons involved notable for some reason? A century from now, will historians refer to this letter or this visit even in a footnote or an appendix? What separates this letter from literally billions of other such documents sitting in public records around the world? What was the story behind how you came to add it here? --Xover (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Ok, absent a response from the uploader I am landing on delete per Billinghurst. --Xover (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't know there was a discussion like this. First of all.. it is not the same as this, but a similar official document has been deleted from koWS(I'm an admin on koWS). As you may know, thousands of government documents are produced by hundreds of institutions a day. WS is not a government document archive system. Also, official documents of the Korean government are not assigned a single designated license. Basically, it is not PD, and there must be a separate designation by the institution. However, this document is an interagency liaison letter, and such license designations cannot be confirmed. I recommend deleting it for reasons, out the scope and copyright. It seems like a stagnant discussion, excuse me, but I ping you, billinghurst. --Sotiale (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Something I haven't mentioned, this is not a special/notable/worth preserving official document. If it's an official document with a very special preservation value, I agree with posting, but this is not. It is just an inter-agency liaison letter. --Sotiale (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiples of works about Granville[edit]

The Works of the British Poets/Volume 17/Selected Poems of George Granville/Life of Granville[edit]

We have a single piece of text that is not scan supported that is sitting on its own with little hope of having anything attached to it. The work would be in scope if we have the volume of the text, however, is not so on its own. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't need to be nominating these if they were scan-backed per WS:WWI and they had been added per our instruction. I am noting this in the nominating process. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I !vote that these be scan backed rather than deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Do you have any suggestion about how one might go about this? I've searched for this, and several of the volumes listed below, on the Internet Archive 9using their internal search tools) as well as on the web, and through my local public library. I've put a fair amount of time into it, but I've come up with nothing. I imagine any reader would have a similar experience, and would encounter similar questions ("which volume is this from? what library has it?" etc. etc.) Do you have reason to believe that scans exist for this, or any of the works listed below? Do you see some process by which a wiki volunteer could acquire those scans and upload them? And if not, what's the meaning of your vote? What should be done between now and whatever time in the future somebody finds scans? -Pete (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The scans appear to be available at Hathi. It looks like there are 15 volumes not available at the IA, including (natch) volume. I have made a list here: Talk:The Works of the British Poets. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
Thanks Inductiveload. My question for Beleg Tâl remains: what course of action do they recommend? I don't understand what this particular conditional vote is recommending, in practice. (If I could upload the work, I would, but Hathi requires a login that I don't have.) -Pete (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I am still inclined to keep what we have pending someone acquiring a scan or scanning a physical copy of the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think we are voting about the work in its current state, not about a hypothetical state which might come to existence but also might not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George Granville[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another orphan page from a work where the work is not set up for others to work on it to complete. Of little value as it is. In scope if the remainder of the work was available, but an excerpt at this time. work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne/The Life of G. Granville, L. Lansdowne[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another snippet of a work, unsupported by scans. work Not going to be found by users, or be able to be proofread in current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs to be scan backed and also the title page needs to be founded so that other contributors could find it and continue with the work easily. Non-scan-backed works can imo be tollerated only if they are fully transcribed and do not need attention of other contributors. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

General Dictionary/Lansdowne, George Granville, Lord[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that is an excerpt of a work in its current form. Single biography as a subpage, from a larger compilation that is not grounded within the work. These works need to be scan-backed to be within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographia Dramatica/Granville, George, Lord Lansdown[edit]

Another work that is a single item as a subpage from a larger compiled work. No scan to support the text, no parent page exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do we know which edition this is from? There was more than one edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am also having difficulty figuring out what volume it's from. The Internet Archive has a number of volumes, but as far as I can tell (from a cursory search) none of them include this text. -Pete (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Update: See below (or the work's talk page) for a scan link. According to EncycloPetey, quality is insufficient to warrant upload here. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We still don't know which edition the current text is supposed to be from. There are scans of two different editions on IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors/Volume 4/George Granville, Lord Lansdown[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another page that is sole page of a compiled work of multiple volumes. Not scan supported, and sits isolated as a subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a larger piece of illustrated text and so it would be a pity if it were not brought up to our standards, i.e. scan-backed and the work’s title page founded. So I am pinging TE(æ)A,ea as the contributor who added the chapter to notify them about this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) On more ping: TE(æ)A,ea., as I mistyped the user name before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Found a good scan, and have now migrated the transcribed words and image. Please take another look. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. Lansdowne[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that has a single component added without being scan-supported. No root page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; I have now uploaded the scan, and transitioned the transcription to the index pages. -Pete (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, George[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work, same condition as above. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

General Biographical Dictionary/Volume 16/Granville, George[edit]

Another work, same condition as other nominations. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response of TE(æ)A,ea. to nominations[edit]

I oppose all of Billinghurst’s nominations. The works I have collectively transcribed are (generally) from well-known biographical dictionaries of the 19th century, with some earlier entries. They are all “attached,” I may add, to George Granville’s author page, and are not thus orphaned. There are, I may suspect, many other non-scan-backed pages which are not sufficiently transcribed, (whether wanting in completion or accuracy,) and these works are, within themselves, complete. These (biographical) articles have the same standing as any article of the Dictionary of National Biography, all of which are root pages in the main namespace; I have merely placed them as sub-pages so as to identify their location. I agree with Jan Kameníček, in that these works should be fully brought on to the English Wikisource; however, I am working on abandoned indexes at the moment, and do not want to start working on such a large-scale project as any of these works would be without the support of some other members of the community. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

And that is explained that the works would be within scope if they were scan-supported. They are not nominated due to their content, it is that they are isolated works which cannot be proofread, without ability to be built to complete the work, as such the works are worse than abandoned, they cannot be continued, and that is the point of why we wrote the rule as it is. They do not have the same standing as DNB for these reasons. Incomplete works that are abandoned and not scan-supported are truly problematic and we have been trying to fix this problem, not add to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The works are already proofread, and could be easily validated. The abandoned works that I am currently proofreading are left in a worse situation, as, unlike the works I have added, there is minimal relative indication of their existence, and are thus inferior to the works as they existed in their original form, (on Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust.) Your comment on the Dictionary of National Biography entries misses my point—those articles existed before the whole matter was scan-backed. As I have said, I created the articles as sub-pages so as to facilitate identification—this also allows for a more ready integration into a hypothetical scan-backed edition of any given work. Your comment on “fix[ing] this problem” is indicative of a problematic trend which causes abandoned indexes—just as the History of Delaware County, a work with little value to the project (due to its non-completion), languors in the main namespace, and, after the deletion process is completed, and the work is left with a scan, has the same value as the original, as it is still incomplete. I would glad to work with any other interested editors in completing a scan-backed version of any of the above works, but I will not work on it alone, and I would not like the work(s) to suffer in the index namespace in the same manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC).
  • The pages sit in isolation, there is no hierarchy to them beyond they sit as unconnected subpages of non-existent works at this wiki. We had a very early history of things just being dumped in place and not progressing, moribund and abandoned, not proofread, just OCR scraped and pasted, or sometimes some evidence of proofreading though no indication of any particular edition of a work. We are still tidying up these works. This is exactly why we put in place the statements about scans, why we look to have the rigor about the work we present, why we have standards to follow. The value of transcription progressing in the Page: namespace is that work can happen, and it can take as long as it needs to take to have a product worth displaying.

    To your commentary about the DNB, I know full well its history, I was there. We didn't have scans so we couldn't do it differently, and when we did gets scans, we worked to get those scans in place and to resolve the issue. And it was truly shit, and disorganised back at that time, and it was painful fixing. I don't want to have to go back to that time just because you have a supposed better idea.

    It is not our place to propagate random biographical excerpts without the ability or the wish to put in the remainder of the work or to align with the components of our consensus scope. We are not a site for clippings from this book or that book being randomly contributed, and that cannot easily be proofread or validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    • You once again do not understand my point. The works which I have created were created as sub-pages only so as to facilitate hypothetical interconnection with a complete edition of the work and to help with identifying the original publication of the work. My reference to the Dictionary of National Biography was not to claim that not having a scan is a preferable situation, as you have presumed, but to reference the method by which the text is represented. The works I have created have already been proofread, and could be easily validated. They are not in “isolation,” as I have already said in my first response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
      Your point about DNB is not valid: there was no other option, AND there was an active project working upon it, AND at the earliest opportunity it became scan-backed. Re your claim about easy validation, I am sorry thought that is a false claim, and it has been demonstrated here for years that it rarely happens. This is why we stopped that approach, and why we say to use scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find it difficult to know what to make of this situation; while I have read the text above, I find myself lacking basic information that would inform my vote. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you answer, in a few sentences, these questions?

  • What is the background of the pages - what process did you (and/or others) follow to bring them here?
  • When you say they have already been proofread, what are you referring to? What were they proofread against? (Maybe this is already addressed in your answer to the first question.)
  • When you say they could easily be validated, what process would I follow in order to validate them? How could I compare them to the original, published work? (I'm happy to pitch in a bit if you can give me some guidance.)
  • What is the ideal path forward for these works, in your view? What are the key things that need to happen, and how would these works look if those things happen? -Pete (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I thank you for asking these questions; I believe that they will help to alleviate some generally held confusion. Having some interest in George Granville, and noticing the references of his Dictionary of National Biography article, I proceeded to create more entries on Granville from biographical dictionaries. I worked alone in proofreading these pages. I have proofread them against on-line scans of the work, which I thought not proper to include on a sub-page; I am not wholly experienced with the specifics of metadata referencing on Wikisource. They could be validating by a comparison of the text as I have presented it against the scans by which I originally created the pages. The works could exist in two states, in my view, one which Billinghurst does not believe is viable; this was the main issue we have been discussing. I have created these pages integrated with George Granville’s author page, and with other biographical entries on Granville; I believe that these entries are complete, with the exception of the one major article I have not yet proofread, in their interconnection. The works, (i. e., the works containing the above-mentioned articles,) could also be brought to the English Wikisource as scan indexes; however, I oppose this action taken without real backing, as that could leave numerous abandoned indexes—those with only minimal work done. I hope that this response answers your questions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the answer, it's very helpful. I'm still a bit confused on the third question, though. Would this involve coordinating with you, as an individual, to transfer the scans? If so, I think I would lean toward delete. If the scans can be made publicly available on Commons, then they are useful not only to potential validators, but to diligent readers who may want to verify the accuracy themselves. In my view it's an important distinguishing feature of Wikisource that we make this process easy for all readers (i.e., providing scan-backed transcriptions).
I would not oppose bringing the entire indices to Wikisource, even absent a specific plan for further transcription. Simply having them set up here eases the burden on future transcribers who may wish to complete the works. However, if for some reason you really do feel it's important not to do so, another approach would be to create DJVU or PDF files only of the sections you have transcribed (i.e., the Granville sections) and upload those instead. Either of these actions (uploading the full index for each work, or uploading a subset to back the pages you have transcribed) would be sufficient for me to support keeping them. -Pete (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The only coördination that would require my involvement would be the identification of the scans. All of the above articles I have proofread against on-line scans accessed from either the Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust. I shall now look for the scans of the above works; I will include them in a further response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
      • I have moved the list below; I would like to mention that it contains hyper-links only to those volumes which contain the articles on Granville, and not of the entirety of the work, with the exception of the General Biographical Dictionary on HathiTrust. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
        • @TE(æ)A,ea.: This, above, is the crucial piece of information this discussion has been lacking. I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of bolding it, as I'd imagine others in this discussion (who may not be following this sub-thread) are likely very interested in it as well. With this information, I believe you have unlocked the possibility of a path forward in which nobody objects to keeping these works. This will still take a little work; I'm willing to do some of it. I have just now added the relevant source to the talk page of each of the works currently nominated. I will upload the The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain file, and match-and-split your contribution, to create an example of how the rest of them could be handled. If there's anything unfamiliar about what I propose, or what I do, please feel free to ask. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries to coordinate the type of works identified. It discusses the processes that can be utilised for these sorts of works. It is why we run a bot through and apply text layers of biographical works (which we don't typically do otherwise) and put search templates onto those pages exactly to make it workable with items identifiable. See Index:The Catholic encyclopedia and its makers.djvu, Index:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 1.djvu, Index:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu +++ Some people come in and do one article and leave, whereas some do one article and stay to finish the work, or do other works.

It is expected and accepted that some works will only have one or two pages transcribed and transcluded due to personal interest. Index: pages that are not active is expected, and the community has agreed that sitting there in workspace is okay. These works are available however, and it is the community's preferred way to progress in the Index:/Page: namespaces, so please disavow yourself of the notion that it is wrong, it is completely right, not just biographical works, but all works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an important discussion.

Firstly, I'd like to thank all those who give the infrastructural support. I have hardly got involved in the index page side of things in a decade here. But that does not mean I think it trivial.

Secondly, as I move around what are now better integrated Wikimedia sites (WP, Commons, Wikisource), I'm struck by how much there is to do, how much Wikidata is prompting work (at least from me), and how easy it is to get "distracted".

So, I think there is a tension between the systematic and the more sporadic approaches. Focus is very good: systematically completing works, especially neglected reference works, gives Wikisource a USP. The expression of the tension involved I see above doesn't surprise me.

I actually found this discussion because I was looking for the New Biographical Dictionary (Rose) online, for a reference. The sort of enterprise being debated is very interesting to me. We live here with the wiki principle "you can edit" but also the verifiability principle "others should be able to check your work"; and proofing being what it is, there will be some who come down on the side of saying the latter should be in practice, not just in theory.

I hope we can come to a reasonable accommodation on such a fundamental point, which has been around since ProofReadPage came here. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

List[edit]
  • The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George Granville upload: Yes check.svg Done scan-backed: Yes check.svg Done
  • A General Dictionary, volume 6 (transcription project) upload:Yes check.svg Done scan-backed:Yes check.svg Done
  • The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland, volume 4 upload: Yes check.svg Done scan-backed: Yes check.svg Done
  • The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne (transcription project) upload:Yes check.svg Done scan-backed:Yes check.svg Done
  • A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors (transcription project) upload:Yes check.svg Done scan-backed:Yes check.svg Done
  • Biographia Dramatica, volume 1, part 1 (external scan) This is a truly terrible scan with blotched pages and washed-out text throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • General Biographical Dictionary, volume 16 (external scan)
  • The Works of the British Poets, Volume 17 (external scan)
  • A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, George upload:Yes check.svg Done scan-backed:Yes check.svg Done
    • I have created the index pages for all of the above works with scans; however, the other volumes of Walpole’s Catalogue have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
      • Looks great, thanks! I completed another upload, now noted above. -Pete (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I have finished the General Dictionary volume; the scan quality, due to the formatting, is questionable; additionally, the other volumes have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
          • For what it's worth, I'm aware that there are other volumes, but as in so many cases here...just because there is more possible good work to do, doesn't mean I will do it :) My goal is to bring this deletion discussion to an amicable resolution. I'm putting in work to get these works to what I believe is the "bare minimum" that will get most Wikisource users to agree that they should be kept. You, or anyone else, may build on that work at any time; I may do so myself in the future. But for now, my commitment is only to getting these works up to the point where they are substantially scan-backed, with complete volumes uploaded and index pages set up, which could support future work others may want to do. -Pete (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
            • I would be more than happy to find scans, help set them up, and even do some transcription with this work, but I still do not have an answer to my question from above: Which edition? There is more than one edition of the Biographia Dramatica that has been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
              • @EncycloPetey: The scan you found too blurry appears to have been published in 1812. Does that not answer your question? And -- thanks for the offer of assistance, more hands would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                • No, my question is From which edition was the original bit that we're trying to save taken from? (or does it matter?) And corollary to that: Is one of the editions to be preferred? Perhaps the later edition expanded the number of entries, or corrected errors? Or perhaps the later edition replaced earlier content with different content, or introduced errors? This is a work I'm not familiar with, so advice on choosing an edition would be helpful. It would be a shame to waste effort setting up a multi-volume work like this only to find after the fact that the other edition was the better choice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                  • My understanding is that TE(æ)A,ea. posted the links of the scans from which they originally transcribed, so unless I've misunderstood, the 1812 edition is the one that was used. I have no idea what edition would be preferable, though. Maybe T can shed further light on that question. -Pete (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                    • Here are some decent scans for the work: Vol. 1, Part 1 (external scan); Vol. 1, Part 2 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan); Vol. 3 (external scan). There is also a 1782 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)), but I believe that it is inferior. As The Companion to the Play-House, there is the 1764 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)); it is also given as The Play-House Dictionary. I believe that each subsequent edition is an improved emendation; as such, the 1812 edition would be the most preferable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
                    • Having recently seen this, Halliwell’s Old English Plays declares the 1812 edition the “last and best.” It also gives the three additions as sequential improvements, as I had believed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
                      • @EncycloPetey: Any further thoughts on this? I've done all the ones I'm able to, except this one -- I've paused because you seemed interested in working on it. Is there any info just holding you back, or just competing projects? -Pete (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall votes for the above-linked works[edit]

  • For any works where the scans have been uploaded and properly linked, such as The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. Lansdowne, I vote Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. For any others, I am declining to vote for the moment, in the hopes that more Wikisource users will pitch in to bring the scans here, now that the information is readily available. Ideally, like Beleg Tâl above, I would like to see them all brought here and properly linked, but I'm still not certain what process will make that happen. TE(æ)A,ea., are you able to help with this process? If so, I think that would be enough to change my vote to "keep" for all the pages. -Pete (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • If scans of the quality you have presented can be brought forth for all other works, I can help standardise formatting on the index pages; however, I believe that some works may not have scans of such quality. If such works can be identified, I can help bring them here; your assistance, as well, Pete, would be much appreciated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
      Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The scan listed above for Biographia Dramatica is truly awful. It is unusable for our purposes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      I think it was a windfall that there was a better scan for that one work at IA. In general I think the scans you linked to are sufficient, and I'd be happy to do the work of uploading them to Commons (which essentially involves downloading the PDF, converting to DJVU, removing the Google cover page, and then uploading). If you're willing to take over after that, I'd be happy to deal with the files. While the Biographia Dramatica scan is certainly lower quality than the others, in my view it's not unusable; but I'm happy to leave that one for last, and/or skip it entirely if that's how others assess it. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      With a scan that bad the OCR will be garbage. There a paragraphs I can hardly read myself. Better to locate a good scan than attempt to work with that scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks very much for the work. I vote Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for all scan-backed works. The works which have not been scan backed yet can get more time and should not be deleted at this moment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Kbd[edit]

Superfluous to Template:Teletype (WS:CSD G. 4). Not in heavy use, created quite recently, and more than a decade after the other template. Speedy deletion contested. It should be deprecated in favour of that template, and deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Keep It's not superfluous, as {{Teletype}} is just a span of monospace font and {{kbd}} is semantically meaningful for keyboard inputs. @TE(æ)A,ea.: why are you saying these are the same as they are not? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Replace both. I personally do not see any difference among them. When I tried them in Firefox, they both gave absolutely the same results. When I tried them in Chrome, they both did not do anything. This imo means that they are both bad if they do not work in all browsers and so they both should probably be replaced by one template that would work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: works in both browsers for me, check The Gospel of Wealthbillinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tried them both in my sandbox and still I cannot see any difference in comparison with plain text in Chrome :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: in your file, for me in both Chrome and Firefox the lines 2 and 3 look the same, and different to line 1. Working as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I see the lines 2 and 3 different from line 1 only in FF, in Chrome they are all three the same :-/ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Even if they render the same, they don't do the same thing: one has semantic value and the other doesn't. See also {{code}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A semantic difference is not sufficient for two templates where there is no visible difference; if they “render the same,” they therefore “do the same thing.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
1.) they may not render the same (e.g. CSS exists) and 2.) there are data models on a page that make semantics useful (e.g. just making text big and bold is not the same thing as having a heading that can be parsed by a search engine). Why are you opposed to proper semantics on the web? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not “opposed to proper semantics;” I merely oppose the duplication of a perfectly functional template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Then how do you propose using proper semantics with one template? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: Not sure what you mean by semantic difference. When I apply the template to a piece of text, it (quite logically) does not seem to influence its meaning (semantics), only the shape of letters, so my understanding of the term "semantics" is probably different from what you mean. So I went through the documentation of the template and unfortunately it did not explain me what makes the template useful from the semantics point of view either. Imo it should be compulsory to explain all important features of every template in its documentation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics are meaning applied to data and style is just how it looks. If two things look the same but have a different underlying structure, that is a meaningful difference. Agreed that the documentation is insufficient. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics always refers to meaning, but in certain contexts the reference has implied specificity.
In the context of a "Manual of Style" for a publisher, for example, it is implicit that the meaning we are discussing lies in distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word). These uses are all typically formatted the same, but have different meanings; and which is intended is usually inferred from context. It is our facility for language combined with our experience with these conventions that let us pick up on the relatively subtle hint that the meaning of the word "émigré" has been modified slightly in the particular instance.
However, in the context of electronic information, in general, and in web design (of which a wiki is a sub-sub-specialty) especially, when we discuss semantics it is implicit that what we're really discussing is the aspect semantic signalling (how does the information—in this case textual, but could be sound or images or …—indicate or label meaning?) and semantic extraction (how does the computer extract the meaning from the information). Computers, and software, are bone stupid in general. A computer program faced with interpreting … distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word) is only going to be able to observe that the rendered text is in italic type, and that the HTML source used the <em>émigré</em> markup, whose semantics (defined in the HTML standard) is "emphasis". All our subtle semantic hints from the "Manual of Style" example are gone.
In this particular thread we are discussing the difference in meaning, as distinct from presentation, of the different templates in a technical sense (humans infer the meaning from visual rendering and context; it's computers that need specific labelling). {{kbd}} uses <kbd>…</kbd> HTML tags under the hood, which have the defined meaning "Text entered on a keyboard" and with its example of usage a software manual needing to show an example of user input. {{teletype}} just uses a <span>…</span> with some styling to make it show in a monospaced font, so it has no semantics to a computer. There is a <tt>…</tt> element (tt=teletype here), but it has no inherent semantics: its meaning was specifically "format this the same text was formatted on a teletype display". That is, like <b>…</b> and <i>…</i> it describes how this should look rather than what this means.
"Semantic markup" is important in order to let computers treat information intelligently. For example, with correct semantic markup a computer can automatically extract a citation, or an address, or a phone number from a web page. The infoboxes used on biographical articles on Wikipedia use semantic markup that lets a search engine (like Google) show a precis of the information (occupation, date of birth and death, a portrait, etc.). Voice browsers and other accessibility aides (not just for those with a visual impairment; people with cognitive and motor impairments also benefit from these technologies) can do things like skip reading the navigation menus at the top of a web page (they are peripheral content, not the main content of the page), skip to the next section, select or copy text, or call a phone number (the contact number for the business owning the web site in question, say). Purely physical markup—of the kind that was typical in the 1990s—was hopeless for accessibility tools and there was a real risk that web technology, with all its potential for giving people with disabilities equal access to information and services, would shut out the very people that could most benefit from it. The push for semantic over physical markup (which these days is actually mandated by law in several jurisdictions!) stems from these concerns.
However, all that being said, computers have actually gotten a lot smarter since the 1990s, and are able to infer a lot more from context without explicit semantic markup. Voice browsers and other accessibility tools have learned to cope with and compensate for poor markup and other web issues. When you view the mobile version of Wikipedia, you are shown a stripped down version of the information in the lead of the article: MediaWiki (the Mobile Frontend) understands the Wikipedia conventions and strips out hatnotes, maintenance templates, the IPA pronunciation guides in parenthesis after the article title, the infobox, disambiguastion notices, etc. Some of this is marked up semantically (the infobox), but other parts are simply that MediaWiki understands Wikipedia's conventions and style manual. Articles start with a bolded word or phrase, followed optionally by a phrase in parenthesis containing vital years and pronunciation guides, and we know we can omit the parenthesised phrase the same way a human usually skips over it when reading.
At the same time, almost all the formatting we do with templates here on Wikisource is visual (aka. "physical") formatting. We don't label text as a heading, we label it as being centered ({{c}}), extra large ({{x-larger}}), and with extra inter-letter spacing ({{sp}}. This is impenetrable semantics to a computer, but perfectly clear to humans. It is also a consequence of the kind of project we are: since Wikisource reproduces old books, a physical and visual medium, we can't escape mostly physical or visual formatting. A lot of the semantics of our source works are also inconsistent, contradictory, and unclear; so we couldn't produce pure semantics if we wanted to.
In other (briefer) words, what we're discussing here isn't a simplistic right—wrong issue. It's about nuances such as whether we need to make the relevant semantic distinction, in a limited set of circumstances (only in project-space, and even then very rarely), and whether that need and its benefits outweigh the maintenance cost (small, but non-zero) and user confusion and cognitive load ("Which template should I use for this again?"), and risk of misuse (it might easily be used inappropriately in mainspace for example). The argument Billinghurst (iirc) made was that the costs of having the template outweigh the benefits, and especially because we can use the <kbd>…</kbd> HTML element directly in the few cases where we do need it. However, the opposite argument is equally valid: the cost of having the template is small; using raw HTML tags has a cost too; and having the template gives us a richer vocabulary to express meaning that is consistent with how we usually do things (just templates rather than raw HTML). --Xover (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for the detailed explanation very much, now I understand the point better. If I got it right, the Teletype template makes text look like from a typewriter, while the Kbd template makes it look the same way+carries the meaning of a text written on a keyboard. In such a case I would suggest to delete Teletype and keep Kbd, as Kbd seems to have some extra value to Teletype, while Teletype does not have any extra value to Kbd. Am I right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: That would be a valid and reasonable position to take, yes. {{teletype}} doesn't actually use it, but the <tt>…</tt> element is actually even deprecated in the latest HTML standard, which is an argument to delete {{teletype}} on its own. My problem is more that I don't see a clear use case for either variant that seems worth having two more templates sitting around. *shrug* --Xover (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I think teletype has it's occasional place when a scan has typewritten sections (e.g. Page:19521104 No187 1.jpg) or when original uses monospaced font (e.g. a software manual referring to a variable name, I don't mean we should use it for all typewritten documents). That said, teletype is a poor name and a holdover from the TT tag; I think moving it to "monospace" would be more correct and drop the "teletype"/"tt" aliases, keeping "mono" if wanted. Say what we mean: the text is formatted with font-family:monospace;, with no further semantic content. Teletype/monospace, unlike kdb, can be useful in the content spaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Sensible. I would support that. I wouldn't even object to keeping {{teletype}} as an alias (redirects are cheap), if anybody wanted that, provided everything else is clearly updated to be "monospace". --Xover (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The templates should produce “typewriter” text (e. g., this page). On any given browser, the two templates should produce an identical result; and, as Template:Teletype is older and more widely used than Template:Kbd, I believe that the latter template should be deleted in favour of the former template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: "two templates should produce an identical result" no, they shouldn't. Where are you getting this information about how browsers are supposed to style particular HTML elements? Did you also see {{Code}}? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am thinking convert to a redirect if it matches similar template names at other sites. We don't need numerous templates that just do the same thing, it confuses the punters. Convert it to a redirect as we are unlikely to have KBD for a large multiparagraph div. No need to replace it. I am happy to hear how and why the long-existing template does not meet needs. If the semantics are truly needed, they just use the tags, no requirement to template them, and little to no difference to code. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would you be applying KBD semantics to reproduced works? I hate this argument about semantics when you cannot justify a use. Then when you can just use the tags for the semantics you desire you talk about it should be in a template. This needs to be looked at holistically, and a new template that simply represents a look that is no different to another look is problematic. Please tell us how it is better, how it helps the site, and why the alternatives presented are not suitable? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A source certainly could ask someone to perform keyboard entry--e.g. source documents for software. Even if it's not used in Main: it's very easy to imagine it being used in Wikisource: or Project: namespaces. But I think the case that it's not helpful to replace semantically meaningful differences with the same thing is pretty obvious to me: they mean different things. This is also true of typography: we wouldn't replace an endash in a source with a hyphen just because it's easier to input. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral it is not the same as {{tt}}, the semantic difference is real. That said, there are very few places it can be used to any effect, under 10 cases in all our documentation by a quick look. It's not useful in the content spaces, which have a limit on semantic content imposed by the source material.
If we keep it, I'd recommend giving the tag some CSS (a box outline is conventional) to evoke "Keyness". It's pretty pointless if it just looks like the code tag. And also say that it's only intended for the auxiliary namespaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think that's a poor example. The I tag doesn't have a template (actually {{italic}} does exist) because Wikicode provides the double apostrophe syntax. Which actually produces an EM tag, which is technically wrong in our content space, where we really do often mean "font-style:italic;", not just "emphasised, whatever that means, that's a problem for the browser and CSS". We just studiously ignore that uncomfortable fact because it's incredibly convenient to have the double apostrophes and we don't need EM for anything else.
  • The advantage of a template over a tag in this case (and I'm certainly not an anti-HTML crusader) is the template can invoke TemplateStyles (or just online CSS) and the tag would need an entry in the global CSS to get non default styling. As I said, this template doesn't feel useful unless it has a distinct style. But that can be done easily.
  • An argument based on the templates being the same is, IMO, ill-founded. The real question is, is it actually useful? Plenty of templates critical at other wikis aren't needed here. And certainly, I don't see it having any practical use outside of internal documentation. Maybe a software manual, but even then we follow t source formatting and I really can't see what KBD would bring to that table, since it would need to have its style overridden for the work in question. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep There are good reasons to want to highlight something as a key command, and now that the style looks different to {{tt}} and {{code}} I think this template is fine. I agree that it should probably only be used in project namespaces. —Sam Wilson 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning toward deleteSymbol delete vote.svg Delete—I am not convinced we have any non-negligible need for this particular template, and I am currently prioritising cleaning up and pruning templates (and their associated confusion and maintenance cost) over enriching our expressive power. Willing to entertain the notion that the need for and benefit of it is greater than I currently see, but the keep arguments so far have not supported that. --Xover (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    A regular, and forever, task over the years as we have the next great idea about a need for a template that already exists. We should have a good reason for a template to exist, not just "because it can". Keep it as simple s reasonably practical has always been our goal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Landing on Symbol delete vote.svg Delete because in addition to the arguments above the template is also currently unused outside the template's own documentation. If we ever have an actual need to semantically indicate keyboard input we can revisit it at that time. --Xover (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Irish Builder/Volume 1[edit]

One page of unedited OCR; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There's no value to this in mainspace as it stands and it's not under active work. No prejudice to having volumes set up in Index/Page space and even single articles of interest transcluded piece-wise, but uncorrected OCR is pointless, and non-scan-backed uncorrected OCR even more so.
Aside, IA has a few nicer scans, but not a full set. In traditional IA style, they are not catalogued very well at all and the metadata is rubbish. Making a list of known scans at Irish Builder would be a good idea. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@User:Inductiveload: This is not uncorrected OCR. James500 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh, sorry, it's just totally unformatted, which makes it look like just another OCR dump. Either way, there's not much point having just a title page without a scan in place to let people add new articles. If we had scans, I'd be OK with it if it was formatted properly: at least there's a remote chance people can then dip in an do and article here and there. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not know how to upload the scan from Google Books. Someone would need to upload it and create the index page for me. After that, I could proofread the individual pages myself. James500 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Index:Irish Builder - Volume 1-3.pdf. It appears complete, and the OCR is "OK"; the plates are scanned pretty terribly (as expected from Google). Enjoy :). ~~
Thank you. James500 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Since it's now at least a functional collective work with a scan behind it. A pity the plates are so trashed by the scanning process, or it'd be a really nice item. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: It is still just an excerpt with no claim to independent work status (it's just the title page), and no ongoing work to proofread it. Are you sure about that !vote? Let me put it a different way: it'll take me less effort to retransclude what's there if anybody ever proofreads this work than it will take me to delete the page and clean up afterwards. --Xover (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: this thread pre-dates the Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_on_substantially_empty_works by a week or two, so my !vote here is kind of pending what the outcome of that is (since it's been stalled for some time, with no further input forthcoming that I can tell, I should probably get around to writing up an actual proposal there).
It's a bit disappointing that no further work has occurred after the scan was set up. It was the first in what started as a pair and grew to a list of many "Volume 1"'s on this page (the !vote predates all but the Irish Law Times nominations). I was hoping it would get some work done on it in fairly short order once the ground-work was in place.
I'm not going to change the !vote just yet, as it'll follow the outcome of the WS:S discussion, assuming there is ever any kind of consensus. As this work stands today, still with only a title page and no content, it would fail to meet my personal standards I outlined there (i.e. a scan, a TOC and at least one substantial article). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I see no actual content here, only a little bit of structure; and neither do I see any ongoing efforts to proofread that would lead to any appreciable chance of completion before the heat death of the universe. --Xover (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process. James500 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • comment we should be helping editors by uploading scanned texts, setting up indexes, and TOC. these are not trivial tasks that we should editors to be able to do, as a precondition. we should not be greeting editors with a deletion nomination. if you want to behave like that go over to commons. Slowking4Rama's revenge 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • If there was only one instance, and it a small one, that would be an acceptable recourse. (If I had not inundated myself with so much other work,) I would be willing to work on proofreading some or all of the pages I have proposed for deletion; what prevents me from doing this is the lack of a framework for me to proofread and transclude articles or sections. Again, if this problem existed on only one page, it would be less objectionable; but the existence of this problem on a large scale is what prevents a sensible, reasonable (time-relative) method of proofreading these works. That is my primary objection to these works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

Irish Law Times/Volume 1[edit]

Three pages of unedited OCR; no table of contents; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one), transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Scan at Index:Irish Law Times - Volume 1.pdf, but the pages are unordered (eg. 54-55 are repeated three times). There might be missing pages, Google scans often do. I haven't got time to deal with that right now, so I'll leave the pagelisting fun to you. It's a Google scan, so it naturally has further defects, for example half the pages are "zoomed out" with the content in one corner, but the OCR seems "OK". I tried to use BUB2, but the Internet Archive choked on the file as it's too big for their derivation process. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I see no actual content here, only a little bit of structure; and neither do I see any ongoing efforts to proofread that would lead to any appreciable chance of completion before the heat death of the universe. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process. James500 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin's Legal Bibliography[edit]

A few pages of unedited OCR, with no indicated source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Internet Archive has this scan, which I suspect may be better than the Google Books scans originally consulted. The Google Books scan are this one and this one and this one. I think they are all the same. James500 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @User:Inductiveload: If I have a choice of scans, how do I decide which one to upload? James500 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500:: Generally, I pick scans in this order: most complete in terms of missing pages and images then nicest scan quality (generally leads to better OCR). The two usually go togther, and usually if you have a choice between a Google scan (black and white) and a non-Google scan (usually in colour, so easy to spot at IA), go for the non-Google scan. Google scans are notoriously low-quality, often totally omit images, have scanning defects like blurred, missing or folded pages, hands in scans, etc. If the IA ID ends in "ala", "uoft" or "rich", for example, it's a good bet it will be quite nice. If it ends "goog", look for alternatives. Digital Library of India scans (start with "in.ernet" are also generally low quality).
  • If there's only one, then you have no choice. If you discover missing or duplicate pages when doing the page list, use {{missing pages}} or {{Remove pages}} as needed, which puts the index in a backlog of works needing attention.
  • If you have two scans and both are missing bits, and in total they make a complete work, make a note in the missing page template and someone can synthesise a complete scan. You can still proofread if the scan is incomplete, pages can be moved around by admins if you need.
  • It's also allowed to proofread a page from another scan if the page is illegible, but make a note on the Index talk page to say so.
  • In your case, the [2] one looks a better bet. The good news is that as it is an IA work, you can use the IA-Upload tool, which saves you downloading to your device first. In your case, the ID is "legalbibliograph00marv". Sadly it can fail, and in that case, you have to download the file yourself and upload it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Albany Law Journal/Volume 1[edit]

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one or this one), transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
James, if you'd like scans of works like this uploaded, I'm willing to help. Where are you stuck? The Google PDF is available here. (The direct link can be hard to find, it's hidden in the "Free eBook" menu on the Google Books page.) Keep and get it scan-backed. Again, I'll help as needed. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Peteforsyth: Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf is missing pages 1 and 2, and was created by mistake. commons:File:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf has pages 1 and 2. I am unable to upload the djvu from the Internet Archive with the IA upload tool, as I get messages saying an error has occurred. I do not know which of the three scans has the best OCR or image quality. It might be preferable to either delete or move Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf and create Index:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf, or upload the IA djvu instead, but I am not sure.James500 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I created the Index for the one with pages 1 and 2 (the third one in your list above). This appears the same as the second one, but the second one is missing the pages where the text isn't black - some strange Google processing has presumably happened. While replacing the scan, I also removed the Google page. I deleted the other Index page to keep things simple, as it's redundant if the current Index is complete, as it appears to be. The IA DjVu also lacks pages 1 & 2.
The OCR isn't great on any of them as far as I can tell, as Google OCR does seem to often miss the fact that there are two columns (I suppose they don't really care as it still feeds into their search corpus well enough). The IA OCR is a bit better, and we could patch that in perhaps, if the OCR button doesn't do a good job (it's currently timing out >_<). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1[edit]

Two pages of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Are you offering to do this? That comes off as the imperative, which is inappropriate here. Please don't create pages in mainspace at this level of completion, especially when you leave them for a year. Nobody is under any obligation to finish any work for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I do not know how to upload the scan from Google Books. Someone would need to upload it and create the index page for me. After that, I could proofread the individual pages myself. James500 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think that your comment is incivil and unconstructive. James500 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Prosfilaes: if you do not actually intend to complete these works, as is evidenced by the fact that you have uploaded only a small number of pages, wholly without formatting, of a single volume of a larger work, you certainly have no right to demand others to complete the work for you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    My !vote was not imperative. I have not demanded anything. I have every intention of completing these works if someone will upload the scan. I stoped creating the type of pages you are nominating for deletion a long time ago. And I am getting deeply sick of being subjected to off topic personal attacks that twist my words, purport to read my mind and assume bad faith on the basis of what is, frankly, non-evidence.
    Even if you are not willing to upload the scan, it is reasonable to assume that some other editor, who is not trying to make a point, will be willing to upload the scan. James500 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I am not here to make a point—you are, it seems, “twist[ing] my words.” If you are actually unable to upload the scans which you have given, and you do not wish to use the automatic upload tools available for that purpose, you may have requested for an administrator, or some other editor, to upload the scans in your stead. When you say “[u]pload the scan” after the deletion discussion has begun, and only now indicate an interest in completing these works, I assumed that you make this request to prevent the pages which you had created from being deleted. I find your response above, (“incivil and unconstructive,”) to be a far more hasty assumption of bad faith, on the grounds of less evidence. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    Your assumption was a mistake. I indicated an interest in completing these works the moment I created the pages. The creation of the pages was a request for upload of the scans. Unfortunately, that request was apparently either not noticed or not understood. The words "incivil and unconstructive" are not an accusation of bad faith. James500 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    You wrote "upload the scan"; that is in the w:imperative mood. The creation of the pages was not a request for the upload of the scans; the appropriate way to do that is to request that the scans be uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    "Upload the scan" is not in the imperative mood. It is a !vote, not a command. If what you say is correct, then "keep" and "delete" would be in the imperative mood. If you do not like "upload the scan", how would you like me to phrase my !votes? The created pages had links to external scans. Adding a link to an external scan is a request for upload. There is no other reason to add such a link. What else could it mean? James500 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Adding a scan link is unlikely to be noticed by anyone, and if noticed it is almost certain to be interpreted as "Here is a convenience for some future contributor should anyone ever wish to work on this" rather than "Please help me upload this scan". Particularly in the main namespace, where, as a general rule, we do not have scan links (those should generally go on author pages). If you need assistance with some task or aspect of work on the project, the best way to request it is to ask on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.
    As for !votes in proposed deletion discussions, it will often be easiest for others to understand your meaning if you start with one of the usual !vote templates—{{vk}} and {{vd}}—as an overall position, and then elaborate or nuance your position in prose afterwards. It also happens to give admins an easy way to quickly judge overall community sentiment on a given discussion. --Xover (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    What Xover just said. It's not a request (or at least it will not be understood as a request), it's a helpful hint to future contributors and/or yourself. Uploading scans is fiddly and time-consuming, especially if you make the index page too, so it's reasonable that some people just drop a link if they don't plan to actively work on something. Also you should probably be using {{ext scan link}}, rather than raw links in square brackets, as at least it means one can find such links via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ext_scan_link and/or bot queries. It has semantic content: this is a link, it is external and it is a scan file. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: For reasons that I do not understand, I have found that Template:Ext scan link does not work for links to Google Books. For example {{Ext scan link|https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false}} produces ([{{{1}}} external scan]).
    As for this work, unless someone uploads the scan for me or answers at least the following two questions, there is nothing I can do. (1) Which URL do I use to upload the scan? I suspect that https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false might upload the web page instead of the file. (2) Do I upload the scan here or on the Commons? James500 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: There's an equals in the URL, so you have to write {{ext scan link|1=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ}} (the rest of the link is junk). The use of 1= is specifically documented in that template's documentation.
    For the scan, you have to upload the PDF from Google books. Find the red button that say "Ebook - Free", on the top left. Hover over it and there's a PDF link. Click that and save the PDF. The link starts https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=. Ideally, remove the first page, but I don't know if Commons still cares about that.
    Upload to Commons if it is out of copyright in both the country of origin and the US. Upload here if out of copyright only in the US, and not in the country of origin. This is a US work from before 1925, so it goes to Commons. Once it is uploaded to one of those, create the Index page here (use the same file name, but replace File: with Index:).
    The statement of "there is nothing I can do" is also misguided IMO. This is the Internet, it is made of information. For example the first hit from "how do I download books from Google Books.". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The only link that I could find is https://books.google.co.uk/books/download/The_American_Jurist_and_Law_Magazine.pdf?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2Lgdvo_iMGMbaRIddj9z4u3YHs8g . Is that the correct URL? James500 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's asking you to enter the CAPTCHA security code to prevent automated downloads. As the instructions say: "To continue with your download, please type the characters you see below:". Enter the letters you see in the box. Then you can get the PDF. As I said, the link begins with https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=. Then you will be taken to the PDF. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The file is at commons:File:The American Jurist and Law Magazine, Volume 1, 1829.pdf. My device does not have any tools with which to remove pages from pdf files. And I do not know how to do that on Commons. Shall I just create the index page? James500 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Yes, if it's an issue, it can be replaced by a blank page easily enough when needed, so as not to disrupt the pages already in place. There is a category at Commons commons:Category:Book scans with Google Books cover sheets (to remove) you can use to mark the files if you want, but I think most people don't even bother. I also created a category commons:Category:The American Jurist and Law Magazine that will allow to to see all these volumes in a single location. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Nice job on the index and page list - page lists can be fiddly, but it looks good. I created {{American Jurist and Law Magazine volumes}} for you to put in the volumes field of the Index. You may need to adjust the file names according to how you upload them, and you can add later volumes too. I also bumped the index status to "top be proofread", since the page list is complete and the pages appear present and correct (which honestly is quite surprising from a Google scan!) and the OCR layer appears to be functional. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • James500: I have noticed the following pages, as well; you may wish to work on these.
  • My objections to the above are the same as my objections to the other pages, and they should be deleted in kind. As for the other pages, I believe that they should be deleted, because an insufficient amount of work has been done, and they remain as they were without the scan, woefully incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

American Law Review/Volume 1[edit]

One page of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Central Law Journal/Volume 1[edit]

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal/Volume 1[edit]

One page of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@James500: because the plates break up the pagination, it's tricky to tell at a glance which scan is more complete. I would start with the DjVu (the OCR does look a bit better) and do an Index and a pagelist. Then, if any important pages turn out to be missing, they can be inserted from another scan, if present in that other scan. I can probably help with that, but not for a couple of days. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A Critical Dictionary of English Literature[edit]

Only one entry is present, and no source is given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep (and improve): The entry is proofread and properly formatted, and linked to/from the relevant author page. The scans are available at the IA, and this is a genuine entry. It would naturally be better to import the scans, but even if that were not to happen, it's allowed to have single articles from a collective work, and it's allowed for things to not be scan-backed. It certainly would be beneficial to improve the top level page.
†If this were only one chapter from a novel, or some other portion of a work that doesn't stand alone, I'd say delete. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, so this is a bit of a mess. CDEL has multiple editions, each of three volumes, plus a "supplement" published after Allibone's death. I have managed to scrape up what I hope is a set of decent scans from the IA which aren't Google scans and aren't marked "missing pages" at the IA (not including the supplement): commons:Category:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature. Anyone have any ideas on which three we like best? Latest possible? All are pre-1923. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep at minimum until this discussion is concluded, as it is a prominent example in that discussion. Furthermore, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for the long run per Inductiveload. I'm willing to do some of the work to get everything sorted. -Pete (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletions[edit]

Thank you for bringing these here, although I would have preferred you actually attended to my explanations and reconsidered your mistaken effort to break long-standing links. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As discussion on these seems to have ceased, @Xover: could you close them? JesseW (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The lack of discussion of some of these pages is due to a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@JesseW: I'm a little too backlogged to get into the complicated cases just now (trying to clear out the simpler ones first); and especially the ones where, as James500 says, there is a possibility discussion is just stalled due to the usual summer slump or similar. There are a lot of complicated proposed deletion threads open just now so it will take some time to untangle them. If anybody wants to make life easier for the admins trying to process these they can try to summarise the issue and its current status / consensus resolution, and double check that participants in the thread agree. At least for myself, trying to understand these long complicated discussions to figure out what, if anything, was agreed is the most time-consuming part of it. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You obstructed the proofreading by demanding a mass upload at the Scriptorium. James500 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've closed the four redirects (A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, The life of Mohammed) as those appeared uncontroversial (keep). The rest are not so clear-cut, and on several of them James500 has expressed an interest; and they have above indicated that the lack of further comments is due to external constraints rather than lack of further input. On several of them I would also prefer to see more community input before closing. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is that editors are being ground down by unlimited demands and walls of text. I literally cannot !vote at all in many of these nominations, let alone address the walls of text. How am I supposed to perform the mass upload that certain people have demanded, and address walls of text both here and elsewhere, and perform demands for massive proofreading and transclusion, all at the same time, in a miniscule amount of time within an unreasonably short strict deadline that is no time at all? The problem is that a perfect storm has been created. The sheer number and scale of the demands, and the refusal to allow time to carry out those demands, and the walls of text advancing every conceivable (poor) argument for the demands, has itself become an obstacle to carrying out those demands and creates a sort of catch-22 situation where the demands can never be met within the miniscule amount of time permitted. James500 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500: 2+ weeks later and I am just now getting to this comment; and the thread has been open for a month. In other words, while I understand that having pages you care about proposed for deletion can be stressful, I don't think there is much actual cause for stress here. Even were we inclined to do so, we do not have the admin capacity to close out and delete complicated cases like this quickly. Nobody actually expects you to bring all these works fully up to standards and complete while the discussion is happening, so while striving to do so is laudable, I would suggest you rather prioritise the discussions. If you feel you need more time for something, say so so that we know that is the case. We have historically left discussions open for months when needed.
    That all being said, I am having real trouble figuring out what it is you are proposing to do, and why you are rushing so to save these pages. Are you seriously planning to completely proofread all these works in the near future? That sounds like an improbably large task for a single contributor no matter how dedicated and skilled. Why is it that you cannot proofread them one at a time in the Index:/Page: namespace, and then transclude each as they get towards a more or less ready (finished) state? In the Index: and Page: namespace there is absolutely no rush and you can work at whatever order, interval, and pace suits you, and it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will propose anything for deletion (short of copyright violations). Even if the result of these current discussions are all to delete, nothing would actually be deleted in the Index: and Page: namespaces, and nothing would prevent recreating the deleted pages (if that is the most appropriate page title) once the work is actually proofread and ready for transclusion. And if something is deleted, it is always possible to request that it be undeleted: nothing is permanently lost. Is it possible that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved here?
    In short, I think you may be doing a little too much stressing and too little explaining what your plans, aims, and goals are. If we understood that better we might be able to advice better on how to achieve your goals, or at the very minimum be clear about what the points are on which we disagree. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To begin with, there is proofread text in the mainspace that needs to be migrated to the page namespace. I do not support the delete and then undelete and then re-delete approach because, to begin with, it increases the amount of effort needed to perform the transfer. I am also in real danger of losing track of what needs to be uploaded and migrated if discussions are archived. James500 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) The proposal to delete bibliographic information (such as external scan links) is even more problematic. If put into effect it would make uploading scans virtually impossible. James500 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500: Discussions here aren't archived until they are actually closed (the archive bot archives threads two weeks after the date in the {{section resolved}} template, which we add manually), and we normally do not formally close these threads if there is either ongoing discussions or if there is someone who needs more time to complete work related to it. If for some reason we felt a thread had to be closed in spite of there being such tasks remaining, I am sure we could temporarily move the page to a subpage in your userspace instead of deleting it right away. For example (picking a page at random) we could move Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide to User:James500/Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide until you had completed extracting what you needed from it. In situations like that you can pretty much always just say "I need more time in order to …" and we'll hold off. And as a safety-valve, if something is deleted (for whatever reason) before you'd finished we'll always be happy to temporarily undelete (unless there's copyright violation or other "hard" delete reason involved) so you can get what you need.
    Regarding bibliographic information and scan links, we're not really talking about "deleting" that; it's just that that kind of data belong on either Author: pages or Portal: pages. Any activity to remove such from wikipages in mainspace would implicitly include copying that information to an Author: or Portal: page. There may be individual exceptions for various reasons, but as a main rule of thumb this is information that we generally want to preserve. It's just a matter of where and how. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


A chambermaid's diary[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • As we are no longer using CSD to consider deleting this, M2 is irrelevant., Regarding deleting it, it has been a valid way to link to this work for over six years, plenty of time for random external sites to have linked to it. Deleting it merely breaks such links for no purpose. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    The criteria for speedy deletion are still criteria for deletion. This page, and the other redirection pages listed here, are improper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    Fair enough on the applicability of CSDs -- but M2 does not apply to these, as they are are neither new, nor have been tagged for two months. And "improper" is not an argument. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep (weak/neutral in terms of do I actually want to keep the redirect, firmer in terms of process). There's not much real harm in these redirects. This one is pretty old, so it's not impossible there are incoming links. JesseW is right that these are not speedy candidates, unless they've been soft redirects for at least two months. If you really want to delete them, that's how to do it. While I don't think we should encourage proliferation of such redirects, I'm also not overly keen to start aggressively culling the older top-level ones. Recent ones, no problem, and indeed CSD-M2 has a carve-out for such cases.
    Also let's centralise discussion of redirects on this item rather than copy-pasting to all below items? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/727-749[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The work is scan-backed, and organised by a different system than that which was used formerly (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

I attempted to figure out the new system, and failed. Please link (here) to the new location, and I'll see if a sensible soft-redirect is feasible. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The system is being set up through alternate sub-pages of the base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • It looks like only the pages for the first two sections have been created -- so unless I've missed something (most likely!) deleting this now would simply make existing data inaccessible until the new pages are created. That seems like a bad thing. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep (for now) The content is not scan-backed yet. Not a single hymn has been proofread in that scan. I don't think G4 applies until the scan version is at least at a equal state of completion as the work it replaces. A soft-redirect to the new location of the equivalent item in the scan would be appropriate when scan-backed content is ready. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no content on this page—the hymns which are given on that page are actually taken from here, here, and here, via {{:Jesu, my God and King}} and the like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
      • That would have been useful to have been mentioned in the proposal, no? I still question the utility of storming in an deleting the old subpages before any content has been moved to the scans. I maintain that a soft redirect to the new content, when it exists, would be a way forward and will allow the issue to resolve naturally after a few months. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Until the equivalent hymns are ready in the scan-backed version, at which point these are speediable as redundant. Soft redirects are just pointless bureaucracy at that point. But I agree that putting them up for deletion before the new pages are proofread is inappropriate: hence why I didn't delete them while processing the CSD queue, and waiting would have avoided this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's close this as keep, since it is clear that they should not have been nominated when they were. JesseW (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • This page, and that following, are redundant to this page, and can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/888-896[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same objection. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am going to take it for granted that unless someone specifically notes any factor that is unique to this page, all the same arguments (and hence outcome) as the one above will apply. (so no need to comment further in this section) --Xover (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Auction Prices of Books[edit]

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

There is visible content on the page, providing a start to someone who wants to transcribe this work. What purpose is served in making that harder? JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The content on this page, (and on the other pages marked in a similar fashion below,) is available on the relevant Author: page, and it is generally held that pages with no content should not be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • Er, as James500 said, the links to the external scans do not seem to appear on the author page. Please be more careful to verify the facts before making such claims in the future. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content on this page is not available on the author page. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think we need some clarity on policy here. This is a work that's somewhat "encyclopaedic", in that it is made up of thousands of lists of books by individual authors. So I imagine it could have some of the lists transcribed and some not and be like that for a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero actual content. It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical. Do we want:
    1. Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
    2. Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.
  • Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical (probably not here). Dumping scan-less works is not particularly helpful. It's fair to not wish to transcribe the entire work, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.
  • I'm not specifically talking about this work, mind, so the question stands even if this particular work sprouts a set of Indexes in the near future.
  • We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no content", and, furthermore, every single periodical can fall into this situation, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here.
  • If it's a periodical, I think a top-level list of as many volumes as you can figure out, ideally with dates and scan links is helpful. But creating empty volume subpages doesn't seem particular constructive. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The scan for volume 1 is at commons:File:Livingston, Auction Prices of Books, 1905, Volume 1.djvu. James500 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide[edit]

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • While the current content is pretty minimal, there is significant history present, for which there is no value in hiding from future researchers. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Page has content, and does not meet "G1". Very notable publication, with an ongoing transcription project, and inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish history[edit]

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • I don't see the value in deleting this, as it provides a link to the source to facilitate transcription, but it's trivial to re-create once more of the underlying work is transcribed, so ... go ahead. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. There isn't enough content here and there's not sign of activity to suggest it'll improve much soon. A {{small scan link}} on the author page (it already exists) and/or Portals is conventional to indicate that an Index exists and proofreading can be undertaken. Obviously no objection to recreation with more content. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Inductiveload. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Close as delete because it's trivial to re-create when needed, and no-one has expressed support for keeping it. JesseW (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages[edit]

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same as Chronicles, above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Inductiveload on Chronicles of the Picts above. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts. James500 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Recommend closing by moving it to User:James500/The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages where it can rest, harmlessly, until a full chapter is finished, at which point it can be moved back. There's no need for a deadline here. JesseW (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  1. Numbered list item

Portal:John Burgoyne[edit]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirection page (as it was placed within the incorrect namespace) (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Just use the dated soft redirect process, as User:Billinghurst already had. There's no need to take up the time of this page on it. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and if Billinghurst hadn't already slapped a soft redirect on it, I would have speedied the ordinary redirect directly. There's no real reason to keep this redirect around, so taking this detour is just pointless delay in this case. --Xover (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep We never know whether some external sites link to a page or not, and so redirects should always be kept after a page is moved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Jan. Redirects exist for a purpose, and it is unhelpful to readers to break them in this manner. G1 most certainly does not apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2007 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nollekens and his Times[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2009 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

OTHER POEMS AND THE REMEMBERED GODS[edit]

This page (and the two others given below) give the contents of the main work (War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces); as the contents were moved wholly to that page, these pages are redundant (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • OK, then redirect them. Deleting is wholly unnecessary. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete No reason for having this as a redirect; and the excerpt that's there is entirely redundant with the redirect target. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Parodies and Songs[edit]

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This is a section of the redirect target, not a standalone work. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

THREE BATTLES TO THE FIFTY-FIRST DIVISION[edit]

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Section of proposed redirect target, not standalone work. Improbable (and undesirable) redirect. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The life of Mohammed[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2008 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep redirects, redirects are cheap. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Geography[edit]

Previously declined for speedy deletion; rationale for nom was solely images, with no text; several books entirely empty; no source indicated; untouched for five years since creation.. It is clearly inappropriate as it stands but there may be other outcomes than deletion, so dropping it here for the community to decide. (dropping it here rather hastily so it isn't forgotten, so I may have something more sensible to say about it when I have time to look at it properly) --Xover (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick look makes me think maybe this could be a page (or just a category) at Commons.
As for a version we could have: maybe https://archive.org/details/1_20191225_20191225_2206 - it's 1991 reprint of a 1932 book that appears not to have been renewed for copyright (from an extremely cursory glance). Is that OK for copyright? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
With or without copyright notice the 1932 publication would have had to be renewed in 1959–1961, of which I can find no trace. The 1991 republication also appears to contain no or almost no new copyrightable material. So from a copyright perspective it would seem to be ok. But this is also a black and white scan of what appear to be colour maps and legends (~80 pages worth), and with some pages cut off and crooked. So we should definitely look for a better scan of this work. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any other obvious PD English editions available with really good images. The Stevenson translation mostly reproduces maps from Codex Ebnerianus (not the Biblical one, the other one), which is a manuscript now at the NY Public Library. There might be a proper high-res scan of that entire manuscript and we could use those? Even the very best scan of Stevenson would still be a scan of a copy. Annoyingly, I can't immediately see a source of good scans of the Codex Ebnerianus. Or find an English translation that uses maps that Commons actually has. They have quite a few though: commons:Category:Editions of Ptolemy's Geography. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Iliad of Homer (Macpherson)[edit]

A small excerpt, with no specified edition. Created in 2008, with no later additions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC).

  • This would appear to be "The Illiad of Homer" translated by James Macpherson. Google has the following scans:
  • James500 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and migrate to Index:The Iliad of Homer. Translated by James Macpherson, Esq. Volumes 1 to 3. 1818 to 1819.pdf unsigned comment by James500 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020.
    Agree with moving the text into the index namespace (which you have already done). Unfortunately, this has not solved the problem that there is only a tiny excerpt in the main namespace and so the main namespace page should be deleted anyway. It is easy to return it after somebody proofreads the whole book or at least a significant part of it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    It is easy to restore one deleted page of this type. It is not easy to restore large numbers of deleted pages. This is not the only nomination. James500 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Has it ever happened that there was a need to restore large numbers of deleted pages? I am afraid it has not and will not because it happens extremely rarely that somebody returns to life an abandoned page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    This group of pages is not abandoned because I am trying to fix them right now. James500 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Compared to the effort to proofread a text, creating the resulting mainspace transclusion pages is trivial, no matter how many or few works are being discussed. I'm not sure what the concern is here! JesseW (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    It is why we have the Index:/Page: namespace, and why we designate them the workspace. We have no issues with incomplete works in those namespaces, they are there and can be worked on ever so incrementally and exposed when ready. We don't like garbage in our presentation space, especially unlabelled and misrepresenting itself as a complete work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Creating new transclusions is indeed trivial in most cases. And in a pinch we can use a bot to batch undelete any number of previously deleted pages. While not entirely trivial, Pywikibot has direct support for batch undelete so it's not a huge problem either. --Xover (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Templates in Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates[edit]

All of the templates in this category are pre-specified forms of {{DNB footer initials}}; preferably, the templates should be formed into one general template, in the same manner as {{Nornabr}}. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

Criticism[edit]

As best I can tell, this is an arbitrary collection of writings by Edgar Allan Poe, pasted from random and undocumented sources. It is likely that some or all of these also exist somewhere in the actual works linked on the author page, but identifying them is a challenge given how poorly they are identified here. I propose that we just delete this as a user (not previously published) selection of excerpts. --Xover (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Noticing the edit history, it seems that it always been that. Here’s what I can find:
    • The first (unlabeled) section is “Letter to B—,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 501–503. The portion provided here appears to be incomplete.
    • The section labelled “ALNWICK CASTLE, AND OTHER POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Drake—Halleck,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 326–336.
    • The section labelled “BRYANT'S POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Bryant,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–49.
    • The section labelled “EXORDIUM” is taken from a “Review of New Books,” printed in Graham’s Magazine, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 68–69.
    • The section labelled “THE AMERICAN DRAMA” is taken from “The American Drama,” printed in The American Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 117–131.
  • The sections should be moved to the pages, and Criticism redirected to Author:Edgar Allan Poe. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC).
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and improve by splitting and scan-backing where possible. A good candidate for referral to a hypothetical scan-backing WikiProject IMO.
In terms of what this is, it appears to be some kind of ebook collection from the year 2000: https://www.worldcat.org/title/criticism/oclc/842285218.
Also, Criticism is the title of actual books like this one by WC Brownell and PP Howe, so the mainspace page may eventually be a disambiguation. No objections to a redirect for now, but there should be a comment that that's a courtesy until such time that actual works with that title come along. If this collection fails WS:WWI, at that time it won't have an entry on the page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Indeed, it would be very nice to migrate these to scans, and if there was a WikiProject of volunteers we could ping to do that when needed. In fact, I would love nothing better! But to put this in "How sharper than a serpent's tooth" terms: meanwhile, back in the real world, I don't see anybody volunteering to do that job. And it's a big job, because tracking down scans of all these issues of periodicals is a lot of work, iff they are available at all; and periodicals are often a mess to set up indices for because you have to research the periodical itself so that further additions of issues from that periodical can slot in nicely; and because the text we have (mediated through at least two intermediary steps) is guaranteed to be subtly different from the original, making proofreading from scratch potentially easier than migrating and correcting them. I have several thousand pages worth of such "migrate to scan" tasks to do for other people's works (nevermind my own proofreading projects that I would like to get to at some point) so I'm not adding any more to my backlog unless it's something I really want to retain, and certainly not anything that's complicated by hard to come by scans and complex periodical structure. --Xover (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, Xover, a scan could be created exclusively for scan-backing these sections. In this example, all of the periodicals I referenced were found on Google Books, and I could gather hyper-links, if necessary. Proceeding in that manner seems more likely to induce more universal scan-backing of works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

Template:PageFile[edit]

Template created in 2009 that is used all of two times (on two Index: talk pages, which can be subst'ed to preserve the history). Its function is to display a grid of thumbnails of page images for a PDF/DjVu, which given its non-use over the last decade does not appear to be a great need. It also doesn't work particularly well since MediaWiki/Thumbor can't handle that many thumbnail requests for PDF/DjVu pages concurrently.

The code in itself isn't particularly problematic (unlike some other older templates), but every bit of code is something that takes maintenance resources, contributes to filling up backlogs and maintenance lists, adds to complexity, and the cognitive load on contributors. --Xover (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support subst'ing the uses & replacing it with a prominent DEPRECATED warning. Oppose making it back into a redlink, there's no reason to hide the revision history from non-admins. JesseW (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @JesseW: Can I assume you realise that "not hiding the revision history" has never been a recognised factor in deletion discussions on the project? Not that you shouldn't feel free to make novel arguments, but the logic of this particular one leads us to never being able to delete anything, ever. One can certainly disagree on where to draw various lines and the weighting of tradeoffs, but I don't think either of the extreme positions on the scale are tenable as practice. --Xover (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I do realize it's a novel argument at Wikisource (or at least, I do now). It is not a novel argument on other wikis -- and it doesn't lead to never deleting anything; it merely leads towards not deleting anything you don't have a reason to hide (reasons to hide include avoiding promoting unwelcome things, hiding private or seriously deceptive claims, etc.) Certainly few of those come up on Wikisource (as compared with other projects), but that's a reason to not delete very much, not a reason to reject the argument. JesseW (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Most relevantly here -- deleting things for copyright reasons is absolutely a relevant cause, and is totally unaffected by this argument. JesseW (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    I certainly agree with Xover—this argument should only motivate a decision to keep and force-deprecate in the most exceptional of circumstances. I certainly don’t believe that we need to keep this obscure, not particularly useful, and rarely used template for any greater period of time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC).
    What "exceptional" circumstances are you thinking of? I'm not sure how a guideline of "don't hide stuff without need" would apply only in a narrow range of circumstances. Rather, it seems like Xover's view, as I understand it, is that even considering "the value of hiding these revision history entries" would excessively interfere with some other goal (it's not clear to me what it is -- the presence of a redlink, maybe?) such that it (having a purpose in hiding them) should never be seen as a requirement before hiding revision history. I may have misunderstood, though! JesseW (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    I believe what limiting circumstances may be taken into account is a matter of the individual page, but for templates, widespread use by multiple users would qualify the template for force-deprecation only—Template:Wikilivres (above) would qualify for this, in my opinion. Template:PageFile would not qualify on account of its highly limited use. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
    @JesseW: I am surprised to hear that there are projects where "not hiding the revision history" is a common and heeded argument in deletion discussions. Are these Wikimedia projects, and if so which ones?
    In any case, your casting of it as "hiding the revision history" is a bit disingenuous: the goal is obviously not to hide the revision history (we have RevDel for that when it's necessary), the goal is to remove the page itself and making the revision history inaccessible to non-admins is purely a side-effect of that. As illustrated elsewhere, modulo a few technical limitations, we are perfectly happy to make that revision history available to anyone with an interest. Had we the technical capability to make the revision history for deleted pages available to non-admins I would have no objections to doing that by default.
    The issue, however, with your argument is that things like templates that are not in current use do not contribute to the goals of Wikisource. We are not a software repository, nor a historical data source for compsci researchers. Our goal is to make public domain or compatibly licensed texts available to the world. Anything that does not contribute towards that goal is overhead. Any template or other technical doodah or geegaw merits its existence here only to the degree it contributes towards the project's goals.
    In this particular case, the dead and unused and unmaintained code sitting in Template:PageFile does not meaningfully contribute to those goals (it is unused). But it does raise the cognitive load on contributors who may stumble on it. And who may end up trying to use it despite any deprecation warning (trust me, it happens). And even if neither occurs, it will make it harder for them to find what they were actually looking for because old unused and unmaintained templates clutter up the lists of templates that they do want to use. And it hampers the maintenance of the site: I ran across it because it uses an old and deprecated CSS class in the global stylesheet. Meaning it is loaded unconditionally for all users on all pages, at a scary cumulative cost in bandwidth, CPU cycles, and RAM usage over time; even though it is only actually used on two talk pages as one user's personal experiment. Because it existed I had to spend a not insignificant amount of my own time dealing with it before we could remove that global CSS. Now multiply that by every single time we need to do a similar operation, and multiply that by the number of such old abandoned templates we have. It eats up volunteer resources that could be much better spent elsewhere (restoring other old templates so someone interested can see their revision history, for example).
    I am absolutely not saying you cannot make that argument, or that you are wrong to make it (we each value different factors and care about different aspects; that's a good thing and entirely as expected). But it is an argument that is orthogonal to the actual goals and purpose of Wikisource, and you are the first and only person I have seen make that argument in my ~15 years, on and off, bumming around the Wikimedia movement. --Xover (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    Read, need to take longer to make sense of the text and decide how to respond. In brief -- I don't understand how someone would end up using a template whose only effect is to display the text: This is a deprecated template.. Such a template would not clutter up any lists, as it would be only listed in a Category:Deprecated templates. Could you say more about how someone would end up using that by mistake? JesseW (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I want to clarify that I am vehemently in agreement with the importance of cleaning up deprecated and obsolete Templates and other junk that is sitting around -- that's important, and useful, and a good idea for all the reasons you eloquently stated (and other reasons as well). I just think doing what I've (now) already done (subst'ing the current uses, making the current version into a simple "deprecated" notice, and removing it from any categories other than a deprecated templates category) is sufficient to achieve the goals of cleanup, and avoids excessive process and as a (very minor) beneficial side-effect, avoids hiding stuff we don't actually have any reason to hide. JesseW (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    (quick response; up past my bedtime ;D) @JesseW: You forget about the search function, and underestimate the confusion new users suffer. Or how much time we'd have to spend helping users who are mystified at why their page now has a big red "This thingy is deprecated" on it, and what's a thingy by the way? And even a dedicated deprecated category is still a category; and will show up in automated maintenance categories; and will still be subject to various forms of vandalism; and will show up in the linter log (see Special:LintErrors) when Parsoid lands and deprecates inline style attributes (or whatever); and will show up in searches when we try to find pages in the Template: namespace that use inline style attributes in order to convert them to TemplateStyles; or… Nothing is free, and a thousand papercuts may still kill you, even if every single instance looks cheap and harmless enough in isolation. --Xover (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    The search function will merely show "this page name was previously used" (which is harmless). If new users keep using a name even when it's not referred to anywhere, that's a valuable signal that we should redirect that name to somewhere relevant, or at least put a note on it explaining the right way to do whatever they were trying to do (and it's a signal we'll still get, whether or not the previous revisions at the page are hidden or not). As for vandalism -- I can't see any way that an existing (unused) page is any more at risk for vandalism than a non-existing (unused) page name would be. Either one can be vandalized at any time, and neither would have much effect if/when they were (since they are unused).
    I do want to make a subtle improvement to my deprecation process proposal -- don't make multiple versions of the notice; instead, #REDIRECT each deprecated page to a central page that explains what happened (deprecation). That avoids duplication (so there's no increase in weight if we have to change the deprecation notice, or anything like that.) And I never claimed this process was "free" -- instead, I'm claiming it's cheaper (both initially and over time) than deletion, and achieves the same ends. So it's fewer papercuts, and will therefore let us survive them longer. JesseW (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Twist[edit]

I suggest to delete this unsourced version of Oliver Twist and replace it by a page with links to Oliver Twist, Vol. 1, Oliver Twist, Vol. 2 and Oliver Twist, Vol. 3 --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The standard method of dealing with these pages is to proofread the new edition over the old edition, and delete ({{sdelete}}) the old version once finished, like The Republic. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is exactly what I have proposed. We have a proofread edition of three parts of Oliver Twists (see the links I provided above). I suggest to delete the old unsourced version by a page linking to the three proofread parts. These parts should then be moved to its subpages. However, such a case is not mentioned among the speedy deletion criteria and so I am proposing the deletion here. Somebody might want to search for the source of the old version and keep both versions (now I see that there are some differences in the number of chapters). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    I thought those were Index: references. Certainly, I support this move. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Standard approach when you don't know it's the same edition is to move the unsourced version to XX (unsourced); and then create a versions page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have changed “Unsourced” to “unsourced,” Beeswaxcandle, as I believe that is the common usage; I have also seen (unsourced edition). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
    Do we need to have unsourced editions? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    What is wrong with unsourced editions? Can you come up with a better argument? We have the means to manage. If we see something that is an exact duplicate then we have removed them, though for something like this multi-edition work, there is not really the point. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    What's the value of unsourced editions? We can't verify that the text reflects a previously published edition, much less how accurately. We can't verify that it hasn't been altered, nor even that it is complete. And any value derived from having multiple editions of the same work depend on actually knowing with precision which edition it is from, and being able to compare the differences between them. Likewise we can't link it to wikidata because we don't know what edition it is.
    When there is no other sourced edition here there is an argument to be made for the value of having access to the text at all; but even that goes out the window when an actual sourced edition is available. For those reasons (and for various other more secondary reasons) I have arrived at the opinion that we should start to require scan backing for all new texts added, and actively work to replace existing unsourced texts with scan-backed versions. There are some common-sense exceptions for born-digital texts and such, but otherwise the only caveats are relative priority and amount of effort expended. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with Xover. Why would we recommend someone read the unsourced version instead of the sourced version? If there's a real reason, it sounds like there might be a copyrightable difference in the unsourced version, which is problematic, and in those (fairly rare) cases, we should find scans with the modernized spelling or whatever makes the unsourced version distinct. In other cases, there's no value in having the unsourced version at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Who says recommend them? They are labelled and clearly are what they are. There is no value in adding further, but what is the value in deleting? I have no issue in pushing harder on requiring harder on source-backed works, where it is reasonable to do so. I just don't see value in deleting old, complete works. We are not stuck for space; they can be clearly identified for what they are. They identify a history of what was, and at what time, and a person's edits. There is no need for a purity and a cleansing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    The value in deleting is that Oliver Twist goes straight to the book, instead of a disambiguation page, and that no one looking for Oliver Twist has to wonder which edition to read or what the differences are between the two. They're labelled, but that label is not really clear if you're just looking to read something and don't have an understanding of the Wikisource process. Disambiguation pages may be a necessary cost, but not in this situation. Also, they're potentially problematic in a copyright sense; not a huge risk, but it's possible that editorial changes like abridgment or bowlerdization make it a new copyrighted work. I don't really see the counter balancing advantage to keeping it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Del, merge to template:strikethrough[edit]

I am proposing that we merge {{del}} into {{strikethrough}} as both are visual representations of the same thing and we again don't need unnecessary template bloat.

I would argue that for the purposes of are presentations it is not accurate to describe any of our productions as requiring the tag <del>, which would be interpretative, and they are stylistic alone for the purposes of our reproductions. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep It is clear that many documents have deleted or inserted text and that is the function of striking it. In fact, that is almost always the reason why. We shouldn't make it harder to have semantically proper content on our site. Additionally, deleted text may be struck but not necessarily, so how it really appears is up to browsers and individual CSS files. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Huh? Not our job to interpret or annotate, ours is to replicate. This is not a mark-up conversation about a version of a document. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
We have scans to replicate. How much interpretation we do is something we can discuss, but one goal of transcription is to make versions computer-readable for the blind, and using del makes that easier and the result more useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is the same situation as Template:Kbd, above; it is entirely superfluous to Template:Strikethrough. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Comment: arguably, nearly all of the users of {{strikethrough}} should, semantically speaking, be using {{del}}. The DEL HTML tag happens to have the same default styling as strikethrough, but this is a browser default. If we wanted to use del, we should probably provide an explicit CSS styling for it, perhaps by TemplateStyles, so that we're not relying on an implicit browser style.
I can't really think of a place where strikethrough is directly used purely stylistically, though it is used internally by other templates, e.g. {{ditto bar}}. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Text struck through in a work should never be marked up with <del>…</del>: if the semantics intended by the author was to delete the text it would have simply been removed. Text included with strikethrough formatting has been deliberately included in that way. Markup like <del>…</del> carries semantics that are interpretative and therefore inappropriate here; makes no sense technically because re-styling the tag with CSS would change the formatting of our reproduction; and would mislead and confuse vision-impaired readers by hiding part of the work from them. HTML on the web has been in a long, slow, and tortuous road towards more semantic markup for going on three decades now, which has led to some strongly ingrained reflexes to eschew physical markup. I know, I've been jumping up and down on that soapbox with my bullhorn for most of that time! But that reflex collides squarely with our purpose and goals here: we are not creating original web content, but reproducing (primarily) old printed content. The definitional authority for the semantics rests not with us, and appropriating it would be a disservice to our readers and reusers. --Xover (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    Also, this template has all of 6 mainspaces uses, all of them added by Justin over the last ~12 months since they created the template. All of them instances where they modified an already Proofread or Validated page using <s>…</s> to add this template (modulo three uses by SF00 that were clearly in error). As such its existence does not appear to be based on a concrete need for it so much as an expression of how they feel this ought to have been done on a technical level.
    If any specific case crops up where it is warranted (i.e. where the associated semantics are applicable), raw HTML <del>…</del> tags can be used to meet the immediate need, and if a more widespread use case is identified we can revisit a template-based solution at that time. --Xover (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Proposing to close and implement. Any other comment? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Index:Boswell - Life of Johnson - Volume 6.djvu[edit]

One volume of a seemingly identical edition to that of this scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

  • keep Published at different times by different publishers. No guarantee that they are not different editions. No need to deleted, maybe just point to a more completed version, especially if we have a comp;ete set. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Efn[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
deleted

Unused, non-functional, outdated cut&paste copy from enwp, that is incompatible with enWS style guide. If we ever get a legitimate use for it we can do a real import (with all revision history) from enwp. --Xover (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete it with my glad support. :-) JesseW (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • delete, per nom — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Council of Europe Report Submitted by Azerbaijan Per Framework Convention For the Protection of National Minorities[edit]

2008 cut&paste dump with zero effort at formatting, nor even adding a header and license, and tagged as such for 12 years. The original is available on the web at the COE website (so no access is lost if we delete it), and given it's a cut&paste dump anybody starting from scratch from the PDF will have an easier time than trying to match&split it. Note that there is also some question as to its copyright status, but that can be addressed separately if necessary (and is moot if deleted for other reasons).--Xover (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I could proofread from the scan, but I have some questions about the nature of the work. This is the “State Report” of the “First Cycle” (2002); there are four cycles. Each has numerous separate items, but I am unaware of the copyright status. If this work is to be kept, if it is eligible to be kept, there should be a framework for adding the other pages, if possible; a standard name system, as the current name is both too long and not specific enough; and a portal, either for the FCNM or Azerbaijan in relation to the same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC).
    There are in principle infinite cycles: we're currently in the fifth cycle, whatever that means. And Azerbaijan is just one of ~28 countries participating in this framework, each of whom are submitting State Reports and various other documents for each cycle, that are then republished by the COE (who claim restrictive copyright, but may not in all cases have the right to do so). That means there's already on the order of several hundred documents in this series. I would suggest that unless there's a small group of people motivated to work on the whole of this collection of documents (based on a portal and custom navigation templates, probably), this is not where we should be expending our volunteer resources. Someone thought this one document was significant enough to dump it here, but not important enough to put any actual effort into (they literally just pressed "Ctrl+V" and clicked the "Publish" button: it took them five seconds, tops, but will eat up weeks worth of volunteer resources to save!). Unless it occurs that this particular document has some historical significance concomitant with the expenditure of volunteer effort (our most limited and dearest resource) required to scan-back and proofread it, we should just let readers find it at the source, where it will be in the original format and in the context of the other several hundred documents in the framework. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fantasia original[edit]

This work is (technically, I know) not in English, and I propose that it be migrated to Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • What language is it in? I would not consider this to be separate from the English language, as it is simply music, but if it is in a language, it should be moved to that specific language version of Wikisource. I oppose this, and would rather have the foreign text translated, and the work moved to the Translation namespace. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It is completely instrumental, it is not in any language (English or otherwise), which is why I said it should be moved the the Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's in three languages: Italian, Catalan, and Music. So, from that perspective alone it belongs on Multilingual. It is unsourced, unlicensed, and uncategorised. There is no indication of instrumentation (I assume guitar). In addition, the Lilypond code obviously has errors in it (based on bars 59, 62 being cut off). However, finding those errors in the wall of uncommented, unbarred, badly laid out code would be too difficult to pursue. I would also note that IMSLP hosts two editions of this piece, including one modern reproduction. There is no need for us to host a poor derivative copy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
        • That is false: the error is in the rendering, not the code. “Music” is not a language, and, for the purposes of music, Italian is also not being used. There are some notes which are not written in the Italian; those could be translated from the original, but I do not believe such action to be necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
          • I agree with this, music notation and the fact that some music notation consists of Italian words is largely irrelevant; this is more like a book that consists of pictures only with no text (which I would also suggest to move to Multilingual). It would be good to fix it up against a scan though once it is moved. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure Vol 1.djvu and Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure Vol 2.djvu[edit]

There is already a version of this two volume work on Wikisource (Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749, vol. 1).pdf) and (Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749, vol. 2).pdf). Volume 1 has been proofread, volume 2 is nearly complete. The djvu versions can be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The scans appear to be two different editions, so I do not see cause for deletion here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Pages created by User:Paris91[edit]

The following pages are requested to be deleted for the reason "General 4: Redundant" according to WS:CSD.

These pages, in fact, are original translations (by Frank Maloy Anderson), not Wikisource translations, and should thus be in the Main namespace, not the Translation namespace. But, in the Main namespace, there already are pages with sourced texts which have the same contents. So, these pages are requested to be deleted. --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

# Page requested to be deleted Corresponding page with scanned text
1 Translation:French Constitution of 1791 The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789–1907/15
2 Translation:French Constitution of 1793 The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789–1907/39
3 Translation:Constitution of the Year III The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789–1907/50
4 Translation:Constitution of the Year VIII The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France, 1789–1907/58
  • I presumed at first that these translations were unique translations; however, it appears that they are the translations given in the scans. They should not have been created in the translation namespace in the first place, but as it stands, they should be made redirection pages. A note: these pages were actually created by Eccles19, and then moved to the translation namespace by Paris91. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

United States Headquarters Agreement[edit]

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

These are two different works, though the critical text is (theoretically, at least!) the same:
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
retain as different editions/versions, hat note the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations[edit]

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

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

The Unknown Mr. Kent and Roy Norton--The unknown Mr Kent[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Consolidated under proper title with redirect from the other title (root page only) BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

These are both about the same book, transcluding the same index.

The first is the proper title, but the chapters are hosted under subpages of the second. The first links to these chapters in its TOC, so navigation from the header of the first doesn't work.

I believe the chapters should be moved from under the second to under the first, and fixed to allow navigation. However, given that these pages are of long standing, I'm wondering whether they should be made redirects or just deleted. Same question for the second root page. BethNaught (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Retain the one we should retain, and convert the other root page to a redirect. Reckon just fix it. Happy to do it and run a bot through if required to fix any smaller bits that may need tidying. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance :) Everything is now under the first title, with a redirect from the root page of the second, but not the chapters. It sure is convenient having move-subpages. BethNaught (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Micrographia and Micrographia - or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Consolidated under short title with redirect from the title+subtitle (root page only) BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Same issue as #The Unknown Mr. Kent and Roy Norton--The unknown Mr Kent above, except that you could argue the long title is the correct one in this instance. BethNaught (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Reckon just fix it. Give us the direction you think that we should take. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Trawling discussion archives suggests people are ambivalent on this issue, or favour not including the subtitle unless there is a need for disambiguation, which there doesn't seem to be in this case. As the subtitle is awfully long, and the current primary name is Micrographia, the one which is linked to Wikidata and has a ToC etc., I'll pick that and consolidate the chapters under it. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Two transclusions from the same proofreading[edit]

There are two transclusions from the proofreading of Index:British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act 1960.djvu: British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960 and British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act 1960, only difference in title being the comma. There is also a redirect: The British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960. The comma is justified in an Indian Act (index title is wrong, my mistake in long past), but I am not seeing the justification of multiple mainspace transclusions. Hrishikes (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: I would hazard a guess that it is someone filling a redlink, and not realising the existence of the other transclusion. Pick the one that you wish to retain and convert the other to a redirect. Please also check that the works are fully transcluded and label the index page. Neither has a WD item, so that saves some work. 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Comp3-pre-0415.pdf and File:Compendium3-draft.pdf[edit]

These are excerpts of the early ("beta") versions of the Copyright Office's Compendium of Copyright Practices, uploaded by GOIII to experiment and facilitate discussion prior to the actual release of the compendium back in 2014. What discussion there was is at WS:AN#Need input for critical work (and side note).

In essence they are GOIII's test files for an abortive project and no longer serve any purpose. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Shrug, but can they not just go to Commons as PD-USgov works? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Commons isn't a dumping ground for stuff other projects don't want. These are test files—and GOIII seems to have been testing their copyright.gov->PDF toolchain more than anything—that they specifically asked people not to proofread. If anybody were to tackle the Compendium they would never start from these files. And, incidentally, they contain copyrighted Windows screenshots that we'd need to doctor out if we were to keep them (so the cost—benefit is a negative number). --Xover (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    If there is cost associated with them for copyright reasons, then delete.
    If that were not true, since they're actual formal US government drafts, there is (theoretically) some (rather small) value to them as snapshots of the document in its development process, even if they're unlikely to ever be used at Wikisource source documents. But not enough that it's worth redacting them. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)