Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, 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 Possible copyright violations. 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.



Index:The Life Story of a Viennese Whore, as Told by Herself.pdf[edit]

Source is seemingly unnown, but it's pre 1923 so I wanted a second opinion on this, seems to be secondary source (i.e someones transcription to PDF.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a scan of an old work, so there's no way to tell its originality without checking against an older source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The book itself is historically significant, so it is something we should have. BD2412 T 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    What is known about translations? While the work is of an age to be kept, the translation has no provenance. Do we know if it was translated early enough? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Another concern has arisen see w:Josephine Mutzenbacher which is the Wikipedia article on the work, namely that according to the Wikipedia article it contains highly controversial themes which mean the book may be considered illegal in the US or UK under obscenity laws. Perhaps this is one to ask WMF legal about? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is very rare for a purely textual narrative work to run afoul of obscenity laws in this century. In any case, literary and historical value are both defenses against obscenity. BD2412 T 16:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see no strong argument presented for the deletion of the work for being contrary to WS:WWI. I am indicating that I will close this as kept. We would still do well to seek a scan as that becomes more definitive. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about the obscenity charges, but there's no concrete evidence of a pre-1923 translation and Carl Lindberg, at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-05#File:The_Life_Story_of_a_Viennese_Whore.2C_as_Told_by_Herself.pdf, has been unable to trace the provenance of it. This could very well be a modern Internet translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete According to this article, it looks like the first English translation was published anonymously in New York in 1931. Another English translation, again from the USA, was made in 1967 by Hilary E. Holt under the pseudonym Rudolf Schleifer. I'm not sure which one this is, but both translations would be under copyright anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1931 translation is out of copyright as far as I can tell. It probably wasn't filed for copyright (probably couldn't be filed for copyright) and I find no renewal in the renewal databases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I should have read further in that article; it has an excerpt of the two translations. The Holt translation is nothing like the one we have. The 1931 edition is also not entirely the same as the one we have. There is a 1970 "translation" by Paul J. Gillette which is a paraphrase of a previous translation so my guess is that this is the one we have. There's a scan of the 1931 translation here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That appears to be merely an excerpt, it's only 32 pages.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Project disclaimers[edit]

These seem to me legalese bollocks. Personally, they are embarrassing to the point of cringe.

I assume WMF legal counsel haven't recommended them? Someone made one because it seemed like a jolly good idea, and the trend caught on?

Every page served by Wikisource already has a footer with the text "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use", and the linked page says all the important stuff such as "the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice".

Hesperian 10:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have started with this, which might just possibly have some legitimacy, and then taken on a life of its own. Hesperian 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I just discovered w:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I would argue that it is just as relevant here as there. Hesperian 10:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I added the disclaimers in imitation of EB1911. Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Project Disclaimer needs a note I think, since it has the special problem that biographies on non-existent people were submitted. Maybe it should be called a "special note" or something like that instead of a "disclaimer". The authoritative tone of the encyclopedia articles perhaps make them specially vulnerable to misinterpretation I think, and perhaps some sort of "extra note" is warranted to highlight special problem areas? Wikipedia is different than Wikisource where there is no venue except the extra notes for an editor to challenge outrageous material. Library Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be a solution, to create a simple one-size-fits-all notice for all the encyclopedias that might require such a note, as a template which can be simply inserted into the notes parameter of the header template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One size I think certainly fits a lot, but, for example, Appletons' is just biographies, and it has a special need for a note, but there are a lot of things that are flagged for EB1911 which don't at all apply. I imagine American Medical Biographies needs similar qualifications, at least for the EB1911 things which don't apply. But as for the rest, I can't remember any special reason for one to be differentiated from another. I should double check. Nuttall and Catholic Encyclopedia haven't been provided with these notices, and just in the interests of balance, if they are to be kept for the list above, those two should probably get something as well. Library Guy (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I have gone back and done a review. The EB1911 does make me cringe when it issues orders on how people should use the information. I think other disclaimers telling people to bear biases in mind when using the information seem more reasonable. When a trademark is still in use, I think it is good to warn people not to use it unless explicitly qualified by the date or edition; I notice The World Factbook does something similar for the CIA seal. I think warning on lapses from neutrality and bias are well taken so people know to shift gears from reading things on Wikipedia - in Wikipedia you can slap an applicable banner - in a Wikisource encyclopedia you just have to watch out, and I think the "disclaimer" is good to warn people to do that. I notice in The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Project Disclaimer there is an explicit note I put in on problems I have with the OCR which I think is worth keeping. So on balance I think I would rewrite the EB1911 disclaimer to be more in line with the tone of the others, but I do think "Trademark usage" is a good header. I don't think we need to refer people to Wikimedia Foundation, and the non-Britannica treatment will work in the Britannicas as well. Probably a little more uniformity is called for, but I think a one-size-fits-all is not a solution. I think I originally left the EB1911 (and other Britannicas') disclaimer mostly alone because I figured some Wikimedia legal counsel had written it, which may be the case. But now years later it does sound bizarre, and I think it can and should be changed, but I think the disclaimers (or maybe there's a better name?) in general should be retained for the encyclopedias. Library Guy (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: @Billinghurst: @Beleg Tâl: So I have revised 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer to make it comparable to the others. Better? Library Guy (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I think you're shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. I think that the disclaimer in the terms of use suffices for all these cases, and that these project disclaimers should all be deleted. For project-specific notes such as giving people a heads-up on fictitious entries, we have the notes section of the header. Hesperian 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The disclaimer, if that is truly what it is, is more a universal statement about our work here, and there is nothing specific for one project or another. As a statement of fact it has value in that it may carry the message of "don't modernise the text, it is what it is at the time of the original publication". Maybe this belongs as an essay in the Help section of the site as a collective document, we can also put a specific note on Portal: and Category: pages that address collective works. True that it is less overt.
<face palm> We have Wikisource:General disclaimer that sits there and is linked from every page. That is sufficient, if it needs updating then let us have that conversation in WS:S or on Wikisource talk:General disclaimer. How does an additional link per work bring any improvement> It doesn't. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It does sit there and is linked to every page like you say, but its label is in very tiny print and at the bottom of the page. The labels for the special disclaimers are very "in your face." They should probably link to the general disclaimer after they have had their say, and not repeat things that are in the general disclaimer. The encyclopedia material, especially for EB1911, is linked into many Wikipedia pages. I doubt most people who follow the links are going to be scrolling to the bottom of the page and reading the fine print. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: @Billinghurst: Perhaps the material could be incorporated in Notes on reading the Encyclopædia? Library Guy (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Library Guy: In a general sense the words that you have in the Notes apply to every work at enWS, and I would prefer that we redesign the words and add to the "General disclaimer". I would suggest we merge them into the GD and remove that section too. Either way, the "Notes" don't belong in the main namespace as they are not part of the work, and should be moved to the project, and if retained, linked from the notes section of the main page of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Many people do not see the main page of the encyclopedia. They see the article they link to, and I don't imagine they always scroll to the bottom and look at the fine print there. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone reading a 100 year old enyclopaedia be aware of what they are reading and that things have changed from back then and that new discoveries have been made etc. It's common sense in my opinion and a diclaimer shouldn't be necessary for this. I say just leave the general disclaimer as is and delete all disclaimers above. Jpez (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jpez: Read some of the disclaimers. I don't think all the things are immediately obvious. You have mentioned just one aspect. If you thought further, you might come up with more. But still I bet you would miss some things. A lot of work has gone into the wording, and they have been tailored for different works. The Wikisource general disclaimer is meant to cover all works, old and modern. Certainly these specialized disclaimers could link to the general disclaimer. It might bring more attention to it. Library Guy (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If the need is to delete these disclaimers, can they be moved to a sandbox subdirectory on my home page so I can refer to the text as necessary to put the material in notes or the general disclaimer as necessary? Library Guy (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Library Guy:. To address your concerns, how about a measured approach. We move the project specific disclaimers to the WikiProject space, and ensure that we have either a specific project page for each work OR a collective page for those projects that do not have their own. We put a link from the parent (root) page for each work to its specific disclaimer, though remove them from the general headers, and subpages. This enables specific information that can be set for a project, reference the general disclaimer, and takes it out of the main ns, and clearly has it sitting as our comment, not of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you. Moving the disclaimers to WikiProject space is reasonable. It would be good to have at least a stub project page for each work. They all need to have custom projects devoted to them eventually. I think the disclaimer link should be retained in the article headers. The link has always been clearly in the notes, and many articles are accessed through links from Wikipedia rather than through their respective root pages. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Notes on reading the Encyclopædia can be linked into the disclaimer as well, integrated with it, and moved to the project namespace. I think EB1911 is the only one that has such a thing. I added a link to its page to the list at the head of this discussion. Library Guy (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Hesperian's nomination is indication that addition on every page discredits the whole concept of needing to justify a specific disclaimer, and I can see that point of view. That said, if we think in terms of works and projects, then maybe there is again an ability to explore something like mw:Help:Page status indicators. There is a similar concept in place in categories, eg. the help icon Category:Authors-Ro. Maybe for each of these large compilation works we can have a help type icon that takes you to the project and explanatory means. It keeps the main namespace interface clean, it can be a standardised approach, and allows the projects to manage their components. It is something to consider, and it helps us having to have repetitive noise of disclaimers in every page of a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding linking from every article, Billinghurst represents my position correctly: linking to a disclaimer from every page will only leave me feeling that the problem has not been solved or even much mitigated. The remaining issue is with the word "disclaimer". If every article linked to "project notes", and those project notes lived in project space, and were largely useful material, but just happened to contain a certain amount of material that I continue to regard as pointless disclaimers, then I would say that matters had been improved enough. Hesperian 04:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see changing the name to something like "reader advisory." Having worked quite a bit on various encyclopedia articles, I really find the tone and claims of some objectionable, and the "advisory" or whatever will help mitigate my discomfort. That being said, I also find a lot of valuable information in them, sometimes information that is useful today and forgotten. I'm all for keeping the main namespace clean. This is not an issue that I had been aware of. Since many of the encyclopedias don't have a project space yet, perhaps another way of handling the advisory text would be to handle it like the templates, e.g. Wikisource:Americana reader advisory; this would get it out of the main namespace. Another problem the encyclopedias frequently have is that indexes and volume lists are in the main namespace when this material is not part of the original text of any of the volumes. An interesting approach has been proposed for EB9 which utilizes the index volume material to index the articles. Library Guy (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Some really poor quality scans[edit]

These are all terrible quality Google Books from back in the day when their digitizing workflow not only yielded awful scans but stripped out images, leaving big "holes" in the work where images should be e.g. Page:The Practical Book of Oriental Rugs - Lewis - 1911.djvu/128. Thus any transcription project based on these scans cannot be completed. It's fine to host stuff like this if someone is passionate about the work and is actively transcribing it despite, and in full knowledge of, the flaws in the scan. But there doesn't appear to be any action on these. Some of them haven't been touched except for me flagging bad image scans. In my view, we improve Wikisource by discarding them. Hesperian 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The work on oriental rugs should be replaced with the version here, or the images can be added from it. I have added the image on the faulty page cited above and the previous page. Hrishikes (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I would think that we could upload a replacement file, and move any pages that have been proofread. Matter of getting a better quality file in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
For the work on Malta, the images can be added from here. I have added one image here, from which the quality can be assessed. Hrishikes (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Do you have access to the whole scan of The History of the Knights of Malta where you got the image from? I myself have no access to it. If so we can add the better version and delete the existing one altogether. Jpez (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jpez:, Sure, I have access. That's why I could add the image. Without replacing the scan, I can add the images, if you plan to proofread the work. Hrishikes (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: To be honest I don't plan to work on it any time soon so I'd be wasting your time, I've found a condensed version from the same author which I plan to work on instead. Thanks. Jpez (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Overarching comment, we should replace what we can with better quality scans; where there is significant transcription done, then we can move the pages if a suitable scan exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on Index:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor.djvu a little, and intend to work on it more as time allows. I don't understand the motivation for deleting, it already contains text data that doesn't exist anywhere else on the Internet. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So long as you're invested in the work enough to follow it through despite bad image scans such as Page:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor.djvu/21, then just strike it from the list above. Hesperian 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Added multivolume-in-one index, with images: Index:Report of the Oregon Conservation Commission to the Governor (1908 - 1914).djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Great -- thank you @Hrishikes:. I've started migrating the content over, fine to delete the original scan once the existing transcriptions are moved. -Pete (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For the secret service work, the images can be added from any of the two HathiTrust versions here. From this site, without partner log in, pages need to be extracted one-by-one, so getting the whole book is time-consuming. But the image pages can be extracted and the images added to the page ns of the work here. Hrishikes (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the file. Pages 256-257 of the book were missing, and have been added. Fresh pagelisting required. @ShakespeareFan00: Hrishikes (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not that hard to download a book from them as a collection of images; just take a page https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;seq=7;width=1190, up the width so you make sure you're getting all the detail, say to 3000 and replace the seq value with a variable and get all the pages; i.e. on Unix: for i in `seq 1 36`; do wget -O $i.png "https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/image?id=mdp.39015088638799;seq=$i;width=3000"; done. (The value 36 is the number of the last page in the internal system.) It will make JPEGs with a .png extension, so if that will gum up whatever you're processing them with or you're uploading the images straight to Commons, you'll have find the problem files (e.g. with file) and rename them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can u pse give a Windows-specific instruction? Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Download Cygwin and install Wget on it. Do the above. Someone with more Windows knowledge could probably tell you to download wget and run some similar pattern in Windows Command Line, but I don't know Windows in that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The DownThemAll addon that User:Jpez shared at the Scriptorium might also be a good option for this kind of task? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only thumbnails can be downloaded with this tool, because they show up together on the screen. Bigger images have to be opened separately, so cannot be downloaded together with this tool, as far as I could see. Hrishikes (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added plenty of books from there myself. Go to the last page of the book, right click it and pick "copy image location". Open downthemall and add a new download. Copy the link there. In the link you pasted change the width (I've found 2000 is good enough) as mentioned above, width=2000, and change seq= to seq=[first page number:last page number] exactly as is with the square brackets. For example seq=[1:200] if the last page is 200. Start the download and downthemall will download all the pages in image format. Then they may need some cleaning up and they'll need ocr. Jpez (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Has Index:Chicago manual of style 1911.djvu been improved? There are a couple of copies on archive.org. The print is alright so I presume it is the image quality that is the issue? Would like to work on this. Is it alright to get images from another, identical copy or is that cheating? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The New Testament in the original Greek - 1881.djvu[edit]

This work is confused in its location at enWS. To me it looks as it is a dual language text, and probably belongs at mulWS. It is no ta work that looks as though it should be jointly hosted at enWS and elWS, the mix of pages simpy doesn't work.. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify? What is "It is no ta work" mean? -- Outlier59 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"No ta"≡"Not a". AuFCL (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Outlier59 (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
An annotated text should probably go to the base language, in this case elWS. Sticking it at mulWS would hide the fact that there is a transcribed New Testament from elWS. This is a cross-wiki issue, so should probably be discussed with more than one Wiki, but I'd be happy to host an English book with (say) French notes here.
BTW, the Ancient Greek Wikisource proposal passed; is that just dead and the Ancient Greek material going to elWS, or should Ancient Greek works be added to mulWS anyway?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: The base language is grc, not el. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but el.Wikisource asserts that it is the proper home for grc material, like we hold ang files and deWS holds goh (Old High German) files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Experimental long form Chronological Tables[edit]

These appear to have been some attempts I made to combine the c. 1870's Crohnological Tables with the Short Titles and more recent repeals data from legislation.gov.uk.

As Wikisource doesn't have anything like the resources the latter mentioned site does, these are essentially unmaintained. I've got no objection to these being retained if someone wants to take on the large task of researching the relevant statutes so the Portal can be updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - these look like a lot of work to keep up, and in the absence of a willing editor I'd delete it, noting that a simple list of the Acts of Parliament should still be retained. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu suitably expanded using Short Titles Act 1896 and more recent data. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd just keep Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes and Short Titles Act 1896 in that case, and leave it at that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tf[edit]

Although this is at WS:PD, it's effectively a merge request.

This template currently calls {{table style/parse}}. There is nothing inherently wrong in this, but in doing some digging I found that independently someone had developed {{p}} which calls its own equivalent parse template, except for some very specific circumstances does the same thing as what this template was nominally intended for.

Therefore I am considering this template to in effect be a duplication, unless there are specifc uses that would require the direct use of a <div>...</div> combination over a conventional wiki paragraph.

I hope you don't mind me starting disscusions like this, but a reduction in complexity can only be a good thing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also the redirect which {{Ssc}} is.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
These look like duplicates to me, so I'm inclined to vote delete. Do you know if there is any reason for their existence as separate templates from {{ts}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably to differentiate their function, {{p}} handles paragphs vs table cells,and {{tf}} was obviously div based. {{ssc}} calls the table style parse thingy directly, and as I recall was shorthand for style-short-code. It would in the interests of reducing complexity to have ONE core version of the /parse portion aliased if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering that {{ts}} is just a generic style tag, it should work on any element provided that the CSS rules are applicable to that element. Maybe we could move {{table style}} to just {{style}} and then there won't be a need to add a new template for every type of element? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You'd need to merge/harmonise the various sets of format codes, I am not sure that {{p}} and {{ts}} use the same set of codes, but in principle I don't see why having a common core {{style/parse}} would be opposed. Or even something in Lua drawing on a "protected" page with code,expansion pairs, so that adding codes doesn't involve changing the whole template every time. (IIRC at present {{table style/parse}} is a big switch function...
Aside - {{P}} IIRC does some additional wrapping to creates a new <p> tag which I am not entirely happy with given the rows I've had with mediawiki about how it crunch-mangles content with mismatched tags on transcluion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not certain that all elements would work in <span> so making it too generic will not work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Selections from the Sahih of al-Buhari[edit]

Another copy and pasted OCR text that is in no fit state. It should be deleted, and when someone feels willing to bring a scan and work upon it, they should. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Scan. Going from scan would essentially be starting from scratch, as the existing OCR is useless for proofreading. If you think it best to delete in the meantime, go for it. (Same with the life of Mohammad above.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If deleting we could import the scan, and set up an index page then delete the work, with active link to index. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about pasted OCRs: As we seem to have numbers of work like this, is there value in starting a more general discussion about our general practice for managing these, and allowing admins some latitude to work without repetitive, and unresponded DRs? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not covered under the Speedy deletion policy, unless we consider it "no meaningful content". How difficult is it to add "Abandoned and incomplete" to the list of speedy criteria? I assume there are a lot of deletion tools that would need to be updated. On the other hand, if nobody responds to or opposes your deletion proposals, I think you're safe to proceed with deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Basic Concepts of Iranian Constitution[edit]

This is a redundant page, which is already covered here. Glide08 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, single chapter of the Iran constitution, which is already hosted as part of said constitution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kalevala (Crawford)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted with clear consensus, and help page updated accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category for the chapters of a specific translation of a particular saga. There is no purpose served in having such categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Actually it's a typical use of categories - to gather all pages of one kind together. Also it helps to remove them from Special:UncategorizedPages (are you even care about maintenance??). And there are no prohibition in Help:Categorization. --Infovarius (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's against established consensus though; the pages are accessible via Special:PrefixIndex. I will happily edit Help:Categorization to explicitly prohibit it if necessary. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I think it would be good if you (or anybody else) make such addition to WS rules. The point is that User:Infovarius, who did that categorizing, has come from the Russian WS (the same as me — I've come from Ru-WS as well), where such categorizing is applied and considered reasonable; so he just did here the same to which he had been accustomed in the Ru-WS. Thus, such clarification would be helpful for new-comers from the Russian WS (and other Wikisources where such categorizing is applied as well). And if you really add this, then I also propose to add a point about another categorization ban — as far as I know, in the En-WS making categories for works of particular author is banned as well, meanwhile it is (as for previous case) applied in the Ru-WS. And if you ultimately insert to rules those additions about those two bans (ban on categories for subpages of works, and ban on categories for collecting works of particular author), then it would be helpful for users from other Wikisources to get knowledge about categorizing cases which here, in the En-WS, are considered wrong though in their WSes those cases are considered correct. --Nigmont (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nigmont: Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the addition. Now I understand that English Wikisource is against such categories (and don't care about uncategorized pages and so on). P.S. German Wikisource uses such categories too: de:Kategorie:Kalewala, das National-Epos der Finnen. --Infovarius (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If the main page has a table of contents, then there is no need for the category. All the pages of a single work should be available through that work's primary page in the Main namespace. If they're not available that way, then a Table of Contents should be added. The Help page lists four types of categories we use, and "chapters from a work" is not one of them. Just because a thing is not specifically prohibitted doesn't make it a good idea—categorizing for categorizing's sake is not beneficial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as nominator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Jpez (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, the category itself was deleted, but all the links to it are still there on all the pages from the work. Those links will also need to be removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

More Canadian politicians[edit]

More Canadian politicians whose works are copyrighted.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Index:Chapter 4, pp. 48-57 (1890 ed.).pdf[edit]

Duplicated by Index:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu to which the relevant proofread text should be migrated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty confusing pile of indices. I agree, the partial scans should be replaced with the full book scan. Is there any proofreading done on any of the partial scans? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For Index:1890ed.GenHistP.MyersCh.1.pdf there is, and validated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
For the others, the scans appear to have been manually entered in article space. This is going to need a LOT of cleanup, It may be easier to just start again with the KNOWN scan. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Could this be an opportunity to match and split? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2.pdf[edit]

Do we really need to retain this poor scan version when the 1855 edition Index:A Handbook for Travellers in Spain - Vol 2 - 1855.djvu is already present on wikisource in better quality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are the two identical? Is the scan so poor as to be unusable? If the edition is different, and the scan is usable, I see no reason to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)