Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.
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.



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)
  • Keep. The Wayback Machine has not archived all pages.--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jusjih. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We're rapidly approaching a year on this discussion, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Can someone who is engaged with the works please summarise where we stand and what are the remaining issues? --Xover (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: The general opinion is that the works will be entirely within scope if they are proofread from a scan of the volume of the work from which they originate. This has already occurred for a number of the above works, which have been marked with {{closed}}. The works which have not yet been proofread from a scan are:
    • Upon the upload of the volumes relevant to these articles, and the proofreading therefrom of the same, the discussion should be unanimously closed as keep. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (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)

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 Lua error: Missing = before parameter: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false..
    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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We had this conversation years ago and reached a decision ==> Main namespace is for prepared, proofread works. If you have a listing of {{small scan link}} or {{ext scan link}} then you should be curated in the author or portal namespace or wikisource:wikiprojects. We can build, construct and curate what is around and organise to put these constructs onto something appropriate. As we have proofread and transcluded works then they appear as neat and complete works that the readers want to see and can use. I pointed out all this to the contributor early on their spree to create these pages, and put in place the scans. These constructs work fine when moved to Portal: namespace, and I suggest that is what happens with this remaining list. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 24 January 2021 (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)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Whilst I will agree that the work is in scope, this sole article reproduced as typed text sitting in the wilderness is not in scope. Looking forward to someone working on getting volumes of scans and coordinating the work. In the meanwhile delete, this title page and the singular article without prejudice to a proper presentation. Suggest moving the text of the single biography to the author's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 24 January 2021 (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).

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It gains nothing. They are what they. Sleeping dogs! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Each of these have a very low number of transclusions (by nature), and are not significantly easier to type than any generic template (since they have the "DNB" prefix). They are also somewhat different than the other DNB templates in that they are rather specific to a very few entries. And finally they are eminently bot-replaceable, both in the pages transcluding them and, once done, to redirect the templates themselves to {{DNB footer initials}}.
    Having all of them in a single template would also provide some nice advantages, both for general maintainability and for secondary stuff like adding metadata to all contributor signatures or making it trackable (check for consistency between signature and info in header? check for consistency between articles signed N.N. and what Wikidata thinks that author wrote? it gives us some options for stuff like that.), and so on. We could even make the implementation reasonably clean by way of a Lua module that uses a /config submodule so that all the author names, initials, and associated links (Wikidata IDs?) can be edited separately from template logic and presentation markup.
    While in no way critical, I think we should give some serious thought to whether we ought to do something akin to what TE(æ)A,ea. proposes. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Since we do not have a replacement template, nomination for deletion is premature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (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).
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Unsource. Delete it or move it to a subpage of the author. In its current form it is just silly and of no value to anyone. Rather than split it, the works could just as easily and appropriately be proper reproduced works with sources. Where is the quality control in this presentation? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 24 January 2021 (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)
  • @Inductiveload: You seem to have a grasp of what these works are. Could you move the editions of the same work to suitably disambiguated pages, create a versions page (or pages, if relevant), add {{other versions}}/{{similar}} hatnotes to link them together, and tag them all with {{migrate to}}? I think this and the below section are about two editions of a UN—US treaty and a distinct agreement relating to implementation of that treaty, but I quickly lose track of what's what here. --Xover (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (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)

special:prefixindex/Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/[edit]

These pages were all individually extracted from the work, and put at the root level. They were all marked as being from the work.

As they are they are extracts rather than standalone works. I suggest that someone gets the "Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government" or we delete the pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • A scan is available here; it appears complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC).

special:prefixindex/Proletarskaya[edit]

These additions by Leutha just seem to be ToC for a journal of some sort. There is no content, and even if there was content I suspect that it would be in Russian language. If something is being built, I would suggest that it be moved to the Portal: namespace, but I am not certain what is there that is within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • It appears that this user has added at least one section of this work, Essays in Organisation Science; I presume that this is an original translation, but I am not sure. If this is the only work which is added from Proletarskaya Kul'tura, I propose that all of the organisational structure be moved to a portal, and the main page be kept for a reference to this work, and any other individual works this user would like to add, or has already added; in addition, these works should be moved so as to be sub-pages of the main page. If the user intends to add more—perhaps all from one issue, or some number from several issues—than it would be appropriate to maintain the navigational structure without a portal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am comfortable with there being a parent page in the portal namespace, though I don't think that we should be having that many. There does not seem to be the need for a page in the main namespace as these will be non-English works, so anything that we do with them would be in the Translation: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Xover for informing me of this discussion. Please see Proletarskaya Kul'tura No.1, July 1918 where the writers who are out of copyright have a green background. I don't know if anyone has previously developed any conventions on this, as I find a lot of the supporting material on Wikisource quite opaque.I am not sure about Vladimir Bogushevsky, who was murdered in one of the purges, and thus the copyright situation is a bit different. Alexander Pomorsky and Maria Smith-Falkner are amongst the few contributors whose workers are still in copyright. We are probably talking about currently 2/3 to 3/4 are out of copyright, a proportion which increases year by year. Note that the transliterated title is used, some kind of in-between status, neither Russian nor English. Where there are extant translations I have been adding footnotes as on Proletarskaya Kul'tura No.15-16, April–July, 1920 as regards the John Bowlt translation. Incidentally, this translation is missing from the extensive Bogdanov and His Work by John Biggart, Georgii Gloveli and Avraham Yassour (1998). Following the 6th International Scientific and Practical Conference-Biennale "Systems Analysis in Economics" (December 2020), at which there was an important discussion of Bogdanov and Proletarskaya Kul'tura, it seems likely that we will find more volunteers particularly as there will be a conference dedicated to Bogdanov next year in Moscow. I agree that this material should be moved into translation space, and will be happy to start work on that. As regards the 120 year limit, that's not so far away, bearing in mind that Pomorsky's work will remain in copyright until 2047, barring a reduction in copyright time limits (we live in hope!).Leutha (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leutha: It would be helpful if you could describe briefly what Proletarskaya Kul'tura is, and what it is you are planning to do here. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipediaref x 3[edit]

{{wikipediaref}} was deprecated back around 2013 as part of an effort to standardise links to sister projects. No systematic effort was ever started to remove it from use, and it is currently in use on ~2.5k pages. In addition to {{wikipediaref}} we have {{wikipedia excerpt}} (2 transclusions) and {{WikipediaExcerpt}} (8 transclusions). Their output is as follows:


{{wikipediaref|Hamlet}}

Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


{{wikipedia excerpt|Hamlet}}

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


{{WikipediaExcerpt|Hamlet}}
— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.


While {{wikipediaref}} indeed produces a link to a sister project, it doesn't actually serve the same purpose as {{plain sister}}: the latter is an interwiki link and meant for navigation between the projects, while the former is meant to facilitate attribution for a copied bit of text from Wikipedia, both visually and for legal purposes (CC BY-SA requires attribution). I don't see that they conflict and I don't see that {{wikipediaref}} causes any problems, but on the other hand does provide a useful and desired function (by definition, since it's been used ~2.5k times).

I therefore propose that we 1) migrate any uses of the other templates to {{wikipediaref}}; 2) convert the other templates into redirects to {{wikipediaref}}; and 3) undeprecate {{wikipediaref}}. --Xover (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree with the proposed solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The decision at that time was that we were not going to encourage further use as it didn't make a lot of sense when 1) we were keeping description and notes condensed; 2) users can follow the enWP link; 3) the point of citing enWP was close to pointless when it changed so regularly. They could be tidied up and removed as people got to works. What purpose does the ref citation serve? I cannot see any. I don't think we should undeprecate it, as I don't see that value. Add to that the articles referenced may or may not even still be at the targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: The point of it is attribution: "this text was excerpted from elsewhere; that other place was this article on Wikipedia". For longer bits of text that attribution is necessary to fulfil the "BY" part of "CC BY-SA", but not for uncopyrightably short bits of text. The vast majority (but not all) uses of the template is in the notes field in mainspace, Translation:, Portal:, and Author: namespaces, where I agree should mostly be so short that copyright is an unlikely issue. However, we do have some exceptions where longer bits of text are warranted, and usages (and use cases) in other namespaces.
    So… how about more clearly describing how and when it is appropriate to use this template, adding a tracking category for it, and then actively patrolling its use (including removing any old inappropriate uses of it, to eliminate bad examples for people to copy)? So long as we don't functionally delete it people are going to continue using it, so we might as well grab it by the reigns and control that use. Or put another way, anything that's deprecated should go away eventually, even if it will take a very long time, and that means doing something active to get us there. --Xover (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Manshu[edit]

Ok, I think it's time we have this conversation…

Translation:Manshu describes itself as a Wikisource translation of A 9th century Middle Chinese text regarding the geopolitics of southwest China, particularly the historic kingdom of Nanzhao. It is an important historical source for the period. This translation is based upon a digitized version of the recompiled 1774 movable type edition edited by the 武英 (Palace Museum Library).

However, looking at it more closely it appears to be much more an original analytical work than anything that could be shoehorned to fit within our definition of a mere translation.

The front page is almost entirely original work (apart from a table of contents), partly semi-encyclopedic and partly meta-discussion about the effort itself.

Looking at Chapter 1 we find some actual translation, but mostly comparisons with a professionally published previous translation (Luce) that is quoted extensively, and translator's commentary that far exceeds the actual translated text itself. It also features a lot of images that obviously do not appear in any original, but have been picked to illustrate a particular point (i.e. how Wikipedia would construct an article).

Chapter 2 and onwards are the same, except they lack the extensive quotations from the published translation (Luce), but only because the effort to compare has not reached that point yet. Around Chapter 9 the translation appears incomplete with only the Chinese original text present.

Irrespective of the rest of this work, there is a question regarding the extensive quotations from the previous professional translation (link). It is a 1961 publication with copyright notice, so there is a high probability that it is in copyright (and thus the quotations are also copyvios). I haven't looked at this issue in detail, but if this discussion ends up keeping the work in some form we will have to address that separately (and if it is not in copyright, why are we not transcribing that instead of making our own?). The sole contributor to Translation:Manshu has a somewhat haphazard approach to copyright (e.g. claiming satellite imagery from Google Maps or similar as "own work") so the issue will have to be checked thoroughly.

But all that being said, this is also a great effort and a unique work that really should exist somewhere. If it were completed I'm certain it could have been professionally published, and it would be a real shame if all the effort that's gone into it was wasted. The contributor has not been active since 2018 (and the last large progress was in 2016), so I don't think it very likely that it will now ever be completed; but if a place is found for it even the partial translation is valuable, and could conceivably be completed by others at some point in the future. If the outcome of this discussion is that it is out of scope we should make a real effort to see whether a project like WikiBooks would be interested, and, if not, rather than simply delete it we should move it to the contributor's user space (a practice I am usually vehemently opposed to but am making an exception in this particular case).

In any case, it has kept popping up on my radar for various reasons, and I have always been torn on what to do about its issues. It seems clearly outside of scope per WS:WWI, doesn't meet WS:T, violates WS:ANN, and would most likely need cleanup to meet WS:COPY. So now I'm putting the question before the community: what do we do about this? --Xover (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


Response by author[edit]

Hi there, I am the primary author, an admin on English Wikipedia. I would say I have spent upwards of 500 hours on this translation. During the time it is alleged that I have been inactive, I was a founding team member at a very important company you would have heard of, and provided some of the earliest COVID map coverage on Wikipedia (webm gif). Currently I run seven (7) companies and have a family, so it is fair to say I have 'other commitments'. I do still intend to complete the translation. Aside from time constraints, partly I have not been active on Wiki projects recently because I am living in China and this makes editing Wikiprojects a massive hassle due to the requirement for a VPN. Nevertheless, I noticed this deletion attempt by Xover and would like to respond objectively for the record. If we summarize the alleged issues they are as follows:

  • The translation includes commentary
    • That is simply because it is a good (ie. transparent/honest) translation.
    • Any accredited historian will agree this is a good (positive) feature.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work is incomplete
    • I am still finishing, I am just ridiculously busy and have been so for five years.
    • Incomplete and pending further effort is often simply the nature of voluntary work.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes quotations from previous translations
    • Fully cited and contextually presented, in academia, this is clearly fair use.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes satellite derived images
    • These images were constructed with great care based upon detailed context and are both low resolution and substantially original work in themselves.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The translation is done by the contributor and openly licensed instead of being an out of copyright work of someone else which has been uploaded
    • IMHO as a student of history original translation is *great* to welcome and should be encouraged.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates 'What Wikisource Includes' (WWI)
    • Wikisource includes "Works created after 1925" / "Analytical and artistic works".
    • Wikisource includes "Translations"
    • To be perfectly honest I consider this assertion a truly baseless accusation that I frankly find highly offensive.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • "Doesn't meet" WS:T
    • Unclear what this means
    • The WST page clearly states that original translations are in-scope and acceptable (there is only one prior English translation and it is bad and incorrect)
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates WS:ANN
    • I have never seen that page before in my life
    • Apparently it doesn't like parallel text
    • I would suggest strongly that parallel text provides the basis for most high caliber academic translations, it is my view that the policy page is wrong and further discussion to correct it should occur there.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Requires cleanup to meet WS:COPY
    • Unsure what this is actually alleging
    • Aside from original work there is only contextual quotations from other works in line with an academic translation
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.

Sincerely, Pratyeka (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that Xover also deleted my maps. This is a great loss. I cannot recreate them as I do not have access to the context at the time. This is truly a tragedy. I am ... highly alarmed and stressed at this turn of events and will cease contributing further to Wikipedia projects. Pratyeka (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone with more time please go through the undeletion process on my behalf. It is... truly a great tragedy. Multiple academics had thanked me for this work. Pratyeka (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: These maps are not appropriate for enWS (or Commons), because they contain copyright material: the satellite photos. There is no allowance here, as there is at enWP, for fair use or de minimis, and resolution doesn't affect it. I imagine the "correct" solution is to either locate a suitable base maps from Commons (or NASA or other PD source), draw your own, or commission them via c:Commons:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
If the presumption of copyright is incorrect (e.g. the photos are PD or freely licenced), then let me know and they can be restored and correct attribution and licence declarations made. In that case, they actually belong at Commons.
Sadly, being thanked by academics does not overrule copyright.
Even if these are copyrighted, I can also provide you with the files if you do not have access to them any more. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A Child's History of England (1853)[edit]

Not the 1853 edition, but a 1900 reprint which has a separate, scan-backed entry. Languageseeker (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. You appear to have uploaded a scan for the 1853 edition, but are proposing we delete the 1853 edition? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: May I also ask for a more detailed explanation? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The confusion is that the page says (1853), but the source given is on the talk page "Continental Press, New-York, 1900 ". Then there's A Child's History of England (1900) which is scan backed. Languageseeker (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Thanks for explaining. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter and Wendy (1911)[edit]

Unsourced version with sourced alternative. Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This version is from Gutenberg, and the Gutenberg version is clearly from [https://archive.org/details/peterwendy00barr2 this 1911 edition) which can be used for scan-backing —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
And Index:Peter and Wendy (1911).djvu has already been created, I see. M&S should be pretty straightforward. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Martin Chuzzlewit[edit]

Unsourced with sourced alternative Languageseeker (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I notice that this edition contains a 1907 preface which the sourced alternative lacks, can we get a sourced 1907 edition of this text? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Transcluded OCR errors[edit]

Template is pointless and just leads to bad habits or bad work. If the work is not ready for transclusion then it should be deleted, or it should be fixed there and then. We shouldn't be having unproofread pages transcluded. We end up with garbage in main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Has (potentially rare but) legitimate use cases, for example at Bhagavad-Gita (Besant 4th). There I proofread the English, but merely copied the Sanskrit transcription from Sanskrit Wikisource, so that still needs checking against the scan. The work is suitable for transclusion because the English translation is ready, but the reader should not rely on the Sanskrit.
Additionally, it can be useful having "garbage in the main namespace" if only on a temporary basis. For example, in the above work, EncycloPetey used some un-proofread pages to experiment with the different styles being considered for the transclusion. This was necessary to do early so that I did not have to go back later and fix the formatting on hundreds of pages. BethNaught (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The template plays an important maintenance role and alerts readers to the fact that such errors are present in the work, so it must be used with caution. If you believe that "We shouldn't be having unproofread pages transcluded", then that is a separate discussion. We have hundreds (probably thousands) of such pages, resulting from everything from match-and-split to current works where the transclusion is necessary to check formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
certainly in the thousands, at a conservative estimate, so probably needs a note on being used 'cautiously' in 'legitimate use cases' in the doc. If it occurs extensively in a work it should be brought here, I suppose, but consensus on whether this is okay—transcribing 'not-proofread' content—is mired in exceptions and "encouraging someone-elses to fix it". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude to War[edit]

Horrid, abandoned copy and paste of text and has been labelled with migrate forever. Better off to delete it and let someone find its index via the author page and have a proper go at it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Celebrated Trials[edit]

Incomplete copy and paste with OCR. Been that way for ages and never rescued. Time to cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Nothing to rescue here. Set of scans avaiable: (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Account of a visit to the front[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

OCR copy and paste text in a poor way. Long labelled, should be culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Works of Thomas Carlyle[edit]

The first item on that author's page, yet it only shows links to files at Commons. Many of the works are already here, including scan backed texts and multiple versions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg ping @Ratte: you may wish to be aware of this discussion. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you @Xover:, and apologies for neglecting to do that @Ratte:; I had intended to do that when I saw it created relatively recently. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted to make a project like The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift or The Works of Charles Dickens, to start proofreading Carlyle's 1896 collected works, but now I don't care. You can delete it if you want. Ratte (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • My question is whether or not the text has independent value? Was it printed from the stereotype plates of editions that Carlyle contributed to? Was there some scholarships that attempt to create an authoritative text? If no, delete.Languageseeker (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This text is the Centenary Edition ed. by H. D. Traill. It was generally used for The Carlyle Encyclopedia (see preface). Ratte (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Based on this information, I vote keep. Languageseeker (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Failing to meet those criteria, outlined at 20:48, 20 April, would not have been a satisfactory reason for deletion. Converting the commons files to indexes takes about 7 minutes, apparently, I am not of course proposing that they are deleted. It is a project that I would likely make a substantial investment of time in, having already done that with Carlyle I feel justified in objecting to empty title pages that obscure our actual content and disappoints the reader. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
            Indeed, and those criteria would not have been accorded particular weight by the closing admin, except possibly as adjunct to policy-based arguments had any been put forward. Xover (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Re independent value of collected works, it may be complicated because many of the volumes might be duplicates of existing scans while the Critical and Miscellaneous Essays gather works that were published in a bunch of periodicals which would require a bunch of work to collect and proofread the periodicals or whether they were all published in other collections of essays. In either situation, you are likely to have a large amount of unrelated or duplicate work (e.g. overlapping collections of essays) to produce a fully proofread set. More of the general issues around periodical literature and partial proofreading of collections of independent works... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • «At Wikisource, we allow multiple copies of a work» (c) Billinghurst. Ratte (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I am saying in the context of this is not ready for transclusion into Main until enough volumes have been proofread to avoid having large number of red links / ext scan links in Main. Right now AFAICT not a single page of 30-volumes has been proofread and transcluded into Main. Does it merit listing purely as a list of volumes? Should it be moved to Author instead and then can be moved to main when enough progress has been made? In both cases, I would guess we have some combination of importance (e.g. an important edition) and non-duplicateness / likelihood of being proofread to decide whether it merits listing MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ratte: I'm not at all sure I understood your message above correctly, so my apologies if this is irrelevant… But if you want to collect things based on a common property but which were not originally published in an inherently collected form, you may want to consider using either a portal or a WikiProject. For monumental efforts like the collected writings of any prolific author, both approaches can be good. And I mention it because the mainspace under discussion here would probably fit well as either a portal or a WikiProject, if you were still interested in working on it. Xover (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't understand you either. The nominated page cannot be considered just as «things which were not originally published in an inherently collected form». It is the authoritative edition of Carlyle's works. Ratte (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ratte did not make the collection. This is the The Works of Thomas Carlyle (Centenary Edition) which, as Ratte demonstrated, Carlye scholars still use as the reference edition in many cases. Languageseeker (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that there are now several complete volumes up, however, the one I worked on (German Romance) used a different source (a US printing). I fancied that it was a better scan and text-layer: while this is less of a problem if the transcript from Gutenberg is inserted (not what I did), there are several images which would benefit from the richer data of the US edition. I still think the main title page is unwarranted, the available works are listed in the author space and linked in several ways. There is little that we don't already have, and the rest may be identical to what we do have. It is worth pointing out that a parent page of this type only contains navigation content for the volumes themselves (the actual source), it is only that that I am proposing be deleted. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Gondreville Mystery[edit]

A small part of a paste of a work by Balzac. We would be better to delete and have a scan copy replace it at some point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete We have a (very nearly) complete set of Balzac scans, this is v. 30: Index:The Works of Honoré de Balzac Volume 30.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:A Child's History of England (IA achildshistorye05dickgoog).pdf[edit]

Missing pages and is the wrong volume for the set. Created by mistake. Languageseeker (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this not qualify for speedy deletion? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
According to Xover, it does not. Languageseeker (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Languageseeker: Your speedy-deletion request was denied because your reason, “Not an edition that Dickens was involved in,” is not a justification for speedy deletion. The reason you provide here is a valid reason, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus (Project Gutenberg edition)[edit]

Unsourced with sourced alternativeLanguageseeker (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Gutenberg is a source. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutenberg is a website, not a source itself. It may contain unsourced editions, which should be removed from WS (like Gutenberg's Agnes Grey or Anne of Green Gables). Ratte (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutenberg is a source... of proofread content, it has not been deprecated at Wikisource [and fills an otherwise empty title, redlink, or other edition in minutes rather than hours of actual proofreading by several users here, but this is not the place to discuss Gutenberg]. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a good enough source though in its own right IMO; scans themselves are far better. Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. Also, is this edition not identical to The Works of Thomas Carlyle/Volume 1, besides Gutenberg omitting the front matter? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Fire, Famine, and Slaughter (unsourced)[edit]

Redundant: unsourced with sourced alternative Languageseeker (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Tender buttons: objects, food, rooms[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted: speedied as redundant, converted to redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I just created a scanned version of the original printing at Tender Buttons. I like what was done in 2004, but it lacks any source that might indicate whether this is a corrected version. The date at that page, 1914, is ambiguous, the first rather than editions's print date (which might be free of copyright). So although it's probably fine and great it was here, delete that page now I think, redirecting it to the new version. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have redirected the page. I don’t think deletion is necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I am aware of that option, but elected to bring it here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Reopened. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Leaves of Grass (Gutenberg edition)[edit]

Non-scanbacked copy with scan-backed alternative. Languageseeker (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • keep; it is a gutenberg edition, and it is what it is — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It is what it? What is that supposed to mean? Clear Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as it's not scan-backed, has a scan-backed alternative, and the validity of this Gutenberg source is dubious anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The Gutenberg text, being self-published by Gutenberg editors and not linked to a properly published edition, is not really in scope. Since we have scan-backed editions available there is no reason for us to continue to host it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " keep; it is a gutenberg edition, and it is what it is." I could not have put it any better, it is attributed to a site that produces high quality and complete texts using multiple proofreaders and error checking. One hopes that our versions are going to be better, but we don't have the same level of quality control before publishing to readers. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it worse, rather. While they do have a good proofreading system, they don't produce scan-backed works that you can check yourself against their scans, so there is virtually no way to verify the accuracy of their text like could be done here. Your comment is just an appeal to authority, not a trust in evidence. Also, why keep a "Gutenberg edition" in its own right, when we do have a more verifiable alternative? This site isn't Gutenberg! We do things differently here, we actually do clarify what edition/version we're talking about while they most often do not care enough to do the same. They also don't tend to include multiple versions of a single work (AFAICT) like we would. They often don't include typos in the original texts like we would, and it would be impossible to tell where original typos might be by looking solely at their transcriptions. They also don't have the same formatting standards that we do, as we can see at the actual page referred to here. If you compare this to something like this page, for example, the difference is clear. Looking at the sheer beauty of our scan-backed texts vs. the absolutely abysmal looking Gutenberg copy-pastes, it's obvious to me which one wins in the end. To clarify further, I have also seen typographical errors (ones not true to the text they were transcribing) in Gutenberg texts several times in the past; I think I remember seeing at least two in their version of Bobbie, General Manager. And there are copyright issues with at least one of them that I've found, that we unfortunately still have. Project Gutenberg is not immune from errors, and I have seen their errors before. Why are we suggesting to pretend that this isn't the case? So to have Wikisource trust Gutenberg texts wholeheartedly like is being suggested is dangerous, and I wholly oppose such a notion. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I agree with most of that, if I think it worthwhile I do scans from scratch. I don't think putting a PG text next to scan is a good idea, because the 'corrections' are difficult to detect; the transcript may as well used here and blame attributed to them. Repeating the process to catch minor changes requires the time and focus of users here, which is fine if they think it important, but there is a lot text that distributed proofreading at PG have not produced. I don't think the efforts of that site can be so readily dismisssed, the gain of verification requires more time and focus; it is not a simple cost/benefit sum. Having the text integrated to wikimedia is likely to be a benefit, this site should mirror PG texts that are absent for that reason alone. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
A side question I've been wondering about as I've seen them crop up in recent weeks -- what on earth is a "Gutenberg edition" anyway? I'm reading through What Wikisource includes (a page which, I should note, is badly in need of some general introductory text...which would probably help in a case like this) and I just don't see where the work product of a website that's generally similar to Wikisource (in the sense that volunteers are transcribing pre-published works) would be worthy of their own pages here.
It seems to me that we generally publish transcriptions of published works, and while there might be a little haziness around what "published" means, I can't see how Gutenberg would qualify as its own independent publication, for our purposes. A Gutenberg text is typically an effort at faithfully reproducing an existing published work. So, for instance, if the Gutenberg text is a transcription of the 1882 edition, our page should reflect the 1882 date, or the name of the 1882 publisher, or whatever; the Gutenberg text might be a really useful tool in getting a head-start on proofreading it, but republishing the contents of Gutenberg transcription should never be an end in itself.
Of course, sometimes -- and in this case -- Gutenberg volunteers do not bother to tell us which edition they have transcribed, and that's a little frustrating. (This lead to an incredibly frustrating, but also fascinating, situation with The Oregon Trail, for instance...still have to figure out how to sort that one out.) But, IMO a situation where the original source is unclear is best resolved by doing the research and figuring it out, or just by bypassing the Gutenberg text and starting the proofreading from scratch.
But why we should ever host a text with "Gutenberg" in the page title, indicating that Gutenberg is a publisher similar to those with editorial staffs and the like, is a mystery to me. So, I guess this is a long-winded "delete" (or retitle and do some heavy editing, if somebody is up for that) vote, but one that is also requesting some clarification from anyone who thinks something like this does belong on Wikipedia. What's your vision of how Gutenberg and Wikisource should coexist in the world, if it differs substantially from what I've described? -Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete IMO Gutenberg editions aren't totally useless once added to Wikisource, since they do fill a redlink. However, once we have a scan-backed version I do not see the value in the PG version. Technically, they are a new PD edition, but I really don't think they are a value-add for us to keep around in addition to "real" editions. PG provide access to their own "editions" and also occasionally update them as well as provide ebook downloads. We can't be as faithful to the edition than they are themselves.
WS isn't a live backup service. If PG went under and their work was about to disappear, I could see the argument for mirroring, but they haven't, and probably won't any time soon.
I'm also pretty lukewarm on importing new PG texts, since what happens then is that we end up with a dumped (and old) PG edition forever and no-one bothers to sort out a scan-backed version because it's more fun to fix a redlink that tosh up a bluelink (and since the backlog is, for all practical purposes, infinite, that's reasonable enough). That's a question of "is a dump better than nothing", to which I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. So I wouldn't really be in favour of a retrospective purge of existing PG works, though obviously I would be in favour of a drive to tidy them up a bit. As !voted above, I am in favour of deleting PG versions once supplanted. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: On the note of preservation, Internet Archive does a pretty extensive job at keeping Project Gutenberg archived, it looks to me like anyway. Almost every book I've looked up there with a Gutenberg text has had at least one archive there. Most of their texts are probably copy-pasted on many other sites across the Internet as well. So if Gutenberg went down tomorrow, I still wouldn't think archiving all of their content here would be necessary. (I wouldn't be entirely opposed to keeping Gutenberg texts in a separate namespace for archival however, such as in someone's user subpages, or have the documents uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but as far as keeping them in the mainspace as is, no.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I.e. while there is no denying that Gutenberg is an important website with both significance to Internet history and as a pretty good source of the transcribed texts of public-domain works, I don't think it's necessarily our job to preserve their content under any circumstances I can think of. There are other sites that can do this. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gutenberg is not a verifiable source, because there's no scan. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Ratte (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete There are many differing published editions of Leaves of Grass. I do not mean that there are slight differences, but major ones. To quote from the Wikipedia article to see just how radically different the editions in Whitman's own lifetime were: "the first edition being a small book of twelve poems, and the last, a compilation of over 400". If we do not know which edition Gutenberg used, then it will never be possible to call it anything except a modern electronic edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs)[edit]

I suggest to delete A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs) as an abandoned work. Index can stay, of course. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is butt ugly. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as an unsourced barely sourced and poorly formatted work that, to be blunt, makes this site look bad. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

mass deletion of Pages[edit]

I inquired about some indexes at User_talk:Languageseeker#match_and_split, the response was they did not intend address the problem with the process. Most pages I checked were missing large amounts of content, footnotes, I think, causing the problems. The first index I noticed was Index:Early western travels, 1748-1846 (Vol 1 1904).djvu and see that there are others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are texts that have been proofread by PGDP. A few of the pages have issues, but there are still higher quality than raw OCR. Languageseeker (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wireless Networking in the Developing World[edit]

2013 copydump with minimal attempts at formatting, and the contributor has not been active on any Wikimedia project since 2014. There's an Index set up at Index:Wireless Networking in the Developing World (WNDW) Third Edition.pdf, but no progress has been made since 2015 (this is not a good candidate for Match&Split, btw). The work in question is also available online in multiple formats at its publisher's website, http://wndw.net/book.html, so no great loss to the world if we don't host this exceedingly low-quality copy. Proofreading (if any) can continue in the Index:/Page: namespace until there's something worth transcluding. Xover (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • agree that edition content is in scope though this presentation we should delete the as copy paste version, and present a transcluded work when a`vailable. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As someone who is very interested in the subject matter, worked on some of the pages, and would love to see it carried to completion...there's just not much to suggest it's on its way to completion. Keeping the pages and Index to support efforts in that direction, though, would be worthwhile. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Diplomacy and the War[edit]

The work itself is not out of scope, whereas the form and presentation is out of scope. OCR scan text with page header text still included. Work itself should be split and multiple pages. Easier to just start again. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Note, created index here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Middle Cornish Charter Fragment (Add. Ch. 19491)[edit]

This is not in scope, because it's not in English. It's not clear exactly which languages we cover, since WS:WWI only mentions English, but while Middle and Old English are older forms of English, and Scots is a sister language that blurs into English at the border, Cornish is a Celtic language that's not closely related to English. This should be moved to the Multilingual Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We said years ago in a discussion here (I think, maybe 2010, 2011?) that for English that would be taking all languages of England. That said I really don't mind where it goes if there is a more aligned and sensible space for it. Couldn't find it in the archives. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that Cornish, Welsh (and to some extent Breton) are related "Celtic" languages. Had you considered asking if cy wikisource would be interested, in also hosting Cornish works ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
All languages of England? Really? Including texts in all dialects and all historical varieties of English makes sense to me. But including texts in Cornish just because Cornwall is administratively part of England makes no sense to me at all. The page belongs on the Multilingual Wikisource and nowhere else. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this makes no linguistic sense. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and migrate to Multilingual WS or elsewhere. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Act No. 3815[edit]

Copydump, what formatting there is uses raw HTML, with no source and no license. A superficial look also suggests this is a modern translation (the specified translator shows up in Google as a paralegal) so it may also be a copyvio, but I'm too lazy to do the research on that just now. Xover (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Weirdly it looks to have been originally published in English so I am not sure what that translation is about, see e.g. here https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ (which says public domain). The source is almost certainly from the copyrighted source here: https://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippines.htm#.YLgkKXVKiV4 since it has the chan robles header. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please look at Republic Act No. 8293 Section 176 (which is also here in Wikisource at RA 8293#Sec. 176), the Philippine law stating all Philippine government works (including your proposed Act No. 3815) are and must be not copyrighted and are in the public domain.
Also, all Philippine laws are written in English and not a translation of any kind.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Night and Day (Woolf)[edit]

Unformatted copydump.Languageseeker (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (NB. This is a covered by WS:D#Precedent) Suspended, pending proofreading work at Index:Night and Day (1919).pdf. If it doesn't pan out, then will re-instate. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Monday or Tuesday[edit]

Unformatted copydump. Title should not be retained due to publication history (UK = butchered; US = good). Languageseeker (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've said before, we're not here as literary critics. Every published copy is acceptable, not just those judged good by some source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as an unsourced work. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes about published works are published works, so in scope in that regard. Agree with Languageseeker that it is an ugly paste with a horrid presentation. Sourcing is domain level only. Unless someone feels like fixing the referencing and the formatting to make it presentable, we should cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is not that we shouldn't have the UK version, but that if do create a sourced copy it should not be called "Monday or Tuesday" but either "Monday or Tuesday (Hogarth Press)" or "Monday or Tuesday (Harcourt Brace)". So even if someone decides to reformat this text, they would need to distinguish which is the source of the text. "Monday or Tuesday" is too ambiguous of a title in this case. Languageseeker (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think that we are going to have multiple copies? The agreed process for disambiguation, is to do it when necessary, not to do it because it may happen. We also cannot predict whether there is the same named work by another author. With Wikidata being omnipresent, it is even less necessary to overplan as it autocorrects for the versions. It is also why we reserve the rootpagename as we do, rather than the first in, first served approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In this specific case, the differences between the UK and US printings are notable enough that it might make sense to specify which version it is upfront. The Wikidata for the book doesn't distinguish between the two versions. Tcr25 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Anastasis[edit]

This is an unscanned, unsourced 1947 version of this work without any cleanup or formatting to make it compliant with wikisource style guidelines. Proposal is to replace it with a redirect to the scan-backed 1935 reprint of the 3rd edition of the work here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Almost certainly a 1945 reprint of the same material, an ocr layer with little formatting. The new text doesn't have a smallref tag, but otherwise looks perfect. per nom CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Index:朝鮮巫俗の研究 上券.djvu[edit]

Non-English text, no transcription. Jarnsax (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Theoretically useable as the basis for a translation. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
If there's interrest in a translation, then yeah, keep it. I just figured it was abandoned and not in scope. Jarnsax (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't normally mind things lolling around in Index or Page NS if they're not totally invalid. Examples of that might be a photo or a scan redundant to another, better scan (this is to avoid people wasting time inadvertantly proofreading damaged or duplicate scans, which leads to bad feeling) or some weird home-made excerpt scan where there is a complete work to work from. Because Index and Page are not presented to casual readers, there's no real harm keeping them, especially if the metadata is OK.
But I certainly wouldn't advocate wide-scale proactive creation of Indexes for foreign works, if only because it's a bit of a waste of time if you don't anticipate anyone using it any time soon, because our rate of translation is very, very low.
On the other hand, I do think there is value in creating Index pages for English works, even if you have no intention to work on them, because the upload and Index creation and pagelisting is fairly technical and fiddly and facilitates "drop-in" proofreading later on, thus lowering barriers to entry. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol, funny you should say that... I actually have a whole list of works that have been 'just hanging around', largely taken from the list of index pages, that I intent to just get to the point of 'pages with headers' and proofread frontmatter, to put up as 'transcription projects' with the please edit me template on the front page. Jarnsax (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Index:Grayback (SS208). Port side, 05-06-1941 - NARA - 513040.tif[edit]

and Page:Grayback (SS208). Port side, 05-06-1941 - NARA - 513040.tif No text, just an index page and page that transcludes it, for no apparent reason. Commons scope, not here. Jarnsax (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and if deleted, suggest adding "no text images" to Precedent deletion reasons.
Ditto for Index:Men entering a novel billet with their packs. Near Riencourt, France. British Official., 1918 - NARA - 533105.tif. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as long as it's clear that stuff like Page:"Treat'em Rough^ Join The Tanks. United States Tank Corps.", ca. 1917 - ca. 1919 - NARA - 512447.jpg and Page:"Oh, Boy that's the Girl^ The Salvation Army Lassie. Keep Her On the Job. Nov. 11th- 18th. United War Work Campaign.", c - NARA - 512450.jpg are obviously not what should go away. I'd suggest language like 'images with no text content or text in the form of a small descriptive caption or handwritten annotation that is more appropriately placed in image metadata on Commons.' It's just stuff where having a duplicate here is pointless because there is nothing for ws to add. Jarnsax (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • delete, but I'm struggling to give a rationale, something about a lack of curation for these particular images. No context? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Index:Largest Murder Trial in the History of the United States. Scene during Court Martial of 64 members . . . - NARA - 533485.tif is another one, though at least the handwritten note is longish. Jarnsax (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The Politicization of Gender Relations in Indonesia[edit]

No license, and no obvious indication of a Creative Commons or free license at the given source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and I would be in favor of speedy deletion for this very reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would oppose speedy deletion for this work. I otherwise agree. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Henderson v. United States[edit]

The US Supreme Court decision described does not seem to exist. Lexpaedia (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Both volume numbers given, 23887 and 709, are nonsense. The volumes relating to 1883 decisions are 108 and 109, neither of which mention a “Henderson.” The text is not of a supreme court opinion, however; a distant reference finds this as his petition from Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. It is case no. 709 (as recorded), but I know now where “23887” arises. If this work should be kept, it should be completed and removed to the right type of header template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, good work @TE(æ)A,ea.: all I could find was that #709 was indeed Henderson's case (but not at the Supreme Court). I think this is a case of someone copy-pasting a Wikisource SC page as a template and not realising that that's only one kind of legal case. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Good find! @TE(æ)A,ea.: That looks like the same document but it is just a petition to the Court rather than a Court decision. Does it meet the "notability" criteria? Lexpaedia (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Only as it is related, although I am not one to make that determination unilaterally. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Iron Heel[edit]

Please merge the unformatted The Iron Heel to The iron heel. Note the subpage naming of chapters is roman in the earlier version. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ditto Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism and Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism to Roads to freedom. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

One Hundred Poems by Kabir[edit]

Ugly and copy paste with page headers remaining. Formatting poor, and the 100 poems should actually be one per subpage not a stream on the root page. Work itself is within scope in terms of publication and copyright — billinghurst sDrewth

Possible scans for a migration: 1914 London (HathiTrust), 1915 NY (IA), 1915 London (IA) MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that the New York edition (used here) was entitled Songs of Kabir while the London editions were entitled One Hundred Poems MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Scan of NY 1915 edition: Index:Songs of Kabir - tr. Tagore - 1915 (Macmillan, NY).djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
And there already is the London version Index:One Hundred Poems Kabir (1915).djvu MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Lausanne (1912)[edit]

Incomplete for 14 years (sine 2007), and it barely contains a pagesworth of text (with minimal, but acceptable, formatting). Xover (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The original is only four or five pages; could you create the index, please? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Transitory Provisions of the Constitution of Ireland[edit]

This appears to be an annotated excerpt of Constitution of Ireland (original text). Xover (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The annotations look valuable as an independent text; could it be moved to user-space? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Prasun Barua[edit]

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

All the contibutions of Skybluepaint regarding a 2015 work: Prasun Barua, Author:Prasun Barua, Wikisource:Authors-Prasun Barua, and Green Planet (so far). (I make this list here to avoid repeated speedy deletion nominations. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: This should probably have gone to WS:AN as it's a behavioural issue more than a content issue. In any case… the pages have been deleted (again) and the user blocked until they indicate an intent to actually contribute to the project. Thanks for the headsup! --Xover (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A glossary of words used in the neighbourhood of Sheffield[edit]

An OCR copy and paste or an archive.org work with headers embedded in text. Work is incomplete. Not out of scope, though this text is not rescueable in this form. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronological Table of the Statutes and others[edit]

These seem to be fragments from the front matter of more substantial documents that do not appear to have been substantially extended in some time.


The following seem to be front matter from published collections:-

There are scans of these on Google Books as follows (compiled from:- https://statutes.org.uk/site/collections/british-and-irish/chronological/ )

Google also seems to have 1948 as 2 volumes - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iuIuAAAAIAAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZusuAAAAIAAJ ( there was some scans of portions of this from an independent scan uploaded to Commons.)

I will note the source site lists a complete run of the relevant series from 1936 onward ( the end of the current coverage in the relevant template here on English Wikisource.) to 1970 ( anything later than 1970 would still be under a Crown Copyright, unless it was later released under OGL/OPL) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep These are exceptionally important works and they are needed both here and to support sister projects. I will put additional scans behind them (some of them already have scans on the commons), and I will add the other sections of them. (I should point out that some of the works listed above are actually complete works. Statutes in Force was a collection of leaflets, and the leaflets that have been reproduced are entirely complete works. The fact that the works are short leaflets does not make them incomplete.) I think it might also be helpful to mention w:WP:NODEADLINE. James500 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (transcription project)
  • (transcription project)
  • James500 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Statues in Force: this is what happens when you don't list sources. Do you have source documents to can share with us? Since SiF is apparently over 60 thousand pages long, it doesn't seem like these are in fact complete in any meaningful sense.
  • Everything else: Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (but move to scans). These are not in a fit state for mainspace display. Also note that despite WP:NODEADLINE, if you dumped work in this kind of disrepair at enWP, they'd shunt it to the Draft namespace immediately and rightly expect you to tidy it up before allowing it into their mainspace. The equivalent of that at enWS is the Index and Page namespace (and, to some extent, the Portal/Author NS). In the Page/Index namespaces, there is indeed no deadline and we wouldn't be here if that's where you had been working. And I say this as someone who generally thinks that incomplete but well-formatted collective works are OK in mainspace. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As regards "Statutes in Force", it is not a single work, it is a 'periodical' (strictly a serial) consisting of a large number of leaflets that are separate standalone works that were published and sold separately. The individual leaflets are certainly complete.
    • WP would certainly not shunt anything that capable of surviving an Afd to draftspace (unless they wanted to be desysopped). That basically means anything that satisfies GNG . They have WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD over there. The reality is that they are prepared to allow very short articles provided they are capable of expansion. James500 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @James500: If you don't make this kind of thing abundantly clear, you should not be surprised when people assume it's incomplete like all the rest of your barely-formatted title-page dumps. I suggest you carefully make it clear what each part is and add a note to the top of SiF detailing how the work as a whole is structured. I have previously advised you to add similar descriptions to the notes of top level pages and you ignored me, so I am probably shouting into the void here.
      • They absolutely would move it, and they do: [1]. And they were right to do so in this case because it produced a better result. And it was not by a sysop either. And I would say that that was substantially in better shape when draftified than, say The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1950 is right now.
      • This is all academic anyway because that's enWP and this is enWS. Beyond drawing broad parallels, WP:NODEADLINE doesn't apply per se to enWS. That said we do have the same concept specifically in the Index/Page spaces. Which is where this stuff should go until it is more than an un-formatted title page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • [Actually criteria 2a-ii of the guideline w:WP:Drafts says "very little chance of survival at AfD".] I agree this is academic so I won't say any more about it. James500 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not ignore your advice to add more detailed descriptions descriptions to the notes of top level pages, I just have not had time to carry out that advice. James500 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Taking Index to the Statutes for Index to the Statutes 1235-1990, The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measures of 1953 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1953, and The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure 1960 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1960, none of the works listed are in a remotely complete state, and the lack of system or scans makes them entirely useless. They should be entirely deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These works do not lack scans. This is the index page for a scan of one of these works. James500 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Evening and the Morning Star and The Evening and the Morning Star vol 2[edit]

Both copydumps, page headers inline, no formatting, etc. Note, though, that this is not uncorrected OCR: it's been cut&pasted from an online transcription somewhere. Xover (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Module:Page[edit]

Module untouched and unused since 2014, that only duplicates functionality already present in the standard MW Lua library. The code is decent enough, but it's intended to allow access to Lua library functions from template code, which is never actually needed because in those cases you're already writing in Lua. In other words, it's a kind of meta-programming framework that we have no need for, and which risks creating a maintenance burden if someone runs across it and starts using it. Xover (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Userspace draft and Template:Userspace notes[edit]

Old Wikipedia import, only used on user subpages of users recently but currently inactive (Geo Swan, Ant 222). The templates are an overcomplicated beast designed for Wikipedia's process with ArticleWizard, the "Articles For Creation" review process, and the inability for new users to create articles directly in mainspace. And it doesn't help that they're partially broken due to an incomplete import. On enWS 99% of it serves no purpose, and what remains (the little visible message box saying it's a userspace draft, which is just a wrapper around {{ombox}}) refers to "Wikipedia".

I don't think we have any real need for tagging userspace drafts here, but if there's demand for it we should just make our own simplified version rather than wrestle with something designed for enWP. Xover (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It literally says "This is not a Wikipedia article." No shit, Sherlock, this is not Wikipedia. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I don't like it when Wikipedians come over to other WMF projects and start treating them like WP. We have had this issue at Wiktionary too and had to delete a lot of those types of junk templates there. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Greensleeves (unsourced)[edit]

This is an unsourced text for which we have a scan-backed alternative. The provenance is also highly suspect, as it was copied from enWP and could have been taken from any number of sources (some of which could conceivably have some sort of copyright) and been modified in any number of ways by enWP editors. The value of having multiple editions and versions of this ballad lies in knowing precisely which edition it is, and knowing it faithfully reproduces that edition. Xover (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. While it would be nice to have a more modern version of “Greensleeves” to replace the unsourced version, the scan-backed version currently in place is fine. Transfers from Wikipedia are generally suspect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Interrogation of Wolfram Sievers[edit]

This is a non-scan-backed 11-page excerpt from one volume (Vol. 20) of the full proceedings of the Nuremberg process. The excerpting appears designed to emphasise a particular aspect of the process. Xover (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It is part of the general scheme of Nuremberg excerpts contained here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but should certainly be made part of an overall volume-based hierarchy and, of course, scan-backed.

Introduction (Molesworth to Hobbes, X) and Homer's Iliads in English[edit]

These are both cut&paste dumps from the Online Library of Liberty with raw HTML formatting, page headers inline in the text, etc. etc. It's not even a suitable starting point for Match&Split. As an alternative for those interested in this work I've set up transcription projects for all 11 volumes: (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Xover (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thirty-sixth Amendement of the Constitution of India[edit]

Presumably (though not certainly!) PD, but it's a copydump with zero formatting, not even a header template. No source specified. Xover (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage (2nd Edition)[edit]

This work has been abandoned by the transcriber. Less than 20 subpages—which should also be deleted—from what is a work of many hundreds of pages. No scan. Not out of scope, though it should very clearly be a work that should be done with scans due to its complexity. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ethical Theory of Hegel[edit]

Incomplete work that is about 15-20% complete of text taken from an IA work. User has left and the work is moribund and won't be completed in the existing form. Work is not out of scope and there is obviously a scan at IA that could be used to present the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When you say it won't be completed in the existing form, do you just mean we need to transclude the TOC and title page from the existing index page? Do we have a rough ballpark of how many additional chapters need to be proofread on top of the existing proofread chapters with scans for it to be left as incomplete as opposed to deleted? MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Undelete: Hamlet, Second Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22276)[edit]

This was speedily deleted in May for "copyright violation". Considering this work was originally published in 1604 - more than four hundred years ago - I hereby dispute that this work could possibly under any legitimate copyright - and I think most reasonable persons would agree. Reprinting and republishing a public domain work entitles you to sell the copies you printed and published; it does not entitle the printer to claim any copy rights on it - including facsimiles; it is not their their creative work. Now, if, suppose, the facsimiled pages contain original commentary, or such - could we just exclude only those pages? It seems disgraceful that a four hundred year old work be withheld for copyright violation because a reprinter included a foreward commentary. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: This was deleted because it was a copy-paste dump of the raw text from the Folger website, including their (copyrighted) front matter text. The rest of the text was unformatted and not scan-backed. So it wasn't deleted only for copyright reasons but also quality reasons.
If you wish to work on this copy, you can do so from a scan of the Second Quarto. We do have Index:Hamlet, Second Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22276) but the scans need splitting. If you'd like to work on it, I can sort that out for you. Scan ready at Index:Hamlet, Second Quarto, 1603 (Folger STC 22278).djvu.
If you just wish to read the Second Quarto Hamlet, you can do so at many places, including https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Ham_Q2/index.html. Until such time as it is proofread properly here, that will be a better option.
We also have an ongoing project to proofread the First Folio: Index:First Folio (West 192) if you'd prefer. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)