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.



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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Again, these are different works that contain the same text with different "contexts":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only able to comment on a small portion of this, which I hope might be helpful: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First has no results for Man shu or southern barbarians as title; nor Luce, Gordon as an author name; nor do Cornell University or Southeast Asia Program or Oey or Fan, Cho seem to have a relevant renewal under their names. Southeast Asia Program as a title reveals registration of other of these data papers as copyrighted works, but no renewal of this one. This suggests the copyright was never renewed on the Luce translation (possibly this is not surprising, as these weren't exactly blockbusters...) and it is now public domain, judging by Help:Public domain#ref renewal. If accurate, this should resolve the WS:COPY concern. Good luck with the rest of this matter! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Pratyeka: I'm glad to see you're editing again. I'm not sure why you felt it relevant to mention that you have +sysop on enwp, but since you bring it up… as an admin on enwp you should be well familiar with the need to make policy-based arguments in such discussions and to familiarise oneself with the policy on the project. I have raised several policy-based concerns, and your response addresses none of them. However, to reiterate the challenges:
The text on Translation:Manshu is not a mere translation of a previously published work. It contains substantial portions of your own analysis, comparisons, and commentary: all of which is original rather than previously published content. In enwp terms, think of it as "original research": it's not a perfect analogy, but the problem is similar. This is out of scope for English Wikisource. In addition, you include extensive quotations from the other (professionally published) translation, but that translation is not public domain or compatibly licensed. Fair use content is not permitted on English Wikisource (and even on enWP only in very narrow and limited circumstances), which puts in violation of our licensing policy.
Now, as I wrote above, this is an impressive work and I am sure it is a valuable contribution to the knowledge in that area of study. It just isn't compatible with the policies on Wikisource. In other words, if it is to stay here it will have to be stripped down so that it only contains the translation, without embellishment, of the original text and all non-public domain elements removed. I imagine that's not your first choice as I get the impression it is the analytical parts of the work that interest you the most. So as an alternative, works such as this may be in scope for WikiBooks: their scope explicitly includes original works so long as it falls within their definition of "educational". As another Wikimedia sister project it is possible to import the pages between projects, even preserving revision history. If you need it we can try to facilitate contact with the Wikibooks community to get the ball rolling. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This whole situation is insulting. The work is clearly a Wikisource translation of a work in the public domain, and is thus in scope, your complaints about the annotations aside. This discussion should never have been started, and much less dragged on this long. The problem with the maps is unfortunate, but the rest is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I would love nothing better than to see much much wider participation in discussions here and on WS:CV so that we could properly determine community consensus and within a reasonable time. That's why I so very much appreciate your efforts to participate in both venues! However, meanwhile we have to operate within the reality that exists. I am sorry if you found this insulting, but there really is no other way to address such issues. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m sorry, that was a bit much. My apologies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Yivan000: Thank you for working to improve this text; however, please familiarise yourself with our style guide. enWS does not use the automatically generated table of content that MediaWiki provides, does not use the heading syntax of MW wikimarkup (we use direct visual formatting instead), and we use formatting templates rather than raw HTML. Paragraph breaks should be done by simply inserting two newlines, and italics should be done with wikimarkup, not HTML. In short, while massively improved from the cut&pasted text that was there before, this is still a mess. Xover (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April the 8th came certain intelligence to London from Brumingham[edit]

@PBS: is this a complete work? Almost seems to be an extract from an extract, but I cannot tell. If we can situate it as part of a work, can we please do so, otherwise it seems it is extract per WS:WWI and if so, not part of our collection. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source indicates this is a complete part of the History of Birmingham, but, as it itself is an extract, it should be deleted in favor of the full work; though I cannot find a scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not that it matters all that much to this discussion but I've uploaded a scan of The History of Birmingham and scan-backed this text. Looking at the immediate source this fragment is actually a "chapter", of sorts, in that it has its own entry in the table of contents (titled "Extract"). It is still an extract from The History of Birmingham (1835), which gives an extract of John Vicars's God in the Mount (1641).
Regarding the latter I have been unable to locate any scan of it anywhere. EEBO has the text, but the scans are, as usual, locked up by ProQuest. Multiple institutions have holdings of it—including the British Library, Corpus Christi, the National Library of Scotland, Trinity College, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Folger, the Huntington, and the Beinecke—but none have made scans available. If anyone really cares, several of these institutions may be amenable to scanning it for us.
In any case, as it stands it is an extract of an extract, and presented completely divorced from its original published context, so it'll have to go (from mainspace).
However, as PBS hasn't edited since May I think we should leave this open for a while yet in the hopes of hearing from them. They may be interested in proofreading the rest of The History of Birmingham and there's no particular hurry. Xover (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xover: I have (dubious) ProQuest access, and have accessed God in the Mount. The scans bear a (presumably British) copyright notice, does that matter? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: In copyright terms, no. ProQuest is just asserting a "sweat of the brow" copyright for the scanning job, but Wikimedia projects do not honour such claims. The original work is PD and that's what matters. But the terms of use of ProQuest's services (a matter of contract law) prohibit downloading and scraping, so we can't host it for that reason (and you'd risk getting sued over it). Xover (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xover: My claim of dubious access was a little too vague, I guess. What I mean is this: I have access to the content of ProQuest, but I have never myself accessed ProQuest, and do not have access to the “front-end” ProQuest database. Using a personal ILL account, I can request books (some of which are on ProQuest), but nowhere in the agreement to use that ILL account is there a restriction on usage like the ProQuest EULA—which means there is no contract for me (or Wikimedia) to get sued over. The only restriction on usage at all is the generic copyright notice for ILL systems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been AFK. I see now that the whole book is in place (thank you user:Xover) so presumably the header about delete can now be removed from the page. However the reason for placing it here on Wikisource in the first place and it is a stand alone extract from a book. If only whole books can exist in this archive and not extracts from a book, then that presents a real problem, as one of the reasons this source site was created was to take extracts that ought not to be placed onto Wikipedia. To take one example "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" does the whole book have to exist on Wikisurce before that extract (about a specific topic, or passage) can be placed on Wikisource? Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Excerpts is to say the least not clear on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Thanks for commenting!
Yes, our written policies are rather less developed than one expects coming from enWP, and rely instead on practice developed over the years. It's really not an approach that's friendly to people for whom enWS is not their primary project, but I've complained about it so much people have started to just nod, smile, and back away slowly when I bring it up. Oh well…
Our basic unit here is the previously published work, in a specific edition. God in the Mount (1641) is a work. The History of Birmingham (1835) is a work. The latter includes an excerpt of the former, and April the 8th … is an excerpt from that. In other words, an excerpt of an excerpt. In a citation (i.e. on enWP) citing some fragment of info through intermediary sources is fine and often even preferable for reliability, but the goal on enWS is preserving and making available the works themselves as published. That we have added a scan to back the excerpt does not make it any less of an excerpt; only made possible the production of the whole work. But do I take it then that you have no interest in proofreading the entire work? At a little over 500 pages it isn't insurmountable, and it's not inconceivable that others would be interested in helping out. Xover (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xover: if I had unlimited time the I would be only too happy to proofread the book. However I tend to proof read text that is useful for my primary work about topics on Wikipeadia. My concern here is that the extract was a quote of a primary source, if primary sources can only be accessed if the whole of the text in which it is quoted then this is a diminution of the use of both Wikipedia and Wikisource to provide information to readers of articles on Wikipedia. Take for example the quote from Richard I. The original will be in French, and will exist in some archive. There are several translation in reliable secondary sources. The reason for placing an extract from one of those secondary sources is it allows a Wikipedia article on Richard to include the statement "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" with a link to the text on Wikisource. The rest of the book may or may not be worth including here. But the translation of the primary source certainly is.
Another example which is on my to do list is a further transcribing of "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna" That in itself is a large undertaking and usually Wikipedia articles are only interested in specific articles within the treaties that make up the Final Act. However while I see the use of copying all of the treaties that make up the Final Act, I see no reason in the medium term to copy over and proofread the whole of the sources I am using for that text: The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, volume 2, 1 Feb to 6 march 1816. Even more so as the text is formatted in a way that make reading it difficult (so I am using a couple of other sources to help with formatting and some minor translation alterations). As I wrote in the introduction to Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/Act I "This translation was laid before the British Parliament on 2 February 1816, with some additional formatting from the French original." The reason for this is that the French formatting is close to modern English that that used in the Parliamentary translation.
So I think that you need to consider when suggesting that the whole text of a secondary source is included, whether that is the most useful use of editors time or even if it is desirable when what is most useful for modern use by as :Wikipedia:Article titles puts it "The ... description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Ie someone interested in (but probably not an expert in) the Napoleonic wars, or the post war concord, may well be interested in the details of the treaties without being in the leaset interested in the Prince Regents speech to the British Parliament at the start of the 1816 session.
It may be in the future that someone somewhere will want a copy of that speech, but until it is requested (eg via a link from an article on Wikipedia), I think that editors can use their limited time here to support the project in ways that are more help to the someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area.
-- PBS (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: You need to think of it in terms of things like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYN: if we allowed arbitrary extracts we would allow selective quotation of whatever subsets of a work supported someone's point of view (maybe WP:UNDUE is an apposite reference?). Our equivalent to WP:RS is to make sure works are previously published, and not self-published. For WP:V we use proofreading from a scan of the original, rather than just cut&pasting some text from the web somewhere. For example, if you are adding text that is an amalgamation of multiple sources (the text you mentioned as hard to read), or are adding text from one edition but formatting it according to a completely different edition, you are essentially just creating a completely new edition. In analogy, you are violating WP:NOR/WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:RS.
We do not require anyone to actually proofread entire publications (they can literally be a lifetime's work in length), but whenever you are looking at something more granular than "book" it ends up being an assessment of whether the text qualifies as a stand-alone work (think "stand-alone article" or "… list" in enWP terms: WP:GNG-like assessments apply) or whether it is a mere excerpt from a larger work. A poem of a few lines can certainly qualify as a stand-alone work, but even a full chapter excerpted from a novel would not. Your Richard I example might pass that bar, as it looks like a complete letter or speech (I didn't check its published context; it needs scan-backing and situating within the context of the work within it was published in any case), but the text currently under discussion doesn't because not only is it an excerpt from The History of Birmingham but it is also in turn an excerpt of God in the Mount. Xover (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biþ On Wæterælfadle[edit]

Unsourced Old English poem. I can't find a scan of the original source, or any source that was definitely published before 1926.

I'm sure the poem probably is real, but if it's unsourced there's no way to prove it wasn't just invented as a hoax. Modern books mention the poem, but that's not quite good enough.

Someone more knowledgable in Old English literature than me might be able to find a source and/or prove what we have transcribed here is legitimate. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the w:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms. It's certainly a "thing":
The w:Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records contains this in volume 6 (1942), but that was renewed: (Renewal: R491174).
That said, this is from the 10th century: even if ASPR 6 is the only printed source ever, this is pretty clearly PD unless this edition has copyrightable modifications. At worst we could use the manuscript above. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rho9998: this seems like it might be in your wheelhouse: do you know of a good modern-ish source for this that's in the PD? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: There is Cockayne's 1864 edition of the "Leechbook" in which the poem is found; I don't think there are any editions in the public domain after that. The poem can be found on page 350 of the Internet Archive upload: https://archive.org/details/leechdomswortcun02cock/page/350/mode/2up
@Rho9998: Amazing, thank you!
The index is already up (along with vols 1 and 3): Index:Leechdoms wortcunning and starcraft of early England volume 2.djvu due to the industry of @User:Beleg Tâl! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: The transcription from ASPR does not appear to match that of the Leechbook, suggesting the mere transcription may have copyrightable elements (akin to a translation). In either case, the fragment at Biþ On Wæterælfadle is not scan-backed to either ASPR or the Leechbook. Xover (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The complete works of Count Tolstoy[edit]

Some page scans of (mostly) Wiener's "The complete works of Count Tolstoy" exist as 2 versions:

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_01.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc01tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_03.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc03tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_04.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc04tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_12.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc12tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_13.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc13tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_17.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc17tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_21.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc21tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_22.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc22tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_24.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc24tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_26.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc26tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_28.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc28tols).pdf


To avoid that people start editing them twice, one of these sets should be deleted. Because the indices with the *.djvu seem to have been used already in the https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy , the preferential deletion should target the PDF versions, not the DJVU. [On the other hand, the PDF volumes seem to be complete but some DJVU volumes missing, so a homogeneous name space would rather keep the PDF...] R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's frustrating, given that I speedy deleted several of the pdfs as duplicates back a few months and someone has blithely recreated them. Yes, once any proofread pages have been appropriately dealt with, delete all the pdf versions and also delete the template that lists the volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a message of some "InductiveBot" of 2021-05-17 in Page:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksof02tols).pdf/107 which says that some DJVU pages have been moved to the PDF pages. Will something like this happen again, if the PDF scans are deleted? (I'll start to copy all contents of the PDF pages to the DJVU...). - R. J. Mathar (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@R. J. Mathar: InductiveBot is a bot operated by Inductiveload If it moved these pages it was probably in response to a request someone made. I would suggest you hold off moving any pages until we figure out the background and decide definitively what indexes we are going to use. It is also probably best to let an admin do it to avoid a lot of cleanup afterwards. Xover (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(E/C) This was talked about before, but no much seems to have happened: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05#Tolstoy_(Wiener)....
@R. J. Mathar: please do not copy the content, that's a complete waste of everyone's time and removes history. I'll move any pages if needed. Manually moving pages between indexes is rarely the right thing to do, because if you do that, whoever does the move properly will need to delete the copied pages first.
Volume 2 was missing pages in the DJVU, so it was migrated to the PDF (see the deletion log at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu). If we want to go for a full set of DJVUs, that needs fixing. Or do we want a mixed set?
If a batch upload of the missing DJVU volumes is desired, I can do that if provided with a spreadsheet of metadata as explained here User:Inductiveload/Requests/Batch uploads. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind to do some Tolstoy a while back and found this mire, when I noticed an admin assisting the disruption I stopped trying to sort it out. It is very easy to waste a lot of thoughtful contributors time with a few clicks. Can someone please ping the relevant accounts? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the templates, Template:The complete works of Count Tolstoy volumes, and the history of the other. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Languageseeker: do you have any comment on what you were attempting to achieve? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, I started importing this set for the inaugural MC because someone recommended Anna Karenina. I didn’t realize that someone had already started this one as a DJVU set because it wasn’t listed on the Tolstoy page. Then, while looking through some of the Tolstoy works, I stumbled across the partial set of DJVUs. So, I requested that the text be merged over to the PDF because some of the DJVUs had missing pages or were worser quality. Beeswaxcandle then deleted the PDFs leaving to partial sets. Soon afterwards, I had to take a wiki break. It seems that in the meantime, someone began improving the DJVU set and restored the PDFs. Now, it seems like we have three choices. First, move the pages over from the DJVu to the PDF and delete the DJVU set. Two, import all the PDFs, move the page list over, merge the PDF pages to the DJVu, delete all the PDFs. Three, create a mixed set of PDFs and DJVUs by moving the pages over from the PDFs to the DJVUs and then deleting the PDFs. Two seems like the most work, three will produce a more confusing template, and one will require a bot to move stuff. Languageseeker (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing pages 311 and 312 (that is 337 and 338 if counted from 1) to the Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_02.djvu version on the wikimedia commons, copying the pages from the PDF scans. So at least that djvu-volume does no longer have missing pages. It would be useful to know exactly which other dvju volumes miss which pages. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept, no consensus--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An amalgamation of something like 7 different sources of data, all of them selectively included, and compiled into an original work on-wiki. The result is interesting and valuable, but it is out of scope for Wikisource. Xover (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is one work, though compiled from several sources. I do not believe it is original to Wikisource, but to the United Nations; although I have not verified this presumption. The compilation (being chronological) is not creative, and thus does not have copyright. The coloring is useful, and quite interesting. I do not think it to be quite without scope, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the mainspace in Category:Project disclaimers[edit]

I feel like this might be a hot take since these have been around a long time, but I don't think the mainspace is the appropriate place to have these disclaimers.

In December 2015, User:Library Guy moved the page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer (now a mainspace redirect, which I also disagree with) to Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer with the comment "shouldn't be in main namespace". They are not works at all, nor are they actual sections of the original encyclopedias themselves, so I don't believe they belong in the mainspace.

At the very least, the mainspace project disclaimers should be moved to appropriate sections of the project namespace, without redirects being left behind. However, I think these overly specific disclaimers are probably products of another time, when Wikisource was younger and it was being used more so than to-day as an aid and supplement to Wikipedia's efforts. We also have Wikisource:General disclaimer which (at least in a broader way) covers most of the things said in these pages. I would be fine with just to delete them.

However, I'll leave the interpretation to consensus below. Should the entries be moved to other namespaces, or deleted entirely? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also pinging @Bob Burkhardt: in case the Library Guy account won't be used a while. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Thanks for pinging the other account. Maybe something like {{AuxTOC}} can be used to wrap the disclosures. I imagine the information is available elsewhere, but I think it is good idea to make the disclaimer information more immediately available for the encyclopedia projects. I've never checked the alternative disclaimers cited. They seem too obscure to me. The contents listings for the encyclopedias are also not part of the source. Something should probably be done there. Maybe just {{AuxTOC}} could work somehow. The disclaimers could be moved back to the main namespace with a wrapper of some sort since it seems tough to wrap a redirect. Seems fair to keep around the redirect though since the destination makes things clear. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob Burkhardt: You don't think moving them to another namespace is a good idea, at least, as you've done at EB1911? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think putting the disclaimer in the project namespace is an effective solution, but you were talking about deleting the redirect, and the wrapper solution, which I have become aware of more lately, would avoid the redirect. I like the current solution better than the wrapper for the disclaimer. The wrapper solution ({{AuxTOC}}) would work better for the tables of contents. It is widely used. I will also mention the ACAB disclaimer has some things that I think are really very necessary for that work. Probably the encyclopedia disclaimers should at least refer to the General discliamer. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These project disclaimers were added a long time ago, and are a part of the project’s set-up. While, strictly speaking, they are not neccessary, I think that, at this point, it would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them. Certainly, they should not be made now; but I do not think they should be deleted. Any move (across namespaces) would necessitate a cross-namespace redirect, owing to the age of the original name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "It would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them." – For what reason do you say that? Age alone isn't a reason to keep—there are lots of old relics that we've deleted at WS:PD. Assuming that we delink all references to it in the mainspace (which is what I'm advocating for by the way), what harm would this do to the project itself, reading- or editing-wise? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PseudoSkull: The “old relics” which have been deleted were entire works—although they were usually not quite so entire; this is not the case here. I oppose removing the references, as the continuity of use of them (my meaning in age here, my apologies for the confusion) would be so disrupted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "The old relics were entire works; this is not the case here." Right, they aren't works at all, nor parts of works, in any sense. The mainspace is for works, not entire user-generated pages dedicated to explaining some bits of information about how a work ought to be used, especially when all of those notices are already fundamentally covered by WS:General disclaimer. Furthermore, the initial question I had has still not been answered. That is, why, specifically, would the removal of these disclaimers in the mainspace be so destructive to the encyclopedia projects? You even admit that "strictly speaking, they are not necessary", so if something isn't necessary, why would deleting it be so detrimental? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • PseudoSkull: They are not as a rule necessary, but these in particular have been made necessary as an exception because of their long use. No, the notices are not covered by the general disclaimer; that is why they are project-specific, and deleting them would entail recourse to the general (and thus not specifically useful) disclaimer, while losing the information of specific relevance to the articles at hand. They generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules regarding “verifiability,” “notability,” and such, I believe; such being the reason for their initial creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Wikipedians copying and referencing material that happens to be in the public domain is nothing new as you say. The entire sum of human media before 1923, and now before 1926, is a pretty wide scope of works after all, which, theoretically, we should have transcribed in its totality at Wikisource. I've seen entire plot summary sections of Wikipedia articles having been copied verbatim from public domain film magazines, for example (as of now, film magazine coverage at Wikisource is incredibly slim, however theoretically we should have them all). There are a ton of nonfiction works, encyclopedias included but also dictionaries, atlases, certain magazines, textbooks, newspapers, masters' theses, and the list goes on. Any number of these things are copied and/or used at Wikipedia all the time. Should we make mainspace disclaimers specific to these, too? How about I put a page like that in The Masses (periodical), to make sure that Wikipedians who might use it know that The Masses purposefully has a socialist slant, and that articles shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia because it's not NPOV? The encyclopedia disclaimers set a bad precedent that way, and I'm a bit worried something like that might be tried one day because of it.

And anyway, if "they generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules", that seems like a bad thing to me. Why is that our responsibility? What is done with the information in the encyclopedias at Wikipedia should by no means be our specific responsibility. We're a very different project from them, and Wikipedians can go to pages like Wikisource:For Wikipedians to get an idea of that.

Furthermore, I disagree that these disclaimer pages are useful even. Let's look at Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Project Disclaimer as an example. It says:

Inaccuracies: The articles of the 1921 edition of Collier's New Encyclopedia were based upon the information available to the editors and contributors at the time of their original publication in the early 20th century. Changing circumstances and more recent research may have rendered this information obsolete or revealed it to be inaccurate, especially in the areas of science, law, and ethnography. Readers should bear this in mind when using the information.

There is an entire section dedicated to this very thing covered by WS:GD, which says for example (while not with the exact wording):

[...] we cannot guarantee (in any way whatsoever) the validity of the documents found here. In particular, medical or legal texts on Wikisource may be incorrect or out of date. We suggest contacting a qualified professional for such information.

The next section:

Transcription errors: These articles are transcribed from the originals by volunteers, sometimes directly and sometimes by correcting a preliminary OCR conversion. While we strive for perfect accuracy, there may be transcription errors in the articles.

What WS:GD says about the same thing (although the wording isn't very specific so it's easy to misconstrue):

[...] material found here may not be reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to ensure the accuracy of the texts.

So we can take out those bits because they aren't necessary for an entire separate page. What we're left with is the very first paragraph, which states:

Title usage: Use of the titles Collier's New Encyclopedia or Collier's Encyclopedia is strictly to acknowledge titles used to refer to the edition of 1921 which has gone into the public domain in the United States due to the expiration of its copyright there. Any reference to this material should explicitly note the original date of publication.

Trademark law is not mentioned in the general disclaimer. However, at this point all we have is a paragraph, which is enough for just being in the notes section on the header of the encyclopedia work.

However, even this trademark law bit could be mentioned in the general disclaimer, but isn't for some reason. Really, any number of works hosted at Wikisource are probably still protected by trademark in some jurisdictions, and we really shouldn't leave a disclaimer about it on every work that applies to. We should probably mention, in the general disclaimer, that the use of the titles of some works, or the identities of the characters in them, may violate trademark laws in some jurisdictions which is unrelated to copyright.

I'd like to end the post by saying that I think much the material in these project disclaimers could be either included or made more specific in the WS:General disclaimer. I don't like how vague the general disclaimer currently is on many issues, so it certainly could be improved. However, the issues with the general disclaimer does not necessitate the existence of a specific project disclaimer page, in the mainspace of all places, for every single encyclopedia we have that I know of. I think the improvement of our general disclaimer should be discussed by the way (probably separately to this discussion). PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • PseudoSkull: Many encyclopedias (e.g., EB, EA) are still covered by trademark law, but most (if not effectively all) books are not. My response to your (rhetorical?) question about The Masses is the following: No, it should not have a disclaimer, because no new disclaimers should be made. The maintenance (read: non-deletion) of these project disclaimers harks back to when Wikipedia copied at large from the old encyclopedias, and they noted them back to Wikisource. The disclaimers were added to the projects at the time to facilitate this, and thus, to maintain this ad-hoc “backwards compatibility,” they should be kept. I disagree with your interpretation above: the Collier’s disclaimer is more specific than the general disclaimer, and thus is useful. (This is the case with other project disclaimers, as well.) I also believe that the general disclaimer is perfectly functional in its current state: being a general disclaimer, it doesn’t need excruciating detail. I agree regarding the general disclaimer discussion; for another time, perhaps. (As for the old film magazines, they are quite interesting, but with so many images, it is a daunting prospect.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have apparently been incidents regarding the use of the Sherlock Holmes character in newer works, as policed by the Doyle estate. However I'll digress on everything else, for the sake of further community input on this issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but Sherlock Holmes is not title, but character; for titles, there are but few trademarks, though for characters, there are many more. (I am reminded of “Herlock Sholmes,” though from whence I know not.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the issues around Sherlock Holmes are around copyright because some works are in and some works are not, with the claim that derivative works are derivative of those works still in copyright, the trademark in terms of print [was abandonded]. Tarzan on the other hand has had court cases around the character and is a live trademark. Winnie-the-Pooh and Steamboat Willie will be other interesting cases of this. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkLSteadman: It'd be a shame if Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright proper in the UK. In the US, the original being public domain would allow for derivative works of that original interpretation to therefore be allowed, not counting in the possible exception of a trademark still being in effect. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PseudoSkull: The claim of the Doyle Estate was that while Sherlock Holmes as a character is in the PD as represented in the PD works, Sherlock Holmes as a character is not in the PD as represented in the still copyrighted works. Specifically, they talk about Holmes showing emotion, respect for women etc. as a development in the later works and still copyrighted. This particular issue will go mostly away, thankfully, come January when the next batch of stories enter the PD, but the main legal question is what counts as "original interpretation" of the character and what is still copyrighted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support moving these to WS namespace. Neutral regarding actually deleting them (at least within the scope of the current discussion) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Life and Loves (OCR)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted both pages--Jusjih (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced OCR dump which is redundant now that the work is scan-backed elsewhere: see My Life and Loves. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note to deleting admin, My Life and Loves (OCR)/Preface is a subpage. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject NLS duplicate files[edit]

I've noticed there are a number of files in Category:WikiProject NLS which have had no pages created and which are redundant to another scan. One example is Index:Magic pill, or, Davie and Bess (2).pdf, which is a duplicate of Index:Magic pill, or, Davie and Bess (1).pdf. These seem like candidates for deletion to me, and I'm happy to make a full list if it's helpful, but it seemed more efficient to first find out whether the pages should in fact be deleted.

@Annalang13: you're the one who's identified the duplicate files. Do you have input? Has this been discussed before?

CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 01:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm proposing deleting the index pages, not the files, which would need to be brought up at Commons anyway. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gweduni, @Mandarasa, @LilacRoses, @Tamheaney, @Chime Hours, @AndrewOfWyntoun: Sorry if this is spam but I wanted to be sure you saw this. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CalendulaAsteraceae: Hi, sorry for not replying sooner - yes, as far as I am aware, the index pages for the duplicate items can be deleted. LilacRoses (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LilacRoses: Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 15:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of index pages[edit]

Extended content

CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts of works by Viktor Pinchuk[edit]

The following works by Viktor Pinchuk, uploaded and translated by Виктор Пинчук, are excerpts or fragments of larger works, with the rest of the work omitted; and thus are out of scope for hosting on Wikisource:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The three miniatures translated by me are fully completed little novellas that have only an indirect relation to the content of the book that includes them. This is the case when one work, more extensive, contains another — smaller in volume: this happens in literature. The book written in genre of "travel literature", telling about real events. The miniatures (exhibited for delete) are created in the artistic genre. They are small fantasy scenes played in the mind of the main character of the documentary work. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Виктор Пинчук: If Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are NOT excerpts from Six months by islands..., but instead are themselves complete works, that were published within Six months by islands..., then I believe we can host them. As for Translation:Flight of fantasy, you identified it as a "fragment of an article"; so it does not appear to be a full article. If it is only a portion of an article, I do not think we can host it here. We can *omit* portions of an article, if necessary due to copyright, but in this case most of the article appears to be missing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beleg Tâl: Any of my newspaper articles is part of a series of articles devoted to some topic, and any of my books is part of a description of adventures from my life. So you can get to the point of absurdity, figuring out where a "part of the work" is and where "the whole work" is.
  • If, for example, an extensive newspaper article on a political topic describes a meeting of the president of a certain country with a representative of a neighboring state, at which one of those present told an anecdote unrelated to politics, then the anecdote taken out of context can be considered a separate work, and not part of an article on a political topic.
  • My Newspaper article (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Наяву_на_Яву_прибыл.jpg) written in the genre of "journalism", but the fragment (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Flight_of_fantasy) — that is part of it is written with the help of grotesque.Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If an extensive newspaper article about politics contained an anecdote, I still don't think we would be willing to host the anecdote without the surrounding article. I'd be interested in seeing the opinions of other editors on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk in Cyrillic.
I would be gently inclined to keep this as it technically does meet WS:WWI (published, free license, original source text exists). Publication in a local paper is indeed a low bar, but we set the bar at "publication of any sort except self-publication". However, I would like to see the following issues addressed before I commit to a "keep":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: There are several works by Pinchuk which I am not proposing for deletion, because they are published in a local paper and as such meet our publication requirements. The three which I am bringing to the attention of WS:PD are specifically because they are exerpts and not full works, as per WS:WWI#Excerpts. "Provincial story" and "Final swim" are not works, they are extracts from the 1916 book Six months by islands.... If the book Six months by islands... were added to Wikisource in full, I would have no further objection to keeping these portions within it. Similarly, "Flight of fancy" is a fragment of an article published in Respublica Krim; if the article in its entirety were to be hosted, I would have no further objection.
To your other comments: I have already scan-backed all of the other works we have by Pinchuk, and removed images or added {{image missing}} as needed. I'm neutral on the idea of having the entire structure of Respublica Krim in Translation space just for these articles (though of course I would demand it in mainspace). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, then I am guilty of not paying full attention and thought these were just small self-contained works. Indeed, all of these are fragments of works-as-published and thus are indeed out of scope. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: Pinchuk has convinced me that Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are complete works per se, despite being published within a larger work. I am still not convinced about Translation:Flight of fantasy, which apparently is comparable to a tangential anecdote being exerpted from a longer article detailing the full conversation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Виктор Пинчук: thank you for the redaction of the image.
  • R.e. Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk, that is just a clarification to make it clear that you are the author in question in case it's not obvious to others. There's no problem with it.
  • R.e. the illustrations: Wikisource is a repository of texts as published. English Wikisource doesn't accept self-published works. Thus, while the version of the works that appeared in Respublica Krim are in scope, self-published editions are not. Also, under WS:ANN, Purely decorative illustrations and images. (Known as grangerisation or extra-illustration) are specifically excluded from permissible annotations.
  • Note that Wikisource is not a publishing platform for users work, it's a platform for published works, which in this case, just happens to be by a user: yourself. If it had not been published in a paper, it would be out of scope. If you would like to host your own work somewhere online and it's not in some published format, I do not think the WMF ecosystem contains such a platform. Usually content like that is published via personal website, blogs, or sites like Medium or those mentioned at meta:Wikifiction. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t have texts that have not been published in newspapers, magazines, or books, but there are illustrations that, for technical reasons, did not fit into officially publications. These illustrations are not Grangerization and they are not extra-illustration: they correspond to the theme of the material. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rose in Bloom[edit]

This text only has the preface and 1/22 chapters. It has been sitting here for 2009. No known source. Languageseeker (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a scan noted at the relevant Author: page; the text should be put through match-and-split and left alone. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, proofread in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beleg Tâl: You say that, but I see no progress since the M&S on 15 October. Xover (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xover: you are correct that there has been no progress within the last two months, but it is still a proofread in progress. I have many proofread projects on the go that I haven't gotten around to in much longer than that! (Also, for reference, per WS:WWI, "When an entire work is available as a djvu file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts.") —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that not refer to incomplete works in the page NS not being considered excerpts and thereby not being subject to deletion on those grounds? Otherwise, if you can defend any incomplete mainspace page on that basis, it creates an enormous loophole for all excerpts and OCR dumps. As long as an index exists, you could transclude a single sentence and say it's OK because it's "in progress", even if no other pages ever go yellow? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beleg Tâl: I am fully aware of what WWI says, and why it says what it says. I am suggesting that since no progress has been made in over two months, and that progress was just running M&S on it, it seems likely that significant progress, much less actually completing the work, lies quite far into the future. Does this really need to sit in mainspace in its current state until then? Especially since you have the tools so that you can undelete the pages yourself (without needing to go through an undeletion request) if and when you find the time to do the proofreading. Xover (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Inductiveload, @Xover: It used to be that a partial work on WS:PD would be speedy kept if a scan was added. It looks to me that the community opinion is changing, or has changed. That's fine by me. However, I do prefer to attempt to bring a work to some sort of minimal hostable quality if possible rather than deleting it, and fortunately this is not difficult for Rose in Bloom, so I am M&Sing the rest of the work so that it will at least be complete and hopefully good enough that it won't need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retraced per Beleg Tâl Languageseeker (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, but only as there's proofreading underway. Otherwise, match and split what there is to page NS and delete the mainspace stub pending a useful quantity of text. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages from Index:Fragment of a novel written by Jane Austen.pdf[edit]

I'm requesting the deletion of the unproofread OCR from Page:Fragment of a novel written by Jane Austen.pdf/191 to Page:Fragment of a novel written by Jane Austen.pdf/224 to make way for a match-and-split. Pinging @CalendulaAsteraceae: as the creator of the pages. Languageseeker (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Languageseeker: Yes check.svg Done Xover (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover Oh no, I already overwrote the pages with the correct match-and-split. Is there anyway to undo the delete? BTW, Happy New Years! Languageseeker (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... --Xover (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But note that it is going to take a while due to what appear to be bugs somewhere down in the tooling. Xover (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Languageseeker: Yes check.svg Done Please verify that the results are as expected. Xover (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover Looks good. Thank you! Languageseeker (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poems of John Donne (1896)[edit]

Only the Preface exists. Languageseeker (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete from main (but in scope if someone wants to proofread it fully). If you want to migrate it to page and add a transcription project link, the scans are available (IA). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete scans are now on hand: Index:The Poems of John Donne - 1896 - Volume 1.djvu and Index:The Poems of John Donne - 1896 - Volume 2.djvu Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment note that there are other pages on wikisource that are part of this work, e.g. Elegy I (1896) Poems of John Donne (1896)/Elegy I. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Beleg Tâl identified multiple texts from this work already present (about 8 of the elegies as I recall), I migrated these to the Indexes/scans provided by Inductiveload and set up a framework around them so that they are as straightforward for others to proofread as can generally be expected from poetry collections (thank heavens, and Inductiveload, for {{ppoem}}!). I also rejigged the pages (about fifteen times, because I'm a dunce), page structure, etc. so the work is now to be found at: Poems of John Donne (and that's why Beleg Tâl's links above appear as redlinks; they were blue when they were posted).
    @Languageseeker, @MarkLSteadman, @Inductiveload, @Beleg Tâl: Please have a look and assess whether this affects your !vote here at all. Note that I have no objection if you still feel this is best deleted until fully proofread: it's now in a state sufficient for me to be comfortable hosting it in mainspace (also taking into account the number of extant texts from the work), but I'm just as easily persuaded it can sit in Index:/Page:-namespace until someone gets around to completing it.
    @Chrisguise: I believe this work may conceivably be within your area of interest. --Xover (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I've not done anything on this work, I don't see why it should be deleted, since there isn't a single scan-backed poem of Donne's on his author page. Chrisguise (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Symbol keep vote.svg Keep from me now that it is scan-backed (it would be nice to complete at least the elegies though, along with some of the notes if some lurker is interested ...) MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per MarkLSteadman Languageseeker (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Incident at Stiffner’s[edit]

This version in incomplete. First published (at the latest) 1900 in collection; but that version is much longer, and it seems a great deal is left out. This text does not seem to have any paragraph breaks, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have cleaned up and scan-backed the work in question; there should no longer be any cause for deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Having gotten finally fed up with the accumulation of crap I am now leaning hard in the counterweight direction: unless the pages are actually Proofread I vote that the mainspace artefacts be deleted. As noted elsewhere, we currently have 206 966 mainspace pages that are not scan-backed. Since 2019 we also increased our number of Page-namespace pages that are "Not Proofread" from about 500k to over one million (for comparison we have 1 434 979 that are "Proofread" and 524 976 that are "Validated"). In fact, over a week or two in March or April this year we increased this backlog by something like 150k pages (meanwhile, the Monthly Challenge is averaging something in the range of 2000–5000 pages per month processed; not only will it take more than a decade to scan-back the current backlog, but the backlog is growing way faster then we can reduce it). At this rate the number of "Not Proofread" pages will exceed our number of "Proofread" (never mind "Validated") pages within a year. Enough is enough. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Beleg Tâl has scan backed this and the text is in fairly good shape. Languageseeker (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Languageseeker. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers[edit]

Consists entirely of a table of contents and a single copydump chapter —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep But attach to scan (external scan). Given the little that has been done, and the fact that the sections are independent works bound together in the volume, this should be easy to do. It would make a nice item for the Monthly Challenge. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: This is the third attempt after the first two turned into extended rants. So, to keep it (somewhat) brief(er): please have a closer look at Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers and Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers/Norwich, 1659-1859. This is entirely uncorrected OCR that was cut&pasted, probably from IA OCR, and cost mere seconds of volunteer time to do. This deletion discussion has cost us more volunteer time than adding it did (and other ongoing maintenance will accumulate more over time). At the same time, would you really start from this if you were to proofread this work? If so, I think you're pretty alone. A scan will usually be a way better starting point than this (and we have pretty decent ad hoc OCR gadgets now). And the value of having the text in this state is net negative: it will scare people away from Wikisource and give us a reputation for being a collection of crap.
In other words: please take a second look and assess whether you want to keep your vote. I would especially ask that you rethink the part that amounts to voting that someone else do the work to salvage the text: in practice it boils down to wishful thinking. If you plan to proofread this work in the foreseeable future and you want to use this copydump as a starting point for some reason, then I am of course happy to accommodate. But otherwise I am firmly and emphatically in the "delete" camp on this. Xover (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a PDF scan of this work uploaded at Commons. It would not take long to transition from the copy-paste job to a scan-backed copy of the one section. If someone is willing to set up the Index, I have the time this week to proofread the table of contents and the one section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to look at helping out but the link to IA in the 1884 first edition above has different pagination 3, 19, 59 instead of 1, 17, 61. This text is from the Complete Works 1907 edition Google Books which isn't on Commons and I am currently not able to deal with tracking down and converting and uploading the whole set of works merely to keep this edition . I would suggest Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this (and the other poor copy-pasted OCRs from Mitchell) and let whoever wants to do the work of proofreading it choose the edition of their liking (first, complete, illustrated, whatever). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per MarkLSteadman and Xover Languageseeker (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As always, work can be done in Index/Page spaces and transcluded without prejudice then. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.djvu[edit]

This is a 2007 transcription of a 1954 publication with copyrighted material removed. Since this is a transcription and not the original publication, I propose it's deletion. Languageseeker (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep until there's a replacement. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It's not just a transcription but a scan: note that it has original media in it as well. Also, what was copyrighted was two photographs: the work is substantially similar to the original. No reason to delete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scan of the 1954 are on the IA Internet Archive identifier : autobiographyofc0000henn and should be PD-US-No Notice. However, the IA has them locked behind a wall without a 14 day loan period which would allow for a PDF download. Is there anyway to sneak it out? I'm not trying to be mean, but I think that scan-backed should mean backed against an actual publication and not a transcription of a publication. Languageseeker (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the provenance, proposing this for deletion without a replacement is premature. If your aim is to force the issue to get a scan, I find that annoying and impolite to both whoever it is that provides a scan and the original contributor who gets their work proposed for a deletion without a clear upgraded replacement. If you wanted a scan, ask for a scan. If you want to work on scan-backing all the books, the place to request that is WS:LAB, or a dedicated WikiProject for a scan-backing drive, which you are more than welcome to set up (though it seems to me that the MC is chewing though quite a few previously-PG-ish works anyway).
Indeed, part of the reason I set WS:LAB up in the first place was to move quality remediation discussions out of the deletion space. Forcing maintenance at deletion gunpoint is not how we should do things, IMO. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just to force the issue. I truly believe that Indexes should not be created from transcriptions. I'm was merely trying to help the user who is working on that. Languageseeker (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep on writing that it's a "transcription" when it isn't? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Footnote 1 on page 1 states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you transcribe a photograph? This is a scan. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf It is, in fact, not a scan: the original file is https://archive.org/download/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist.pdf, which has been typeset in LaTeX (I can even tell you it was pdfTeX-1.40.10 and was created on Sun 24 Jul 2011 at 16:29:58 BST). The DJVU we have is just the Internet Archive derivative format (which is also fairly pointless: for a born-digital "edition", ideally you'd use the "original" file, which in this case is the PDF). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't "trasncribe" a photograph. It was clearly scanned. What seems likely to me is that it was scanned, an OCR layer was created, and that was manipulated or otherwise set in LaTeX. Someone clearly had the book and scanned in the material. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they did, or maybe they transcribed laboriously by eye. Regardless, the file we have here is not the output from any scanner (the cover notwithstanding, that is indeed a scanned image) and does not have a 1:1 correspondence to any published edition, which, in this case, are all physical editions. This self-described transcription would do in a pinch, but since there is an actual scan available, it's very suboptimal. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused what is meant by "transcription" and "original publication" here. We wouldn't say this is a 1920 "transcription" of a 1850 original publication made by some other publisher, delete it, or a 1920 "transcription" with illustrations added or removed delete it? That something like this should be deleted as a 2007 transcription of a 17th century publication and there is no possibility to host it since the owner refuses to allow use of the only copy of the "original publication" so we can't use something like this as a scan-backing? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied to Koavf, the book states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Therefore, I am referring to this 2007 pdf as a transcription and the 1954 physical book issued by Catholic Worker Books as the original publication. As far as I can tell, the source of the PDF is [1] via the IA which "provide at one site the collected works of the major anarchists and an online history of anarchists and anarchist movements worldwide, including a graphics archive." There is no evidence that Catholic Worker Books published a 2007 edition of this work.
In your case, I would suggest using [2] Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the restrictions the image host places on it are not enforceable with respect to copyright. Index:The Selling of Joseph - 1700 - Sewall.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is are you saying that if we didn't have the scans from Mass Hist, the desired behavior would be current unscanned version linking to the University of Nebraska version without pagination is acceptable to host but the a scan-backed version using the University of Nebraska version with pagination isn't acceptable to host and should be deleted because it now is a "transcription"? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that printing HTML text to a PDF and acting though it's a paginated "scan" is pointless. If you're going to copydump (and, yes, rarely, that's the only way), just do that. I'm personally not militantly against such "transcription scans" specifically, to me they're just copydumps with extra, pointless, steps (though clearly others are more against them). I am against copydumps in most cases, "fake" scans or not. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against such scans because they wind up wasting a lot of users time. Koavf spent a lot of time proofreading what they believed was a real scan. Another user was planning on creating an annotated edition based on such scans. Then there are the transclusion in mainspace that will need to be redone. Speaking of transclusion, the current process in a sense "washes" scans and makes fake scans look just like real scans. If we are to allow fake scans, should we not also make it clear to users that they are reading a transcription of a fake scan? That would probably require adding a new field to PP extension and adding code to distinguish between Source (Real) and Source (Copydump). Then all the Wikisources would need to adjust their implementation. We would also need maintenance categories for these.
Also, it's not always possible for users to tell between real scans and copydumps. Languageseeker (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one alleged that Catholic Worker Books (re)published this in 2007. Should we not have any copies of the Bible because we don't have scans of the autographs from Elijah, Luke, and Peter? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the options are a photographic scan of a published edition of the Bible or some HTML or TeX on some website that purports to be the text of the edition, then we should use the scan whenever remotely possible. We're not in the business of archiving random websites, the Wayback Machine has that amply covered. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you change my edit to the Publisher field from unknown to "Catholic Worker Books"? Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulliver's Travels (unsourced)[edit]

Unsourced with scan-backed alternative. Languageseeker (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It's not necessarily the same edition, and the unsourced is the version with audio. I would wait until we have a scan-backed stand-alone volume, with matching audio, before we delete the only audio-paired copy we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey I don't think anyone knows which edition this is. If I move the audio links, would that affect your vote. Languageseeker (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you verify that the audio matches the scan-backed edition, then that is acceptable. But simply moving the audio without checking would not be appropriate. We have had audio mis-matches before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: LibriVox does not appear to specify which edition they have used for their production (except that one may guess it's the Gutenberg edition, but they don't specify their source text(s) either), and provide no way to verify the audio to the source text, but it does not obviously appear to correspond with the unsourced text we have. Which we also cannot verify because we have no source for it. In other words, it's turtles all the way down.
I am also uncertain manual audio links make sense in general. If we ever start producing our own audio versions then we could easily manage them (and would have tooling support for that). But short of that, why would we give preferment to LibriVox—whose principles and priorities are different and partially at odds with ours—at the cost of manual management, rather than simply deferring that to Wikidata? We could presumably easily extend the header template to show an audio symbol if Wikidata lists a spoken word version on the edition item, and could then add suitable disclaimers or link through a page explaining the issue.
All of which goes to say, that the presence of an—often completely arbitrary—LibriVox link on a page does not noticeably weigh in favour of keep for me (sometimes quite the contrary). There is no particular reason to assume the audio matches the text of our unsourced edition to begin with. Xover (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not linking to LibriVox on those pages, but are accessing and playing the file from Commons. We don't have the mechanisms for what you're proposing. Wikidata is also not set up for managing audio files of literary works at this time, as there is no way to tie a set of audio recordings to the correct portions of a work, the correct edition, etc. Sound recordings are sometimes places on the primary data item, sometimes on an edition, and sometimes on a separate data item explicitly for the audio. Where the recording is divided into chapters, included stories, or portions of chapters or stories, there is no mechanism in place to tie them to the corresponding sub-pages here. Until Wikidata manages audio recordings well, and with means friendly to Wikisource and the visually-impaired, I would not entrust them to handle audio linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey The question is whether or not the audio matches the text. Otherwise, we don't provide the same experience for all users. Languageseeker (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I asked whether the audio matches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Just how do you propose that be determined? LibriVox does not specify an edition, unless it is the Gutenberg edition which… doesn't specify its source. Xover (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey Furthermore, what evidence is there that the audio matches the unsourced version? Languageseeker (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It matches the unsourced edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Our texts should be sourced. This applies to both written text and audio. It is a pity that LibriVox does not care about the source and edition of the work, but we should. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and move the audio link to the versions page since it's not definitively correlated to any extant sourced version of ours. Even if it does match the unsourced version, that in itself it not a reason to keep the unsourced version around, IMO. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Religious Portions of the Shih King[edit]

This is duplicative of the proofread version transcluded starting here with the TOC transcluded here. There already exists a disambugation page here which is where any links that are not specific to this edition should point. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shû King[edit]

Similar story to the above. Duplicative of the proofread version here and the disambugation page here MarkLSteadman (talk)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiangong Kaiwu[edit]

The work is a 17th century Chinese encyclopedia which would be in scope if there was a PD translation (there is one from 1966). But right now it is just a partial table of contents copied directly from the WP article (presumably based on a small excerpt from Needham). So right now it is both duplicative (of Wikipedia) with no chance of completion or sourcing in any form. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reveries of a Bachelor, or a Book of the Heart[edit]

OCR copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As always, work can be done in Index/Page spaces and transcluded without prejudice then. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Studies, with Hints for Country Places[edit]

OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete all mainspace parts. Index:Rural Studies - Mitchell - 1867.djvu exists if anyone actually wants to do it right. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches of Moses[edit]

This is a few unsourced verses of Deutronomy. I tried searching for some of the phrases in archive, google books, hathi without success. It looks similar to the English Standard Version which is copyrighted anyways... MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Who knows what this is. Fun fact, despite being online there for 12 years, that page is still the only Google hit for "You dwelled much in this mountain" (well...until this comment is indexed). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but. . . . there is an associated Disambiguation page "Speeches" that pointed only to the Moses page. Are there are items named "Speeches" that this page should point to, or should it also be deleted? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In principle it could link to works like Speeches of Carl Schurz, Speeches to Ohio Regiments, Speeches and addresses of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales: 1863-1888 etc. but I don't really see the value of that over listing them under collection of speeches or something under Portal:Speeches anyways (which then avoids whether Speeches should link to works like Great Speeches of the War or The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court or foo/Speeches etc.). So I would Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on that page too, at least until we get a poem with "Speeches" in the name or something. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I asked. There may be poems, collections, or encyclopedia articles with that name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Rekha Ganita.djvu[edit]

Seventeenth century Sanskrit translation of Euclid's Elements, published with introduction and notes in English. The work is already present in Sanskrit Wikisource. Keeping it here, only for the sake of front matter and back matter does not seem justified. Hrishikes (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Order-in-Council[edit]

A compilation of the original 1922 version and User:Glide08’s own translation of later amendments. I suggest deletion of the work, the original 1922 version can be added afterwards. If a free translation of the amended version exists, it can be added too. See also Talk:Palestine Order-in-Council. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians[edit]

Redundant to better edition at:- Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians (Second Edition 1895) which is scan backed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unless it is backscanned. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As I said when I declined the Speedy Deletion back in July, there is no evidence provided that these are the same. The publishers are different for starters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Jan. It is redundant as being the same work, not the same edition. Of course if someone wants to find the scans of the 1821 edition and proofread against them, that would be great and we can host those. But biasing to keeping around non-scan-backed, second-hand versions merely because they are different doesn't seem a good result to me. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State and Revolution (marxists.org)[edit]

Irrespective of the question about the copyright status (whether no-notice or foreign), I would like to start transcluding the proofread version currently sitting here and the current version is an unbacked, second-hand copy so opening up here whether we should delete the current version or move it out of the current title? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also missing the italics that are present in the various partial snippets seen in google books. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkLSteadman I would just Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the second-hand copy and replace it with the scanned version when it's ready. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are different translations in case that wasn't clear. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkLSteadman then I'd move the current version to some name like The State and Revolution (tr. Foobar), place your new version at a similar disambiguated title and put a {{versions}} page at The State and Revolution (which can link to marxists.org for the unsourced one if it gets deleted). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkLSteadman: Just drive-by commenting without actually looking at the details, so add pinches of salt as appropriate…
It's generally a bad idea to overwrite mainspace pages with the text of a different edition because it messes up the Wikidata links. The original page will be linked to a Wikidata item representing one edition (possibly with crap data, but all the same) and when you transclude over it Wikidata can't know that there is now a different edition there without a lot of manual faffing. My first instinct is always to try to preserve edit history on pages, so I've struggled a bit with this myself, but the rule of thumb needs to be to always either delete pages or move them (i.e. technical operations that the software can interpret and handle), and transclude over a new page (possibly at the same name).
Also, moving a text to a disambiguated title and creating a versions page is not something that requires a prior community discussion, so that's a much quicker and easier way to deal with such cases. Any old unsourced texts can then be nominated for deletion at leisure. Based on my experience the community tends to mostly favour deletion of old unsourced texts when a completed scan-backed version is available, but is more divided when the scan-backed version isn't yet complete. Disambiguating and postponing nomination until the new text is finished will thus tend to create easier deletion discussions with clearer outcomes.
It creates a little more work for admins and others, but not, I don't think, excessively so. Xover (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also, IMO, it's completely fine if the end result is a versions page with more than one entry, but with only a single work actually blue-linked. The red-linked entry(ies) can still be useful as a place to hang external links, indexes-in-progress or (legal, obviously) external full-text sources even if not yet suitable for Wikisource due to copyright.
Also, this is a deliberate expression of the work/edition split, as also expressed by Wikidata ontologies (also Bibframe, etc.): the work item The State and Revolution (Q509209) points to the versions page, the edition item The State and Revolution (Q110299353) to the disambiguated item. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Versions page created and proofread read version transcluded. The proposal still stands whether we want to keep around a second-hand transcription missing all the formatting in the original. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination still stands. Do we want a work with:
  • No license
  • Second-hand copy
  • Missing the formatting and emphasis which is a major part of the original
  • Of a work excerpted from a larger copyrighted work (the massive Lenin Collected Works) with dubious copyright provenance as well (since the wording has changed between 1933 and that version)
MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Languageseeker (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete especially since we have a completed scan backed version (even if it is a different translation). No prejudice to a properly sourced version, in the context of a larger work if appropriate, and if copyright allows. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walk in the Light While There is Light[edit]

OCR copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are still two other Tolstoy works of similar copy dump status that have been pending proposed deletion for several months supra (Nikolai Palkin, Help) (update, those have now been deleted). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete nothing here that's useful in mainspace. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have been steadily going through and scan-backing the Tolstoy OCR copydump's one at a time, I haven't gotten to this one yet ... No problem if you delete it but I will probably get around to fixing it in the near future.... 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Substituted[edit]

Duplicated with Template:Must be substituted (both have 5 transclusions). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either one to the other. I think consensus here will agree that this is what should happen—the real question is, which one should be the main and which the redirect? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Must be substituted}}. For a template that's rarely used, the more descriptive name makes more sense, IMO. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hangon[edit]

And Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, which is directly reliant on this template.

I've never seen this actually in use the entire time I've been here. Upon some research into it, it appears the template was in use and known around the community in the late 2000s. The category was never edited since 2012 and the template hasn't been edited at all since 2009. On top of that, the template had 0 page views in the past 30 days, and the category only had 1 (looks like around Dec. 12, 2021), which could easily be passed off as a view from a crawler or out of the curiosity of one surfing reader. It looks like it was a template copied from Wikipedia to me, and it looks like even Wikipedia's likely equivalent to this template was deleted by them fairly recently, and in that discussion they said their template of the same name was deprecated as of 2011.

I admit I don't know how to see if anything was added to this category recently, but I would be surprised if there were any usages of this template in the past 5 years, or even 10.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this template seems to be redundant. Contested speedy deletions could be sent here, to WS:PD, or to WS:CV for copyright-related debates. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, but adjust the wording of {{sdelete}} to direct people here to discuss. Also the directions at {{sdelete}} should probably say something congruent to actual practice like "if you disagree, change this template to {{delete}} and start a discussion at WS:PD explaining why". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (Gutenberg edition)[edit]

Non-scan backed with scan-backed alternative Languageseeker (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The audio file links should be transferred before deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glosas Emilianenses[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Glosas Emilianenses

As noted by @CalendulaAsteraceae: on the work's talk page: "This work is in Latin, with glosses in medieval Romance and Basque. As such, it should move to the Wikisource for the appropriate language—probably the multilingual Wikisource, or possibly the Spanish Wikisource if the book it's excerpted from is eligible for inclusion." PseudoSkull (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Health Service Act[edit]

So incomplete that it's barely worth it. What is complete in this unsourced transcription is only a couple sentences, after I removed some unnecessary things, namely the external links section and the enormous see also section that was miles longer than the transcription itself. I don't think I'll ever see a see also section that big on any wiki again. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(that see also section appeared to have been copied from this, but still wasn't at all part of the act itself. The act is one of many that this was a list of apparently.) PseudoSkull (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is definitely a piece of legislation that we should have particularly since elements of it are being applied to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. I'll see if I can find a usable version. BD2412 T 00:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original version linked from the Wikipedia article. The PHSA runs from page 3 to page 1219 of the document. BD2412 T 00:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also available from here in the original Statutes publication. The 60+ KB of “see also,” against a few lines of actual text, is pretty funny. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Henry Clay[edit]

Not scan-backed, with an earlier version from 1887 already scan-backed and complete, available at Life of Henry Clay (Schurz).

Additionally, the exact source of this document is unclear to me after some light searching, despite what the header says. It claims that the images and text were taken from an 1899 edition of 2 volumes, however the talk page links (which I moved from the main page as inappropriate content for within the transcription space) do not seem to contain the images as the frontispiece. I am not denying there may be an edition out there that contains these images, but I'm not finding any scans of that on an initial search, which highlights a problem with keeping something like this here without scan-backing. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete: The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier[edit]

Hello. Now that we are in 2022 could this text published in 1926 and deleted in 2007 be undeleted ? Thanks a lot. Hektor (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edition that was deleted was part of a collection published in 1927, and so that edition is still under copyright. If you can locate an edition of the story in a source published in 1926, then you are free to create that copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, ask again in another year. BD2412 T 05:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier" was first published in Liberty magazine in the 16 October 1926 issue, and as such its copyright expired at the end of 1926 + 95 = 2021. It is now, in other words, clearly in the public domain. It was republished in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes in 1927 (simultaneous UK/US publication; both in June), and the compilation was renewed in 1955 (R149513), but to the degree the compilation contained any copyrightable differences to this particular story (which I very much doubt) the renewal only covers the compilation (selection, order, etc. of the stories). The only stories from The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes that are still in copyright are "The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger" and "The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place", both first published in Liberty in 1927 (22 January and 5 March issues, respectively), and consequently will expire this year and will be in the public domain starting next year.
    That all being said, the old text we had was not scan-backed and I see no particular need to undelete it. If we want it immediately we can dig up the 16 October 1926 Liberty issue and proofread it from there, or we can wait until next year and do it as a part of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
    @Languageseeker: You've been doing some work on the original magazine publications of the Sherlock Holmes stories in connection with the MC. I don't see any relevant scans for 1926 in c:Category:Liberty (general interest magazine), but maybe you've done some work here offline? --Xover (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover @EncycloPetey I'm waiting for Inductiveload to upload The Strand Magazine volumes for 1926 to run it through the MC. The original Liberty publication is nowhere to be seen, but The Strand Magazine version is available online. It's also possible to get The Strand scans of The Blanched Soldier from [3] Languageseeker (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't support undeleting a non-scan backed text. Languageseeker (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xover @EncycloPetey Scan is up at Index:The Strand Magazine (Volume 72).djvu Languageseeker (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logo templates[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

"This template inserts the X publishers logo image into a page." While these templates might be shorthand, they are redundant. There are at least hundreds of unique publisher marks that have been used on Wikisource over the years. In fact, many publishing companies, especially the popular ones, have used several if not dozens. If one wants to find the publisher mark they are looking for, they can look in the Commons category for that publisher, or even more conveniently, they can check the portal page for that publisher here on Wikisource itself, which will list them out in a <gallery>. I've found it an easy process most of the time. @Hesperian: As the creator of these templates, what is your reasoning? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see that there is a reason for deletion. Everything we do with a template can be done without the template if one is willing to go dig up the information. The whole point of a template is to provide shorthand so that the necessary research doesn't have to be repeated every time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Okay, so then the only thing I can assume from what you said is that we need a template for every single publisher mark. Even if I were to assume the argument of "we should only do it for marks that appear a lot"...well, there are so many that this requirement applies to. Do I need to list a handful of those marks out in this forum to illustrate my point?
A good filename with the File prefix is a method we already have to identify filenames. We don't need the extra responsibility of keeping up with templates that do nothing but represent that file. We could have a million of those, and it gets confusing when you start considering there are many Macmillan logos, many Harper logos, etc. So this template's name is misleading just in that it suggests it is the only image of its kind. A small amount of research is a necessary part of the job, and you can't eliminate that by creating a template for each thing; the research would just have to be done by flipping through templates, so then ultimately what's the point?
I understand that templates are for shorthand and virtually everything in a template could be done without one, but templates also happen to be for eliminating repetition. The precedent of these templates is conducive to creating repetition which is my main concern. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume that? It's not an all-or-nothing choice. Look at the number of times these template are used. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted on this one. I can see the reasoning behind this, because it's often better to use the "best" instance of a logo that the one from that particular edition, which may not be a good scan, or has been overprinted with a library stamp, etc. And the advantage of a a template is that if an even better logo comes along later, it can be easily updated. Also, templates make it easier to set accessibility data like alt-text, which is something we (including myself) do not usually do well not that these templates do that, but they could.
On the other hand, I can see that the templates might appear to indicate that you should use them even if the logo isn't quite the same—very many printers' marks are markedly (or subtly) different over time. That is part of the work. E.g.: these are are just some of the members of commons:Category:Harper & Brothers logos, but which is the one that should be used by {{Harper and Brothers logo}}? Spoiler: it's the third one.
  • c1880

  • 1892

  • 1895

  • 1899

  • c1905

  • 1908

  • 1922

  • 1925

  • And on the gripping hand, these templates are well-hidden and if they are to be used, they should be listed and documented properly. Would it be better if there was a single consistent entry point with complete templatedata, uniform semantics and documentation rather than n different templates all with subtly different usages? Then you can have a nice, solid, well-defined map of each logo to the "best" file. For example, the following two images are apparently the "same logo", but one file is trashed and one is not so bad:
  • Harper & Brothers logo, ca 1905.png
  • Harper & brothers logo 1904.png
  • On balance, I think there's a case to be made that a templated system is a good idea, but the current implementation is rather poor.
    Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Inductiveload puts the situation very well. I acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. I created these because whenever I came across a really good scan of a logo, I would go around searching for inclusions of bad scans to replace. This got old really fast, so I templated.

    I'm not going to die in a ditch over this one, but I don't see that deleting these improves our site. The case for deletion seems to be "these are pointless" rather than "these are harmful". I think they are neither.

    Hesperian 22:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Clansman[edit]

    Only 1 chapter is actually done, out of 4 books, and has not been worked on, basically at all, since 2008. I suspect it was abandoned and never worked on again because it is a famous example of blatantly racist propaganda that was unfortunately common ideology at the time, which is disappointing and disgusting to say the least of it—that being said, keeping neutrality in perspective, ideally it should be scan-backed in the future, so continuing in this format wouldn't be useful anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The scan listed on Dixon’s author page can be uploaded, the proofread chapters match-and-split, and the work left as is. It can be included in the Monthly Challenge, if no one else is interested. While I am interested in proofreading it, I am working on some other works at the moment. The work was not abandoned at all, actually; it is a “[c]urrent project[ ]” of a user whose most recent edit states an intention to “get active here again.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Granted Daniel is still active on Wikipedia, but still, he has not edited Wikisource, at all whatsoever, since twelve whole years ago. That was during an entirely different decade of Internet history, in which Wikisource's standards on editing were very different than today. If we're not talking of years but using the word decade, that's when we ought to draw the line. In no sense should one take a promise from 12 years ago on an unsourced and barely-even-worked-on-at-all transcription as any indication that it will eventually be done by this user. I would expect that he has 100% lost all interest in this site, and has probably long since forgotten that this The Clansman project even existed. Of course since he was pinged he might comment on this discussion, and I am by no means saying he shouldn't work on it again, or that he won't after he sees this. And if he is interested I encourage that he do (otherwise one of us will end up doing it probably). But all I'm saying is that the fact that someone made a promise over a decade ago should not be indicative of anything in the present tense.
    Even if I were to be so generous to assume that he will work on it again, it should be started over completely anyway, with scan backing, if that is to happen. So the deletion opinion I still stand by in any case. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PseudoSkull: Sorry, that comment was tongue-in-cheek; it was not meant to be taken seriously. The joke was that the “get active here again” comment was from 2009. My comment regarding scan-backing holds, as well; a scan should be uploaded, &c. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahahaha! Well you can just never tell that sort of thing on the Internet. Good one m8 PseudoSkull (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Deletedpage and pages which use it[edit]

    If a page has been deleted because of a copyright discussion, we don't need that page's title to show up in the search results because that is misleading. We can just protect the page, keep it deleted, and explain why in the deletion log, linking to the proper discussion (which is what the deletion log is for after all). I think they should all just be deleted. Category:Protected deleted pages is effectively only populated with 12 entries, several of which in my mind do not even begin to necessitate the template if we are to assume it is ever necessary. A page having only been deleted 1 or 2 times previous, for example, is not enough in my mind to corrupt the search results. And the protection prevents it in the first place, so what's the point?

    But it makes way more sense for author pages than actual mainspace pages. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm of two minds about this one. One the one hand, it's not being used much of anywhere and there are valid criticisms in the deletion proposal. On the other hand, there are a small number of works that have been repeatedly created in the past, where it would have helped to have this template. The additions may have been meant well, but were contributed by people who likely knew no better. For high-profile recreations, this temple could alert the contributor why the page was deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EncycloPetey: But if the page is protected after deletion (which is definitely possible in MediaWiki software), there is no chance a contributor would even be able to create it again. The protection log should at the very least link to previous discussion on the issue that resulted in deletion, and for high-profile cases it would help to have a detailed summary in the deletion log as well; however, since it's protected, there is no chance the page will be recreated anyway, unless someone deliberately works around it by putting the work at another slightly different page title. That slight loophole in the technology that I pointed out isn't prevented by a template much more at all than it's prevented by a deletion summary. I can see the benefits, but the benefits are outweighed in my mind by the fact that the template necessitates the work being shown in the search results, which again is too misleading for it to be justifiable in my mind. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman[edit]

    Unformatted, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, not remotely standardized. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It is available from the Austrian National Library if someone wants to create index pages for it: (external scan) MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything in Category:Aesop's Fables pages requiring cleanup[edit]

    These unsourced work pages are all 1. collections of multiple translations of the same fable in one page, which is against Wikisource's style guidelines, 2. on any that I've seen, the unsourced fables are taking precedent in the search hierarchy over those that already exist in any scan-backed material at Fables (Aesop). So ideally, these would be disambiguation pages that listed translations and where to find them, and not containing the translations themselves; IMO they should just be deleted until this becomes the case. Pinging User:Beleg Tâl. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds as though, rather than deletion, these ought to be converted to redirects (where we have only one translation) and/or list of translations pages (where we have more than one translation, or at least more than one potential target because translations appear in more than one scan for which a transcription has started. I would support converting these, as such, but it will take a lot of work on the part of someone someone familiar with the fables. Simply deleting them would likely break too many links across Wikimedia, not to mention the many redirects here that point to those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RaboKarbakian: Would you be interested in taking on that challenge? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EncycloPetey: Sure. Sounds like fun, actually. And there is a book I can do at the same time which will be helpful for the task. But I am not going to start anything until after the full moon on the 17th, which is this Monday. Thanks for considering me for this!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I created this category to keep track of them so that I could turn them all into either versions pages or redirects, after moving the text to the proper scan-backed editions. I havent gotten very far yet as you can see, so feel free to take a stab at them. The scan-backed editions we have so far are listed at Fables (Aesop). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Nig; or Sketches from the Life of a Free Black[edit]

    Incomplete, unsourced text from 2006. Languageseeker (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hesperian: If it's been unsourced and incomplete for 16 years, and our standards on transcription have completely changed since that time, what remains is not worth too much. Yes, scans are available, but the unsourced version should still be tossed. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right: this text has sat there unsourced and incomplete for 16 years without delivering any value. At this point it seems reasonable to adjudge it worthless. However, I've always argued for retaining unsourced scans, because it lowers the barrier to entry. Newbies start by posting unsourced material, then learn to up their game over time. If they have to know how to navigate index pages: and page: pages and page transclusion on day one, we'll lose them. In short, I don't want us to become a site that bans unsourced scans, and I see cases like this as the thin edge of the wedge. Hesperian 00:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep absent alternate complete version or edition. That it is somewhat incomplete is unfortunate, but not a reason for deletion absent more egregious problems. The lack of source (for this edition) is not relevant to deletion discussions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Last Man (Shelley)[edit]

    Unformatted, unsourced, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep absent alternate version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, it's unsourced and unformatted, which is in my mind worse than having nothing there. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convert to Versions page There is a transcription project underway for the 2nd edition, and as the nomination says, the copydump is unformatted and has no source. There were two editions issued in 1826, the year of first publication, making an unsourced, unformatted copydump especially undesirable. However, we ought to list the two editions currently being transcribed (both listed on Author:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley), so rather than delete, this should be converted to a Versions page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation and History of Venona Project Information[edit]

    This has no source, and is a bit unclear what it's status actually is, The uploader has not been active on Wikisource for some time.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a scan backed redacted version of the same document: Venona: FBI Documents of Historic Interest/Belmont Memorandum 1956-02-01 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]