Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-07

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

Porky's Preview

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, in scope simular to translating, index and djvu deleted for housekeeping, pending some more appropriate technical solution. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Porky's Preview is a published, public domain Warner Brothers cartoon. But the file at File:Porky's Preview.djvu is not the cartoon. It is a collection of screengrabs of the cartoon, issued by the Internet Archive, and compiled into a DjVu file. Therefore it is an unpublished excerpt, and not acceptable for transcription here. Furthermore the text Porky's Preview omits nearly all of the screen grabs, instead providing an unverifiable transcription of the audio.

I feel strongly that Index:Porky's Preview.djvu (and the corresponding pages) should go, as it is not a published work, and doesn't really even back the mainspace work in any meaningful way. One could argue that the mainspace work itself is a transcription of a published work—i.e. the cartoon itself—and should stay; but personally I think it should go too.

Hesperian 04:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't issued by the Internet Archive; it looks to be constructed by the user. It's hidden under "(other text appearing in film)" in Porky's Preview, and believe that was the point of making the DJVU file, to make the visible text in the film easier to transcribe. I think that it's worth discussion how, or if, we want to do that. But if Star Wars was PD, we'd want to transcribe the opening scroll in some fashion.
As for Porky's Preview, I don't see how it fundamentally differs from Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003), which is featured. "Any written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content)" is mentioned in WS:WWI, even if the location is a little confusing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(Rationale and ideas) When I first started to consider uploading the file, I wondered what I could possibly verify. It is published content, which falls within our project scope. There was text on screen that could be verified. As for whether or not that text may be useful, I felt was not for me to decide. Digitization was my concern; to simply host the video would be no different than displaying scanned djvu's in the mainspace; i.e., we can link many of those who worked on it in the text, something searchable from the page would be useful, wikilinks to other works mentioned either on screen or in dialog. Regarding the transcript; what I have written is unofficial, in the sense that the text itself has not been made publicly available. This is however not out of line with what has been done; I believe the transcription to be self evident (as in discerning text, giving a description of a picture, alttext). Also, it is no more subjective than one of the contributors translating a text into English. The process of transcription needs a unified format, like this one; although I feel we should abstain from describing much and mainly focus on dialog. Offering the on screen text to be digitized and the transcript will allow for better searches and separate us from other archives.
I understand that what I've listed, although derivative, was not itself published. I planned for this to be a placeholder pending a request I've made at Bugzilla for selecting a portion of media for playback. If this modification can be made, I imagine using it to build an index for video or sound similar to the one we have with .djvu extension. The difference would be to separate not based on page, but on time interval. This could be either automated (as in equal intervals) or user seleceted. In place of the page number, time would be the convention. This is so if someone wanted to verify that between 25-50s, a particular thing was said, they would select that time frame and view it in the index. This will also remove the need for the assembled djvu I have there now; the user can select the thumbtime from a portion so the image seen before resuming play in the index could be the moment where the on-screen text to be verified appears.
This also gives the writers of these works their place in Wikisource. In fact, with Commons as the repository, these files needed to be hosted somwhere with proper formatting and presentation; Commons is not the best movie theatre. Wikisource, by scope, is the home for these works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The djvu is a construct and should be deleted. For the transcription, my thinking was along the lines of Prosfilaes with regard to WS:WWI. I also had a lot of thinking of "Why would one bother, especially without the images?", however, that is personal preference, and … whatever rocks your socks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The djvu is on commons, so we don't have jurisdiction to delete it. I guess you're saying the index and page transcriptions should go? Hesperian 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus is to remove the index, can the closing admin move the text into a subpage? - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The djvu file is a construct, but one designed to make certain things easier. How do we want to support transcribing written text in a video? I see at least three things that makes transcribing a video useful; it makes it easy to look quotes, it lets Wiktionarians and other people who need a corpus use the text easily, and it makes it easier to translate a video if you start from a good transcription.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added another video which I feel exhibits the better use for some type of text verification: Daydreams. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the djvu index, as I created an ogv index which is not a construct. I believe that this discussion can be closed. As for the ogv index, I hope to get in contact with some developers to work with some functions {{Temporal Media Fragment}} and thumbtime, so that this actually works; for now, I am using this system as a placeholder, in which the content can be verified not via link, but during the time specified in the left page number column in the mainspace. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dio's Roman History

The following discussion is closed:

Kept PD, scans posted JeepdaySock (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dio's Roman History very incomplete work, no scans, editor inactive since 2010. Delete with no objection to recreation with scans or as developing body of work. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Scans exist now. I have gone and fetched the scans from the IA and uploaded as Index:Dio's Roman History, tr. Cary - Volume 1.djvu and friends. The first 4 are pre-1923 and the rest were not renewed. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Book 1

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted and protected. kept CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious mistake. Illy (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And an easy one to make. I protected the page, supposing that could only be helpful, it can be undone if that was not a good idea. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Um... did either of you actually look at the content of the page? It was tagged as a {{bad title}}. Isn't that rather more informative than simply protecting it? Hesperian 10:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No. I looked at the earlier history and the redirect, then it was created in error. I restored the bad title template. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


Deleted

EB1911: redirects

The following discussion is closed:

One comment in one month; that looks like consensus to me. Deleting now.... Hesperian 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose for deletion all of the redirects listed here. Many of these were created as a result of page moves from an old, outmoded naming system. I note, however, that some have been created directly as redirects; e.g. EB1911:Protozoa. I can't imagine why, as I don't see the point to them. Does anyone, or will anyone ever, find it useful to navigate to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Protozoa via a redirect from EB1911:Protozoa? Hesperian 05:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict and Dream

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict and Dream Started in 2007, no scans, no content. Delete with no objection to recreation with scans or as developing body of work. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete no prejudice to it being restarted with scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted.
To also note that it was stated that it was published in 1923, which adds another set of issues that would needed addressing. Able to be restart if PD scan or text are available.

Template {{Commons ok}}

The following discussion is closed.

What is the point of this template? I can't find that BetaCommandBot has ever transwikied anything from WS to Commons and files have been tagged with this template since its creation in 2007 with nothing happening to them. I propose it is deprecated and all uses replaced with {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed all the files that were linked to this template to Template:Move to Wikimedia Commons. Now there's only links to user pages User:JVBot and User:Inductiveload/templates. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes & Epigrams

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to WQ, then deleted here, Jeepday (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Group deletion, out of scope, exerts from PD published works. See User talk:Singinglemon#Anecdotes about Diogenes preserved by Plutarch for related discussion. A check at http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Singinglemon show the editor did some work at wikiquote, but I am not seeing the work recreated there. She remains active at commons [1] and I will leave a note there for her about this discussion, there may be work she would like to archive someplace before it is deleted here. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Move elsewhere if possible, the scope of Wikiquote may preclude it and the policies of Wikibooks are wishy-washy and rely on arbitrary decisions on a case by case basis. Delete here, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikiquote has a page q:Diogenes of Sinope CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Australian Tales/Book I/Chapter I & Australian Tales/Section I

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be aborted attempts at an introduction for this work. Actual introduction is on another page (Speech on Marcus Clarke during Australian lecture tour). Illy (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I speedied them as they are redundant, and the above page that you identified I have moved to a subpage of the work. It would have been great if they had worked from the scan rather than as copy and paste.


Other

Industrial Society and Its Future

Discussion moved to Possible Copyright Violations from here. Sorry for the mix-up. — George Orwell III (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2011-07&oldid=3551772"