Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2019

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 on 01 January 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Index:Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier 2nd copy.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe there is no further purpose to having this index page or its subpages. The file exists on Commons because its image scans are superior to those in this edition, but there is no need to do a whole alternate transcription; it's essentially identical to the other version. -Pete (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done speedied as G4 Redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Index:Plays of Roswitha (1923) St. John.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept and renamed --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This file has been reuploaded to Wikisource with the file (start transcription) and since this title is nominated as a PotM, the small amount of work I have done on it can just be deleted. --Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to rename the local file to match the Index? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Would indeed, but the uploader was being picky and it wouldn't even let me override the warning about the 'file of a same name on Commons' error, and the folks in commons haven't been particularly on top of the proposed speedy deletions backlog. --Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I've moved the file. It gave me a warning, but allowed me to proceed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for doing it! --Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Constituent Assembly of India 1949.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted as G4 Redundant and also G7 requested by uploader —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Corrected version with full scans of all Acts posted at Index:Acts of the Constituent Assembly and Dominion Legislature of India 1949.pdf so this is a duplicate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/2 and 4 others..[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedied, copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Being:

Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/2 Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/3 Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/262 Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/263 Page:Amoris laetitia.djvu/264

Index file seems to have been removed, and the file at Commons was deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amoris laetitia.djvu) over copyright concerns, Would have been nice if they'd told us beforehand, so we didn't end up with orphan pages to remove.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Support as original uploader. I was meaning to get around to requesting their deletion. My apologies for causing this mess. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Defend Me from Myself[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, page not problematic —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Create to cross-wiki abuse,LTA[1].--MCC214 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Shrug. It seems a lot easier to just erase the post and leave it in the history, if even that's necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the post does not appear to be abusive, and predates the global ban —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Pages in Ruffhead volume 8.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, withdrawn —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Being :

To enable the realigned OCR text to be picked up from the underlying file, which was recently repaired. This is almost a speedy deletion, but figured I'd ask here in case there was a faster method of realignment, than a deletion, and regeneration. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn , Manually realigned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, withdrawn - Needs a very experienced contributor to work out a formatting manual for it through consultation thoughShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


and associated Pages: s..

Proposing for deletion on the grounds that the layout is too complex to be reliably represented until certain templates are repaired or overhauled, something which looks unlikely to happen in the medium-term.

Rather than going back and forth playing "hunt the randomly" stable combination of templates or approaches, I feel it's more straightforward to essentially let someone else start again from scratch, with well defined templates, that behave in a DOUCMENTED and REPEATABLE way, instead of the incomplete and inconsistent ones that the current attempt was using. This has been stalled for some time by the limitations of the currently available templates, and as there seems to be a reluctance on the part of other contributors to devote either time or technical expertise to de-stall it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; I don't think problems with templates should be a rationale for deletion. Worst case, just make the sidenotes into footnotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, perhaps YOU would like to impose a "consistently rendering solution" then? and DOCUMENT it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: nope, I've got too much on my plate to do a complete overhaul of the sidenotes templates. If you are not able to create a consistently rendering solution on your own, and other editors aren't able to do it for you, then you have two options: a) you can try to figure out a way to make it "good enough" regardless of the rendering issues you have found, or b) you can post your observations on the Index talk page, and abandon the project for a future editor to figure out. I've had to abandon a few works that were too technically difficult for me to handle (e.g. LilyPond), but the project itself is a valid project and there's no need to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, per Beleg Tâl --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Applying the logic of WP:SNOWBALL here..
This section was archived on a request by: —ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sidenotes templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, withdrawn ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Being Template:Right sidenote and Template:Left sidenote

I appreciate that these templates are widely used, but following a discussion with some CSS coders whilst trying to make them more robust, the conclusion was that these were the 'wrong' approach. Exact (print) page layouts cannot be represented in Mediawiki anyway.

Once works using these have been migrated to templates that have consistent, single repeatable behaviours, they should be deleted. Having a templete that behaves differently based on phase of the moon interactions is unreasonable.

This is not a delete now request, but a longer term notice that these should eventually be phased out or replaced with a more robust approach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay , based on having had a rethink, this is premature until there are viable alterantives. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, withdrawn - Needs an experienced contributor to review, validate completed portions.
Simply this is being proposed for deletion, because due to limitations in mediawiki the underlying templates are now incompatible.

And per comments here :- User_talk:Beleg_Tâl#Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes/Chronological_Table/Ric2

As no-one seems to be interested in actually fixing the real problems that have created the issues that make coding templates for this far harder than they should be, it would be easier to start again with a nice clean version that someone else can build the table manually for, such that Mediawiki and extensions aren't continually screwing up attempts to get a clean consistent and repeatable layout due to pednatic and obscure interaction issues.

Either fix the platform, fix the templates to behave consistently, or admit that this work can't be done with any degree of accuracy and delete it. I've basicly had enough of trying to work around mediawiki's limitations rather than others accepting that the platform itself is actually unable to cope with what is being asked of it, and fixing the real problem ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep That's not a reason for deletion. A reason to pause work, or rethink structure, but not a reason to delete all the work done thus far. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
First read w:sunk cost fallacy, if you are really keen on keeping something that doesn't work, and cannot at present be made to work properly, then please consider putting in the effort to actually bring it up to standard in its entirety. This has been sitting there for a good few years, and I had mentioned the issues with this previously and no-one apparently seemed interested in actually fixing the real issues that are preventing it from being repaired properly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn, but I'd really, really like someone to steam-proof this.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Floating City[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Copydump deleted, and Index page established. I found a US edition with Férat's illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
A long abandoned table of contents for a work by Jules Verne to which an unresponsive new contributor is adding severely unformatted copy-paste chapters with no identified source or translator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Closest edition I can find is The Works of Jules Verne. Given how little has been imported, a match-and-split would be easy. And minor differences can be chalked up to editor error and steamrolled. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Baron Trump's marvellous underground journey.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, file repaired —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
PDF is apparently "incompatible", with numerous "blank" pages where the appropriate scan image from the file fails to appear.

This should be removed, and replaced with a version that is KNOWN to be compatible with the current back-end, either as PDF, or a DJVu generated from the original JP2 or TIFF scans, with an "appropriately" high encoding resoloution.

Also:- Index:Baron Trump's marvellous underground journey.pdf and associated [[Page:]] 's ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: -- Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn as file was repaired.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Spanish-American Universities[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept; headers updated —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I can find no such article in the scans for Volume 14 of the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
That's because it's actually in Volume 15. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the CE project handles articles that are divided into sections, but this article follows/is under Universities. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It's currently listed and linked as if it's a separate article in Volume 14, alphabetically following the article "Spanish-American Literature", which is a part of the "Spain" article in the scan. The header for the "Spanish-American Universities" states it's in Volume 14. I don't think there's been a "project" active since 2009. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, so it looks like the project considered such sub-articles to be separate (I assume this was because Newadvent, where the text was sourced prior to the acquisition of scans, does the same). For this reason, I'll move it rather than merge it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done along with all the other "Universities" sub-articles. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Double quotes and redirect[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept; deletion rationale is no longer relevant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A template like this is contrary to our guidance in Wikisource:Style guide and I would encourage us to remove the template and replace its use with standard double quotes. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agreed. But it will take someone quite a bit of work to eliminate the usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We could start by using straight quotes in the template itself, and then using a bot. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: it has a variety of characters plugged in to be used, so a straight replacement may not be possible. I would suggest that it I would run a bot through and replace, and remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteMpaa (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This template was updated to use straight quotes, and is still useful for the slight padding and other esoteric uses. I'd suggest to mark it as deprecated and discourage its use, but since it is no longer contrary to our style guidelines I do not think it needs to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hamlet in Gregg Shorthand[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept; no consensus to delete. Work itself is within scope of WS:WWI, even though the project is abandoned and the writing system is not (yet) supported. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Is Index:Tales From Shakespeare - Hamlet - Printed in Gregg Shorthand.djvu within our scope? It's a copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet printed entirely in shorthand, a notational form that I can't imagine we'd be able to support here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I assume the underlying language is still English, in which case the work is technically within our scope. However, since we cannot duplicate the shorthand, we would have to display the entire contents as a series of images. We have not shied away from this in the past.Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: I do not intend to support this method of displaying a work, only noting that it is not against our policies, and is compliant with precedent. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Like Beleg Tâl, I'd say it's pretty clearly in our scope. However, @Jasonanaggie:, why did you upload this and how did you plan to handle it? It's probably worth deleting the Index page unless someone actually has a plan to work on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way we can implement the shorthand character set? Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There is only one way I know that is feasible: create an image for each character in the set, upload it to Commons, and embed them in the text LIKE THIS. The only other way I can think of is to find or create a custom font that implements the character set, then somehow convince the devs to add it to mw:Extension:ULS; but there are about a dozen outstanding requests for font additions and modifications that haven't been looked at in years, so I don't think that is feasible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Both of those would break for screen readers. Then again, I'm not sure how useful the experience would be for screen readers in the first place, since the novelty of the work is only in the typeface. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: not all works need to accomodate screen readers. Chopin Nocturnes Opus 9/Number 2 was added recently with some acclaim, and it isn't screen reader friendly either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not familiar with a Wikimedia policy which prefers to exclude a decent subset of disabled users; I would appreciate a link to one if you have one handy. Rather, most of what I know indicates we should support such users -- for example, we should include "alt" text on images. Additionally, the ULS solution will not work on mobile -- ULS is disabled in the Minerva skin used by the mobile view -- and I do know for a fact that there is an effort to improve support for mobile users. (I've always found sheet music to be a bit on the edge; having dabbled in writing a lilypond interpreter for screenreaders, it's kind of border line since the end result is purely audio and it's within the realm of possibility that a screenreader will support it.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There's not been any rule we should only upload works that work with screen readers, and we preserve original spelling and punctuation, even of old works that, unedited, would pose a significant problem to screen readers. Commons images often have the most basic of descriptions; if you can't see, nothing will tell you that File:At the Earths Core 1922 Dusk Jacket.jpg shows two people, one male, one female, with the man firing a bow at a flying dinosaur. It strikes me as more valuable to makes those more accessible to screen readers than to reject works that won't be accessible to screen readers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Er, I don't really have any opinion about uploading works that aren't valid with screen readers. Any PDF without a valid text layer isn't going to play nice with a screen reader unless it comes with OCR software -- and I'm no expert in how that works. Commons can do whatever they want with their image descriptions and policies and whatnot.
When we proofread works, we proofread as text. The text is compatible with screen readers. For that image you linked to, which I assume is a book cover, the graphic isn't the important part. The important part is the "At the Earth's Core" and author's name text. Images should have alt-text anyway (our own help page for adding images links to Wikipedia's extensive W:Help:Pictures page, which discusses this; not only is it important for screen readers but also in case commons is slow/glitches/has connectivity issues and the image doesn't load.)
If you don't care about disabled users with screen readers, then care about mobile users. I would be supremely unhappy if I go to read a work and then it uses up all of my data because it suddenly downloads 900 mb of images instead of text without warning. Or people with slow or rate limited internet. Or people who browse without images because they're behind a corporate or government firewall, or because they're on a metered connection. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The text is compatible with screen readers? Really? There's a screen reader that can handle Wið Ymbe Nim Eorþan?
It's trivial to dismiss something as unimportant, but if it's truly unimportant, than why bother having it? I could dismiss all the text of "At the Earth's Core" as unimportant; go see w:At the Earth's Core, that will tell you everything truly important. A blind person could well want to know what the cover looks like, more than just what you think is important. Images should have alt-text, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and the alt-text rarely tries to convey that.
It's not that I don't care about users with screen readers; I simply think we shouldn't throw away something just because it can't be used by them.
Lastly, B&W images, especially vector graphics, are tiny. File:Gregg_abacus.svg is 1KB. Clicking on The Sea Lady loads a 204 KB image without warning. If you want warnings, then that's discussable, but Hamlet in Gregg Shorthand is not going to be a standout work in our collection for data size. If you browse without images, you won't get to read the book. You also won't get the full effect of America's Best Comics/26, no matter what we do with it. That's a personal choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should also be noted that this is not a transcription of Shakespear's Hamlet, but a transcription of Charles Lamb's retelling of the story. It's value therefore is somewhat lessened. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I would move to delete this. If you consider Gregg shorthand like we would a font in a computer document, the only novelty in the work is the use of the typeface. It would be like trying to transclude "Hamlet - Printed in Blackletter" or "Wuthering Heights in Hieroglyphics." If this is, as EncycloPetey pointed out above, Charles Lamb's "version" of Hamlet, I would propose finding the text of that to preserve and then nixing the shorthand entirely. (The blackletter is not entirely an apt comparison since it's 1:1 with the Latin alphabet, but a phonetic script like hieroglyphics or runes would be more analogous.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The text of Charles Lamb's version exists at: Tales from Shakespeare/Hamlet. Though we do not yet have a scan-backed edition here, there is a link to an external scan of the 5th edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a different font; it's a different script. There's no reason for us not to preserve the few English works published in non-Latin scripts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that if it's not technically feasible, and if there's no user who wants to commit to seeing the project through, then it should be excluded. It's preserved inasmuch as it's been uploaded to Commons. The text is preserved at the link provided by EncycloPetey above. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. As I said before, this text is contrary to neither policy nor precedent. Novelty is not a requirement for hosting a text here. I will also say that "Hamlet - Printed in Blackletter" (or runes) or "Wuthering Heights in Hieroglyphics" would also be in scope and welcome at enWS if an editor is willing to make the effort to proofread them. If Jasonanaggie (or another user) is willing to create the images and thus proofread the text, there is no reason to exclude this text from our website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
And how would someone with a screen reader be expected to read it? Without some consensus and/or a policy related to alternative scripts/alphabets it's not clear on how such a thing should be transcribed in the first place. A literal translation? Eg. each character in the Gregg shorthand represents a phonetic sound -- do we transcribe the sounds in English as the image alt-text? Using the phonetic alphabet? Etc. Also it hasn't been touched in over a year so I would say that it fails the "if an editor is willing to make the effort" test.... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In the absence of a site-wide consensus regarding how to transcribe it, it is up to the proofreaders of the work itself to establish a guideline (ideally documented on the Index talk page). I've provided the uploader an example of how one might go about doing so (using the method that was used for Insular letters until about six months ago). I've also linked to examples of another method that would work, that has been used for sheet music and comic books that we are hosting. As for your last comment, there are a few works on my list of works in progress that I have not touched in over a year, and yet I do not consider them abandoned as I do intend to get to them all eventually. For that reason I would prefer to defer to the uploader's intentions on this matter. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
At what point, then, do we consider works abandoned? Because this one has managed to show up in this discussion with no validated pages, no proofreading guidelines on the talk page, and pretty much nobody sure of what in the world to do about it after a year. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, your advocacy to remove works is sort of puzzling to me. What does it matter if there is another tome on the bookshelf, if you aren't having to assemble the bookshelves yourself? Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For more difficult works, such as this one, when it is abandoned without even guidance for how someone else could step in and finish it I believe that it is better to not attempt it at all. This isn't a tome on the bookshelf; this is a collection of paper sitting in a box in the garage waiting to be assembled into a book at some point, but without instruction for how it should be put together. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie: have you abandoned this work? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say I will find other volumes to add before I would get around to this problematic one, though I still think it would be fun to do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Adventures of Ann[edit]

The following discussion is closed: replaced by scan-backed edition —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a standard policy (and boilerplate) for drive-by copy-paste contributions? Our contributor of the Lowell articles has added another text filled with scannos, but which has no backing scan for proofreading. This sort of thing happens often enough that I think we should have a standard notice, but if we have such a thing, I do not know where it is. If we do not have it, then perhaps we can draft one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This particular user has had ... issues with understanding WS policy. I believe we may have discussed this on the Administrators' Notice Board. I would lean towards deleting this work and once again attempting to explain to this user the processes and policies we have in place here. I don't believe this is a widespread issue moreso than an issue affecting a very small subset of users, most of whom are good faith one-time contributors. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
why not just convert to match and split? https://archive.org/details/adventuresofanns00freerich/page/n5 -- shouldn’t be too hard to knock out. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is match and split working again? It wasn't the last time someone asked about it. In any case, I'm still hoping we can get some boilerplate to deal with the next time this occurs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been using M&S to good effect in recent months, FWIW. -Pete (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally it seems like M&S in this case is like validating the "work" of a user who is refusing to work with the community and follow the community's agreed upon processes and policies. Nothing against the process in general, but perpetual cleanup of incorrect content seems like it is taking away from time we could spend in other areas. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I am in general opposed to deleting works that are in scope and easily fixed, especially when (as User:Slowking4 points out) a scan is readily available for match and split. However I do agree that there should be an mbox of some sort to indicate "this work was added with minimal effort, and if it isn't brought up to snuff it will be deleted without further notice" (perhaps speedied as A3 Works without authorship information). I've been using {{no source}} and {{no license}} and similar mboxes to that effect in the past, perhaps these could be modified to state that failure to add the required info will result in proposed or speedy deletion as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
it is unclear to me that the "not scan backed" backlog is increasing. or that the answer is to delete new not scan backed, when we have thousands of ancient ones. (i.e. 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aehrenthal, Aloys Lexa von, Count) and yes, if we have a maintenance category or tag, then we could work the backlog. just because you do not want to fix other people’s uploads, does not mean others will not, or that the solution is deletion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Maryland state laws relating to specific railroads[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, split and moved to portal space —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If there were any active work going on with the works in this list it might be appropriate to turn it into a portal, as such the works that currently in Wikisource are already all listed under the more general Portal:Maryland General Assembly and Portal:Transportation and communications. Prosody (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete along with Maryland state laws relating to the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road. Realistically it should be made into a portal, but as you say once cleanup is done the converted portal will be very sparse. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering that Maryland state laws relating to the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road actually contains several such legislative texts, there is enough to populate a portal. Changing my vote to Symbol keep vote.svg Keep in portal space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Author:Joseph II[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, authored works identified —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Holy Roman Emperor. Are there any works written by this person, or should this Author page be converted to a Portal? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently he issued over 10,000 edicts as part of the sweeping reforms of w:Josephinism. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
HathiTrust has 27 full-text works under his name, though none in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Index:Restoration of the Works of Art of Italy.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy delete redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate? Wikisource seems to have at least 2 other editions at :

? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gypsy Lore Society copydumps[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
* Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society/Volume III

These copydumps have sat unformatted since 2011. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per EncycloPeteyMJLTalk 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:The Reviewer Barnstar[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Abandoned experiment, apparently unused. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this gets deleted, then we should probably delete Template:Substituted which was created at pretty much the exact same time (or turned into a redirect). We kind of already have Template:Must be substituted (which is designed rather poorly in my opinion). –MJLTalk 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It's funny to me that I was literally looking at this template today. –MJLTalk 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral don't care, it's not bothering anyone —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)