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 in , 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

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)

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

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)
  •  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

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..

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)
Done —Beleg 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

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)
 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.

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

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)

 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)
 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

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

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)

 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

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

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

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)
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

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)

 Delete Agreed. But it will take someone quite a bit of work to eliminate the usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 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)
 Delete— Mpaa (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 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

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)
 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)
 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)
 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

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. Slowking4 ‽ SvG'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. Slowking4 ‽ SvG'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

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)

 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  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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 Delete per EncycloPetey –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 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

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)

 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). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It's funny to me that I was literally looking at this template today. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 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)

{{large}}, et al

The following discussion is closed:

Kept because of reasoned opposition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We have a series of deprecated templates:

They were replaced in 2010 by the {{larger}}, {{smaller}} (etc) family. The reason they were not made redirects is that the usage wasn't linear and there were subtle differences in the results -- {{large}} became {{xx-larger}} etc. (Or, at least, that is my understanding; I wasn't around or paying attention at the time.) The original PD discussion can be found in the archives here.

Either way, these templates are now banners that say "this template is deprecated, use <other> template instead.". For example, {{large}}:

I have confirmed using 'what links here' that these templates are unused in the Index, Page, and main namespaces, and the remaining uses are archives of Scriptorium or WS:PD and what looks like a sandbox/cheatsheet of a long-inactive user.

As such, I propose that we either delete these templates, or create permanent redirects to the similarly named template. For example, {{large}} would permanently redirect to {{larger}}. My reasoning is as follows:

  • These are common typos for the correct template, and they mean the same thing: "make this text extra small" and "make this text extra smaller" really do mean the same thing, semantically.
  • The reason that the original template was deprecated in this other fashion was because they were heavily used at the time and since the replacement process involved "subtle differences" the banner was used to ease confusion for the process. This was 8 years ago, though, and since then nobody has used these templates so any confusion should have been long alleviated.

I didn't want to go ahead and do it myself since the current implementation was the result of a community discussion/concensus. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support redirecting, since the templates are not in use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 Support redirecting except {{small}}, which is currently the poster child for use of the deprecation template. If we want to redirect that one, we should find identify another template to use as an exemplar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose on further reflection. There is a difference between font-size:small; and font-size:smaller;, and we shouldn't use {{small}} to approximate the behaviour of the smaller keyword. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Er, {{small}} doesn't approximate the behavior of font-size:small either. It approximates a big ugly banner:
Not that nuances in CSS relative font-sizes should mean anything in template names. That's why we have {{fine}}. (Nor is {{smaller}} defined using font-size:smaller either: it uses 83%. This makes sense, since smaller is a relative keyword and it would just make the font-size the next relative size smaller than its parent, whatever that may be.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Historia Calamitatusm: The Story of My Misfortunes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Duplicate work; partial main page and introduction; no content.--EncycloPetey (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This work, and its unfinished Introduction transcription, is a duplicate of Historia Calamitatum. The latter work contains the text in full, albeit not separated into subpages. -Einstein95 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:2016 U.S. presidential election

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Empty category.--Jusjih (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Support. Looks like it once contained works that have since been deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 Delete per above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Kama sutra

The following discussion is closed:

kept, to be migrated to DJVU—Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Kama_Sutra book available in wikisource is a typed one. We have a djvu available for the book and it is proofread as well. How to migrate this typed version to the djvu one. Is there any template/process to do? Or should I just delete all the pages in the typed version and proceed with the usual transclusion process? --Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are certain they are the same edition, then you can edit each page of Kama Sutra and replace the contents with the usual <pages /> transclusion method. If they are not the same edition, we will first need to determine whether it is possible to complete our copy of the existing edition at Kama Sutra. If we can, then we will host two editions of the Kama Sutra simultaneously. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

The following discussion is closed:

kept, scan provided —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This work is moribund and has been for about ten years. It is a copy and paste from Bartleby. Of the many pages in the work we only have a few, and if we needed the work we should go back and get the scan and work from that,

{{Special:PrefixIndex/Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable}}

Noting that there are disambiguation pages containing and we should purge those pages of links if we delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete including all existing subpages. In addition to disambiguation pages, there are some accompanying Talk pages that will also need to go. The work can easily be recreated more authoritatively from scans if sufficient interest arises. Tarmstro99 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't find a scan of this exact edition (1898, published by Henry Altemus), but there are lots of scans of other printings out there. When I have a chance I'll put a scan behind it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Patients in mental institutions

The following discussion is closed:

kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear like there's an active effort to digitize these, so it might be best to remove them from the main namespace until someone decides to work on them. Prosody (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Keep since they have scans behind them and can easily be picked up by any interested editor. They should be tagged {{incomplete}} and I would also suggest to ensure a TOC is added on the main page so that readers can see that the works have contents and that those contents are not yet available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Index:Собрание Советских Конституций и Конституционных Актов (Collections of Soviet Constitutions and Constitutional Acts).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Non English work, should be migrated to Ukranian or Russian Wikisource dependent on language used..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be acceptable if it were to be used for translation purposes. I'll ping the uploader. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It would not be acceptable at this time. In order to host the Index for translation purposes, the original must be hosted with a backing scan on the native-language Wikisource. Such a copy does not exist on either ru.WS nor uk.WS, which would be a prerequisite for starting an original translation here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Vol 2 of Ec. Writings of Petty

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest to delete Index:William Petty - Economic Writings (1899) vol 2.djvu? The volume is incomplete and replaced by Index:PettyWilliam1899EconomicWritingsVol2.djvu. --Dick Bos (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If they are truly redundant, then it can be speedily deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Jesus

The following discussion is closed:

nominated category is deleted without opposition; no clear consensus regarding other items, suggest creating new discussions if action desired (I will investigate Portal:Buddhist sutras further) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Essentially an author category (see Author:Jesus of Nazareth); can be merged into Category:Christianity. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A Portal maybe. Jesus of Nazareth is not credited with writing any works himself. All his works as "author" are secondhand quotations at best. "Jesus" as a subject for works has its own set of numbers in most library catalogs because he is the subject of many, many works, so a Portal would seem better suited (as we have for Portal:Socrates) rather than putting everything under the Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
As we've discussed in the past may times, Portals are only appropriate for individuals who have not written any works (like Portal:Socrates), and Author pages are only appropriate for individuals who have written works. Your suggestion therefore amounts to moving Author:Jesus of Nazareth to Portal space, while still deleting the category as I have proposed. However, we have also had discussions that confirmed that Author pages are appropriate for individuals with only falsely-attributed or spurious writings, and the Letter to Abgarus, though known only through second-hand provenance, is a falsely-attributed or spurious writing. His other listed works claim to be transcribed speeches, which are also commonly considered authored works on Wikisource. For these reasons I would oppose moving Author:Jesus of Nazareth to Portal space. I would, however, support creating a redirect or soft redirect from Portal space to Author space; I would also support more prominently linking to Author:Jesus of Nazareth from the Christianity-related portals. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If you look through the archives of this very page, you will see discussions about Author:Adam, Author:Noah, and other Biblical figures, in which the consensus was that they ought to be in Author space due to the fact that works are attributed to them in various religious traditions. I think Author:Jesus of Nazareth has better provenance for these works than those others do. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
But unlike Adam and Noah, Jesus is the author of religious teachings. How would a Portal:Jesus be any different than Portal:Buddhist sutras, a portal for the words of the Buddha? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I know very little about the Buddha and Buddhism. If Portal:Buddhist sutras is a portal only for works by or about Author:Gautama Buddha, I will personally merge its contents into Author:Gautama Buddha where they belong. — I do think that there is a place for separate portals if the focus is different or tangential, such as Portal:Christ myth theory or Portal:Hymns. I could support a portal for similarly tangential topics like "teachings of Jesus" (though Portal:Christianity is essentially this already), or "historicity of Jesus", or "Christology", or so forth; but this is largely irrelevant to the discussion since Category:Jesus should still be deleted and Author:Jesus of Nazareth should still be retained as the primary listing of works pertaining to Jesus as an individual person. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:D (redirect)

The following discussion is closed:

kept, no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Under WS:CSD#M2, I propose we delete this redirect. It has been 10+ years since its creation, and it has not been used once to my knowledge. It's unneeded if you ask me, but I figured proposing it for nomination rather than using {{Speedy}} would be more transparent. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose mildly - I think simple shortcuts for policies are a good thing, and so WS:D is a good redirect to have. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Arizona Senate Bills

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per consensus —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it useful while empty now?--Jusjih (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The System of Nature

The following discussion is closed:

Kept and converted; The previous version has been paired to a scan, and an Index page established. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The System of Nature (1770) by Baron D'Holbach, translated by Samuel Wilkinson. No edition data.

A work that is not scan-supported, there is the introduction and first chapter, and many empty chapters. If we are to have this work then we should get a scan and proofread from that. This is abandoned and unlikely to be finished. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I found no scan at IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment It seems to be this scan on Google Books, and this copy of the same scan on HathiTrust, and it seems to be a cut and paste from this webpage. A split and match seems an idea; it's a lot to work on, but certainly a worthy work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Here's the 1820 translation by Samuel Wilkinson on IA https://archive.org/details/systemofnatureor13holb -Einstein95 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a fan of that edition. Besides the serious misattribution on the title page to the wrong author, and the obscurity of the translator, that scan contains only volume I. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:cl-act and Template:Cl-act-p family...

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposing editor; --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Despite considerable efforts to get this to work in a consistent/compatible manner with other templates, it is my view that it's just too complex to ever work properly, or be maintainable, in a way which doesn't mean the SAME concerns about obscure interactions between it and other templates, don't come up again and again every six months. Let's just get rid of the whole thing and come up with ONE "compatible and consistent" approach for doing sidetitles, that won't cause obscure interactions that are tiresome to debug, because no-one here with the necessary rights to do so seems interested in actually implenting the fixed functionality this template/module needs. The incompatiblity with {{di}} and {{initial}} is essentially the final straw in respect of this family of templates long term usage. It cannot in my view be fixed (given current limitations in Mediawiki/HTML/CSS), and thus should be deleted so that sanity prevails.

If you want to retain this template, PLEASE provide a version of it that doesn't break every six months, and does not have obscure interactions between various other "floated" templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 Delete - On the grounds of maintaining sanity, in respect of templates that are understandable and maintainable ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment We can't delete a template that's widely used in multiple pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment While this would normally be an G7 author request, EncycloPetey is correct that it is too widely used by the requester to simply delete and then leave broken template calls throughout the Page: and Main: namespaces. Before the set can be deleted, the requester needs to be able to prove a) that there is minimal current use (i.e. it has been removed from all the various Pages the requester has used it on); and b) that the requester has stopped fiddling with it (as didn't happen after the last deletion request). With respect to the request to provide a version that doesn't break, I would suggest that this would be a valid thing to propose to Summer of Code. Some way of consistently formatting legislation (including sensible sidenotes) within the bounds of MediaWiki would be a useful and good thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you checked where it's in use? I did before nominating. At present I see it in use only on 3 content pages (in respect of the cl-act-p) based versions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course. One of the family (Cl-act) is used on many Mainspace pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay.. That's why I said the cl-act-p family specifcally. I had no part in cl-act itself, but will re-examine .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Cl-act doesn't seem to have a link to {{cl-act}} itself, (only in the documentation examples, which I removed by going back to the earlier version.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm striking my initial comment, as I've noted the comments. I am however going to let this discussion run as the Module derived versions of the templates are effectively seperated from the very old versions, and I am not yet convinced the module derived templates are robust enough for generalised use, even if a lot of efforts been made on them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In respect of the Dropinitial interactions. Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/84, I solved some of the issues (and is essentialy what the cl-act-p/cl-act-h templates should be trying to do.), but this is at the expense of in effect having to force a specific behaviour which isn't ideal, and much more complicated to set up and maintain. Implementing that approach more generally, would need some changes to the cl-act module, and someone that knew what they were doing with respect to LUA code (which I do not currently). I've also noted a 10 year old issue with cl-act-p in that, I never actually implemented the 'page' namespace wrapper version of {{cl-act}} :(. No wonder I've been having so many issues with the float behaviours:( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
And it seems that what I am trying to with drop initials isn't feasible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn , but I'm still concerned this template family needs an overhaul.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Nizolan (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A homage to love

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No source, no license, information was requested from uploader in 2011 and no response since. As far as I can tell the translator is still alive and there is no indication that the translation is free from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete as probable copyvio. The translator Vida Janković is cited as a lecturer in Belgrade in 1963, has video lectures recorded in 2012, and I can find new publications within the past 10 years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

A History of the Sikhs

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is made by me by mistake so I want it to be deleted.--Harkawal Benipal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:A Voyage to Terra Australis - Vol 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate to Index:A Voyage to Terra Australis Volume 1.djvu ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:SfnRef

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any need anywhere for this template on Wikisource? We already have Template:Harvnb; do we need another? On Wikipedia such templates are invaluable, but here, do we need two? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: No immediate opinion on keep/delete, but just to note: sfnref and harvnb do not perform the same function. Harvnb spits out an actual short citation ("Smith 2019, p. 42") while sfnref spits out the HTML fragment identifier (anchor) needed to link to a full citation ("CITEREFSmith2019"). Harvnb would typically be used in the main article body of a enwp article somewhere (inline or inside ref tags), while sfnref would be used as a parameter to a full citation template (cite book, cite journal, etc.) in order to generate the target that harvnb or sfn links to. In that sense it has some function anywhere that we place a full citation that would be linked to (on the same page or a different page). Whether that is really needed here is another matter. --Xover (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this isn't used anywhere; it is a cut and paste move from enwp; the author hasn't edited since creating it, nor responded to Petey's request on their talk page; and I cannot think of any actual use for it on this project. Nobody has spoken up here objecting to its deletion either. So I'm going to go ahead and delete it, but with no prejudice to undeleting if a use case pops up. I would however recommend trying to import it rather then cut and paste copy it if at all possible in that case. --Xover (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:United States v. $29,410.00.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Resolved. --Xover (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reason: WS:CSD#G7 Request. It's currently an unneeded redirect, and I want to undo my previous move. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Normally you can place {{speedy}} on a page that can be speedied, and someone will generally take care of it for you. I'm a bit confused in this case though, since United States v. $29,410.00.pdf and File:US V. $29,410.00.pdf are two different scans; what is your end goal here? Do you want all the proofread pages of United States v. $29,410.00.pdf removed, or do you want to restore it as the scan behind the transcription project, or something else? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: This was quite a mess. I've tried to clean it up, leaving the new status quo as follows:
All other pages (the "US V. …" variants) have been deleted or moved. Please confirm whether this looks correct or not so we can close this section. --Xover (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: It's all fixed!! Thank you so much! *big hug* :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:A short view of the frauds, and abuses committed by apothecaries.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied here and at Commons. --Xover (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate to Index:Merret - A short view of the frauds and abuses committed by apothecaries.pdf ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I've deleted the duplicate and its pages, and nominated the file for speedy at Commons. These are literally the same scan from IA and both uploaded by Chrisguise (one in February and again in March). --Xover (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ulysses (11th edition)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

According to User:Prosfilaes, this is the 1922 edition and not the 11th edition (which was published in 1930). We have a scan-backed copy of the 1922 edition at Ulysses (1922) so this copy from Gutenberg is inferior and redundant. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, and amend Ulysses (Joyce). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ackermann’s Repository of Arts/Series 1/Volume 1/Front matter

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Same pages transcluded to Ackermann’s Repository of Arts/Series 1/Volume 1 ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Rivers to the Sea (Poem)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only reason anyone treats this excerpt from The Mother of a Poet as if it were itself a poem per se, is because someone got confused about the page header on page 81 of the collection and thought it was title of a new poem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Source and Aim of Human Progress - Boris Sidis - Boston - Badger, 1919.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

PDF Duplicate for Index:The Source and Aim of Human Progress.djvu? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicative transclusion : Collingwood - Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll/Chapter 1

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicatively transcluded at The Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll/Chapter I ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll/Preface (and the redirect to it created in good faith by mistake.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bevan_-_Sir_William_Petty_(1894)/Contents

The following discussion is closed:

G4 speedied. --Xover (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicatly transcluded as part of Bevan - Sir William Petty (1894) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic (1875)/Section 3/Section 2/Proposition 8

The following discussion is closed:

G4 speedied. --Xover (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicative transcription of content at : Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic (1875)/Section 2/Proposition 8, Typo creation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Poetical Works of John Oldham/Some Verses on presenting a Book to Cornelia

The following discussion is closed:

G4 speedied. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicative transclusion of content at Poetical Works of John Oldham/Some Verses on presenting a Book to Cosmelia , Typo creation?

(And it would be nice to have a template so obvious duplications like this could be tagged quickly into a tracking category, so I don't need to bring them here for a full disscussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is one: {{sdelete|G4 Redundant}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Where Thieves Break In

The following discussion is closed:

fixed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicative (unsourced) of "Where Thieves Break In" which is sourced. Would suggest moving the latter over the former, as it's title is closer to the style guide? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, moved to correct location / redirected and moved to scan —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate transcription?

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as G4. --Xover (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Theophrastus and The Greek Physiological Psychology Before Aristotle & On Sense Perception (Theophrastus) Neither is fully sourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Both were added by the same user and within half an hour of each other, and both are obvious cut&paste from somewhere, it's just the latter has been somewhat wikified afterwards. I'm going to go ahead and say CSD#G4 applies to this and speedy the former. --Xover (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-SCOTUS

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, use existing parent template:PD-USGov

This is a newly-created template that overlaps with {{PD-USGov}}, and which applies only to images. WS practice in the past has been to limit the number of templates, rather than proliferate new ones. There is no separate law that requires a SCOTUS-specific license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The only possibly relevant special case I can think of would be a source-specific version of {{PD-EdictGov}}, since pretty much everything SCOTUS produces is the very definition of EdictGov. I definitely do not see any point in a PD-USGov derivative specifically for SCOTUS and limited to images. Absent any other reason, I land on  Delete. --Xover (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:A French volunteer of the war of independence (the chevalier de Pontgibaud).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept per Beleg Tâl --Xover (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Largely identical edition to that in Index:A French Volunteer of the War of Independence.djvu ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Keep Different publisher and date, if someone wants to proofread the second one even though it is very similar, we should keep it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

G4 speedied: they were the same scan, one just had an incorrect identifier. --Xover (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate to Index:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

They are indeed the same edition. But there are two different scans, and the one without an existing transcription effort is of significantly better quality (Wellcombe Trust sponsored scan performed by IA). I would say ideally we should migrate the transcription to the better scan, but that also seems like quite a lot of work for marginal benefit. Anybody want to take a stab at this? --Xover (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the Welocmbe trust back scanned had some issues with the scan concerning absent pages, but noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I take it back. These are in fact the exact same scan! Don't trust the source field on the files' description pages: the crappy Google-ish scan from IA:historyofmathema031756mbp was uploaded as File:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu and then replaced with the Wellcome sponsored scan from IA:b29980343_0001, but |source= on Commons was never updated. In light of this, the two Indexes are clearly redundant so I'm going to go ahead and speedy the empty one and update the source given on Commons. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Homes of the New World- Vol. I.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

DjVu file fixed, and PDF deleted as redundant. --Xover (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

PDF Duplicate of DJVU scans at Index:The Homes of the New World- Vol. I.djvu?

 Delete, different scans, but appears to be same edition. Images of pages 170 and 171 should be used to repair the DJVU scan file. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
If nobody else wants to do it, I can take a stab at fixing that DjVu (and then deleting the PDF) when I find the time. Please do somebody ping me if it looks like I've forgotten about it! --Xover (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted based on original discussion at WS:CV; so closing before the customary two week minimum. --Xover (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a more or less procedural followup from WS:CV#Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdf.

The work was first published in India in 1941, and its author died in 1947. It entered the public domain in India in 2007. It was thus not in the public domain in India on the URAA date in 1996, and as such its US copyright was restored as 95 years after publication. It will therefore not enter the public domain in the US until 2036. This was the conclusion of the previous discussion, and I concur.

The discussion at WS:CV concluded that the file should be deleted, but it has not so far been acted on. I am loath to do so based on a discussion outside WS:PD (strictly speaking the right venue for it), and I am loath to apply CSD#6 to a work that has already been the subject of discussion (I wouldn't want to short-circuit discussion/consensus). So I'm instead bringing it here to confirm the previous conclusion to delete it.

If a more experienced admin wants to nuke it under CSD or based on the previous discussion I have no objection.

@Hrishikes, @Rajasekhar1961, @ShakespeareFan00, @BethNaught: Pinging participants of previous discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: WS:CV is the correct location for the discussion. If a discussion at WS:CV determines that a work is incompatible with our copyright policy, you can simply delete it under the rationale "copyvio". There is no need to crosspost the discussion here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Also: the discussion at WS:CV shouldn't be closed until the file is deleted. Also: consider moving the work to Wikilivres over deleting it outright, when possible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I just noticed several discussions there seemed to suggest "delete" but where not always acted on, so I figured the practice might have developed that it was used for preliminary discussions with a final determination on whether to delete made here based on that. In any case, I was clearly too timid in this case. :)
As for Wikilivres, I have enough trouble keeping enWS, Commons, and enwp policies and customs straight: if I try to add Wikilivres to the mix my head will explode. Any discussions that conclude "Move to Wikilivres" will have to be handled by someone with better capacity for such things than I. --Xover (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay bhargav

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied at mulWS. --Xover (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if its in scope of Wikisource but only intended as self promotion Gbawden (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why the link is not resolving but the page is here https://wikisource.org/wiki/Okay_bhargav —unsigned comment by Gbawden (talk) 09:39, Jul 8, 2019 (UTC).
@Gbawden: I think you meant to post this at mul:Wikisource:Proposed deletions: the page Okay bhargav and its associated image has been deleted here, but still exists at multilingual Wikisource as mul:Okay bhargav. --Xover (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Xover: Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Process of Selection in Oregon Pioneer Settlement.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Index and all subpages deleted as redundant. Kept versions still require validation, but their content is very brief (and in some ways better than the validated duplicates), so no reason to keep the duplicates. Tarmstro99 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated by content already transcluded here The_Process_of_Selection_in_Oregon_Pioneer_Settlement which is also scan backed.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 Delete per nom -Pete (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 Delete I think CSD#G4 actually applies to this one, but as it is both proofread and validated, and one is standalone and the other part of a collection, I'm loath to take any shortcuts on this (if a more experienced admin wants to I would absolutely support that). In any case: delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Tarmstro99 13:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Tale of Two Brothers

The following discussion is closed:

kept, replaced with more faithful scan-based version —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No source, and I cannot find one (although I can find recent works that used our copy). Without a source, we cannot tell whether this violated copyright.

There is a different translation in (external scan) "Stories from the Early World", R. M. Fleming (1923), if someone would like to create a DjVu from the Google copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a slightly modified version of this translation by William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1901). The earliest version like ours that I can find is this one. I think we should replace our version with a more failthful rendition of Petrie's. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey, @Beleg Tâl: I have uploaded that scan and set up an index for it. The prolegomena are transcluded at Egyptian Literature (plus Contents and Introduction), and the relevant story is transcluded as Egyptian Literature/Anpu and Bata. I propose that we redirect Tale of Two Brothers to this transcription.
However, I have not yet done the redirect because I am a little uncertain about the best way to structure this work. The edition collects four distinct "books" of material: The Book of the Dead, Egyptian Tales, The Tell Amarna Tablets, and Cuneiform Inscriptions and Hieratic Papyri. All with different translators (and for the latter, different translators for each contained text). Each of the main sections are on the order of 50–100 pages, so too long to keep on a single transcluded page. But each contained text is as little as half a printed page, up to maybe 10–20 printed pages for the longest, so it is slightly overkill to have a separate page for each.
My initial idea was to make subpages for each of the main sections of the work: Egyptian Literature/The Book of the Dead with its title and ToC, and Egyptian Literature/The Book of the Dead/A Hymn to the Setting Sun for each individual text. That would also allow us to have just a short AuxTOC on the main work page, instead of the several hundred lines of each text. However with that setup I'm not sure how we would handle navigation and the header.
Any suggestions and feedback would be most welcome! --Xover (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a three-level structure makes the most sense given the structure of the source volume. I generally set up three-level navigation linearly: see The Hesperides & Noble Numbers/Hesperides for example.
Ok, I've set it up as a three-level structure, and I think I'm sufficiently confident it'll work that I've gone ahead and redirected the unsourced text to it. Further feedback is, of course, always welcome! If nobody objects in a day or two I'll mark this as resolved. --Xover (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of author based categories

The following discussion is closed:

Proposal opened on WS:S. --Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that author-based categories should be deletable under the speedy deletion policy so that we don't have to raise a discussion every time one pops up. They probably fall under rationale G5 (beyond scope) so the policy itself wouldn't need to be modified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed but perhaps a new G8 criterion? Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There was a general discussion here to which we can link. If we are going to add it to the criterion, then we need to have supportive documentation of why they are out of scope for what wikisource includes, and how we explain the few that escape the reasoning. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the policy apply more broadly to person-based categories, not merely authors? -Pete (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be all person-based categories. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Maine woods.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, different edition. --Xover (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate of Index:The Maine Woods (1864).djvu (which has been fully validated) but with damaged source file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Different publisher, not a duplicate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely different editions. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Prince (Marriott)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and scan-backed version moved into its place. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Redundant to - The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) which scan backed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you started a discussion I'm not going to start wading in there, but doesn't this fall under WS:CSD G4? I also see you've tagged some, but not nearly all, subpages of it with {{sdelete}}. Did you perhaps mean to use {{delete}}? At least to me it makes no sense to do both: either it's proposed deletion or it is a request for speedy deletion. --Xover (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes my mistake, but very probably G4.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete It's not exactly the same edition; note that the final line of The Prince (Marriott)/The Man and His Work references a work published 1929, whereas The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) was published 1908. However, given that it's incomplete, it's not scan backed, it's likely a composite edition given that it's from Gutenberg, and it may very well contain copyvio editorial content given the post-1929 publication date, I support deleting it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think that The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott) should be moved without redirect to The Prince (Marriott), since the latter is the established location of the text, and is more inline with our naming conventions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete per Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete per Beleg Tâl. Just came across this from another work mentioning this translation. --Einstein95 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:EB1911:Geographic Features:Mountains:Europe and Category:EB1911:Geographic Features:Mountains should be deleted

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under G4/M1. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

These two empty categories should be deleted, they are covered by c:Category:EB1911:Mountains:Europe and c:Category:EB1911:Mountains. DivermanAU (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: These were obviously outside the defined EB1911 category hierarchy, and redundant with local categories in the proper place in the hierarchy. So I've slightly boldly gone ahead and speedied both under a combination of G4 (redundant) and M1 (process deletions): they look essentially like typo creations that are left behind after moving to the correct category names (since categories can't be moved like pages can). If anyone disagrees I'll be happy to undelete. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift action! DivermanAU (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

William Kolakoski

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I can find no source for this text, nor any reason to consider it freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete The source is most likely The William Kolakoski Collection at Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, or, to be more accurate, it is probably either from Mike Vargo or Clark Kimblering by way of someone wishing to memorialize Kolakoski (quite possibly one of them personally). The Wikipedia article on him has the same tone ("… known as Bill to family and friends …"), and is supported by a single citation to "Personal communication from Jim Vargo to Clark Kimberling in 2001"). IOW, I'd say this is both copyvio and out of scope. --Xover (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete Likely copyvio, clearly out of scope. BD2412 T 19:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it clearly out of scope; I'd happily host a eulogy and some emails provided they are properly licensed and sourced. In this case however, it appears to be neither of those. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The clear copyvio has sat here for almost two years with no steps taken towards resolving. If somebody later uploads a redacted version we can undelete the few pages that were actually proofread. --Xover (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File was moved from Commons, but basically issues from c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HRPEvidenceBook.pdf need to be solved. Either the unfree images mentioned cut from the PDF and new version reuploaded while old revdeleted, or as per Wikisource:Copyright policy#Fair use it should go away. --Base (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The scan of the work is the scan as has been released and is the copy of the text. I would  Keep for the file, and the reproduced text. The issue of any claimed images is related to the discussion on WS:S about the proposed change on exemptions to copyright where they are part of a reproduced work, so images for me are undetermined. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the discussion referred to above ended without reaching a conclusion, and nobody has stepped up to redact the non-free images, I say we delete this now. It's outside policy and has been sitting there for two years now. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 Delete And looking closer, redacting this will be a pain: in addition to the two photographs identified as examples at Commons, and assuming every sorta space-y photo is a NASA photo, there are a ton of charts and plots that are taken from other non-NASA reports and journal articles. The first few such I spotted weren't available online so it's hard to determine licensing for certain, but it seems unlikely that all of them will be under a compatible license, and tracking all of them down would be a lot of work. Nobody has worked on this project since 2012, when 10–15 pages were proofread, nor has anyone expressed an interest in working on it in the year and a half it's been nominated for deletion. I say we nuke it entire now, and if anybody wants to upload a redacted version to work on we can undelete the few existing pages then. --Xover (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Holy Family (Marx, Engels, Dixon).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under G6+G7. --Xover (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Source file was deleted from commons per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Holy Family (Marx, Engels, Dixon).djvu. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Based on the Commons discussion, this seems a clear copyvio. @Mathmitch7: If you concur with the conclusion on Commons and request it, we can probably just speedy this under a combination of CSD#G6 (copyvio) and CSD#G7 (author request). --Xover (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good Mathmitch7 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cold Nuclear Fusion: A Hypothesis

The following discussion is closed:

speedy kept, clearly in scope —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a hangover from user:Abd's attempts to create a cold fusion walled garden. The article is written by someone with no obvious credentials, advances a crank theory, and is not peer-reviewed. It's basically free web hosting for cold fusion wibble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk)

 Keep The magazine Infinite Energy appears to be a real publication, and the article is properly released via OTRS, so the work in question is in scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The work has already been discussed and determined to be in scope at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-01#Cold Fusion Hypothesis —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghanistan

The following discussion is closed:

Now-invalid license templates deleted, and works whose sole claim to being PD was one of those licenses likewise. There is significant need to evaluate other works by the authors involved (bin Laden, Karzai, etc.) but that is outside the scope of this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This was once a valid template, but Afghanistan has adopted a life+50 copyright law[2], and has joined the WTO[3] as of July 29, 2016 and thus that is the URAA date for Afghanistan; all Afghani works published by authors alive in 1966 or later are now copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior to that discussion, we should be relicensing existing works, and dealing with the template to find out whether we have suitable existing templates to cater for the works, or we need to update this template for specificity. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ugh. I think we have a problem here. Checking Category:PD-Afghan it seems it's mostly Bin Laden / Taliban letters, communiques, etc.; and a couple of Karzai speeches. All of them from over the last two-ish decades. Afghanistan enacted a copyright law in 2008 (pma. 50, essentially), and it was retroactive and has no provisions ala. PD-AfghanGov. When they joined the WTO in 2016, every Afghan work whose author was not dead by 1966 (or anonymous works published after 1966) became copyrighted in Afghanistan and (through the URAA) in the US. Based on a cursory check, that's every single work in that category (only 15 total, but still)! I see no way around nuking all of them. Anyone else? --Xover (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    Just noting that Template:PD-Unjust is equally affected. --Xover (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Which affects only one work: A Call to Jihad to End the Aggression against Gaza by Bin Laden. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note To the best of my understanding, all works currently in this category are both copyright violations in a legal sense, and are in conflict with our copyright policy. If nobody objects or comes up with a credible loophole in the next couple of days I feel I am obligated to delete all these works and the two mentioned templates (they are no longer valid, per Prosfilaes above). I don't want to be that delete-happy admin, but I can't see any room neither legally nor policy-wise too keep these. --Xover (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Are any of them covered by {{IEEPA}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    They might be, but the IEEPA is essentially a fair use claim, which also makes it incompatible with our policy. In fact, we shouldn't even have a {{IEEPA}} license template nor any files whose sole claim to copyright policy compliance rests on the IEEPA. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't understand the law or the concept of "blocked property" well enough to understand why this is a fair use claim rather than a exempt-from-copyright claim, but you may be right. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    The IEEPA is a federal law that essentially allows POTUS to declare a specific kind of emergency and, while that state of emergency obtains, to seize the assets of and regulate trade (a power normally reserved for Congress) with, the targets of that emergency. The targets are typically rogue or hostile nations (Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) or designated terrorist organisations (Hezbollah, al Qaida, etc.). The law also makes it a federal crime to circumvent the seizures or regulations enacted under the law. It does not at all address copyright, except insofar as copyright is an asset that can be seized or regulated. That is, the IEEPA actually does not affect copyright at all.
    The IEEPA does, however, contain an exception for transporting information (it also excepts luggage for personal use: it's weirdly specific!) which is not to be criminalised as "illegal trade" (or "trade in blocked property"). What {{IEEPA}} actually asserts is that since the text we host here is just information, we should not be put in jail for conspiring to violate the IEEPA. That's actually not even true: if our reusers attempt to exploit the text commercially they will be prosecuted (as Javed Iqbal learned the hard way). We might conceivably have a similar liability (we're just too small fish for anyone to bother frying).
    But the bottom line is that the IEEPA does not affect copyright status one way or the other, so {{IEEPA}} is not a valid license template. --Xover (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    So when it talks about blocking all rights or privileges related to the property in question—not only does this not include copyright, but in fact that entire clause does not apply to information at all? In that case, it seems to me that the claim of {{IEEPA}} that "any corresponding copyright is 'blocked property' in the United States" is categorically incorrect, and in that case I would agree that the template and any documents that depend on it must be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    There's a long version of this reply (available on request), but the short version is: IEEPA does not invalidate any existing copyright, and §1702(b)(3) is an exception that does not apply to things like terrorist propaganda. Iqbal was convicted in 2008 and faced up to 15 years in prison (I haven't been able to track down the actual sentence); and our situation is absolutely analogous on anything tagged with {{IEEPA}}. --Xover (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    In my view, Wikisource should pro-actively delete content which has originated with 'terrorists' or 'extremists' as applicable US law defines or proscribes. This should be done regardless of any copyright considerations. With that in mind IEEPA works should be subject to immediate deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Collaptogg list

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Can be undeleted if anybody wants the code for something. --Xover (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unused experimental template (abandoned GOIII project), untouched since 2010, that also does not appear to have ever actually worked. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bryan's dictionary of painters and engravers, 1903-1905

The following discussion is closed:

Set up as full transcription project, which is clearly in scope. --Xover (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Two page excerpt from a five volume work. Would be preferable to add the full Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, but this would be an enormous undertaking. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete A random two-page excerpt without a scan or index seems rather pointless. --Xover (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 Keep Since this is now no longer a "random two-page excerpt without a scan or index". --Xover (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
here is the index of the multi-volume work. [4] do not need to delete, when you can edit it for the scan backed work. only 5 volumes? not enormous at all, compared to DNB and EB1911. why would anyone want to engage in this undertaking when their work will be under deletion threat? Slowking4 ‽ Rama's revenge 00:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No prejudice to restoring if somebody starts work on the whole work. But two pages is too little to have any merit (admit it, you'd have retranscribed rather than asked to have them undeleted) sitting alone and abandoned in mainspace. If you really feel strongly about it I suggest you track down the scans of all five volumes, upload to Commons, set up indexes for them, and then copy the text from Bryan's dictionary of painters and engravers, 1903-1905 into the relevant Page: pages. That way we can keep the existing transcribed text in case anyone ever decides to work on this transcription project, without having a random two-page excerpt sitting in mainspace. And if that sounds like a lot of work to preserve two pages of "list of contributors" then that is exactly my rationale for deleting it now: the two pages alone have too little value to put that much work into, so better to delete them and just retranscribe if somebody starts on the whole work. --Xover (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
i see you think deleting newbie attempts is "tidying up" and an improvement. i do not. it is in scope. it is not a copyright vio, what is the rationale? by deletion we will encourage editors to do it the "right way"? because i can assure you, i will not contribute to that work until i see some teamwork to improve it. you want to delete works, go for it, but i have plenty of work to do, before bothering with your sword of Damocles. Slowking4 ‽ Rama's revenge 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 Keep @Slowking4: Since the index page has been created, I agree that deletion is not the most beneficial course of action. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Keep The work is in scope, the contribution itself was out of scope. If we are talking about the newly-presented version, then we keep it. If we are talking about the random placement of excerpts as was done, then we kill it, though in a supportive means to assist the contributor to positively learn how and what we do. If they are interested then we work with them. We don't keep randomly added excerpts from a five volume work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    further  Comment There are always means to add biographical components of larger works. I am currently doing so with Catholic Encyclopedia and its makers. We do not have a parent page at this time, though we do have transcluded biographical entries that have a citation template, and linked from author pages. So we have the scope for that sort of progression. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Xover (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributed work where we have only two of plenty of the chapters. Work has been abandoned, and it is without a clear source with which work can recognisably continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete. Its' from this copyedited rendition of a 2003 reprint from Dover Publications. I can find no scans of the original 1923 publication on IA or Google Books, and the version on Hathitrust is search-only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I can see as full view on Hathitrust, if anyone cares to work on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
If someone gets it from the Hathitrust and works on it, then we can resurrect it from the scans. There is nothing currently here that is worth saving. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn, keep but simplify and establish a central style guide for the work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this work cannot be adequately represented on Wikisource, due in part to the understandable reluctance of certain contributors to update or fully document the back-end code that would need to be amended to make it possible to adequately transcribe it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also:

You'll need to be a bit more specific. What exactly about this work is impossible to transcribe on Wikisource? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's to do with the sidenotes and dual language layout in volumes 1 & 2. To adequately represent the author intentions in relation to this, (and I appreciate a typographical facsimile isn't feasible.) would need changes or additions to code in the Mediawiki: namespace, or in Proofread Page and other parts of Mediawiki. There is an understandable reluctance from certain contributors to sit down and implement that code. It would be a shame to loose something on which a decade has been spent trying to find a soloution, but if something can't be adequately represented, and no-one has the expertise to provide long-term soloutions, then it's unreasonable to continue to host a partial and poor attempt. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
How about instead of a deletion discussion we have a manual of style discussion to determine what features of this work it is desirable to reproduce? I don't immediately see why this work would suffer significantly worse from turning footnotes into endnotes than any other work where we do that. And if we here, and in a non-trivial number of other works, have a critical need for sidenotes specifically, perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss how that should be solved in the general case? You're right that in the status quo sidenotes will be infuriating to do in Mediawiki, but there is nothing particularly impossible about them in web pages in general (ignoring the inherent variable width of a "page" on the web that make them less useful). --Xover (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, a proper local style guide with a standardized approximation seems like the best solution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that whatever approach is used, will need to be duplicated on Latin and French Wikisource as portions are hosted on those wikis, The same issues with side-notes crop up locally on those sites as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The drop initials aren't essential, The sidenotes are in five kinds:-
  1. Side titles, which are an annotation summarisation of a lengthy passage, on some later Geo statutes these can be separated out using the approach legislation.gov.uk uses. (Bold text of the sidenote preceeding the relevant passage, I'm less happy about doing this with earlier one because it's sometimes not as clear where to put a relevant "heading break"
  2. Forward references, to later Acts or works that reference this one.
  3. Backward references, to earlier Acts, (These can be easily converted to footnotes.)
  4. Translation, erratum or alternate reading notes (These can be easily converted to footnotes or SIC.)
  5. Notes on supplemental material to read, typically at the end of a statute or "chapter".

I would suggest if this is to be retained, someone sits down and takes at least a fortnight, to come up with one Documented style manual for all volumes. I am prepared to comment on this, but I don't want to be the one writing it. ONE approach, and conforming the existing efforts would of course be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If the documented style manual is to be informed by past experience, then that someone will need to be someone who has worked on these transcription volumes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Style guide goes here: Index talk:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu#Style guide —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Based solely on the description here, I would say #1 should probably go in a visually distinct (bold, or italic, or both, or...) chunk before the relevant section (I see it as close to a newspaper lede or Wikipedia lead section); #2–4 as simple footnotes/endnotes (possibly using ref groups if needed); and #5 either as a inline note (visually distinguished, analogous to #1) or a separate footnote group. What would we lose with that approach? Examples of pages where such a straightforward approach would have significant negative consequences? --Xover (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
All five groups of sidenotes can (and imo should, in cases 2–5) be represented by footnotes, though the formatting idea for group #1 is a good idea. Regardless,  Keep, obviously; the texts are perfectly within scope and the only concern is here is how best to present them. —Nizolan (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn - You've managed to convince me this is worth the effort. The actual straw that broke the binding was some junk I had failed to clean up when changing approaches previously.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Further discussion of sidenote handling can go on the Index talk page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

World Conquest Through World Government : the protocols of the learned elders of ZionThe Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Weird improbable redirect likely created by accident. Kaldari (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Dragon-Fly

The following discussion is closed:

kept, disambiguation occurred to manage versions

redundant, in addition non-scan backed work for a decade. individual poems need to be included as a part of a book of poetry, in which they appear. i.e. The Harp Weaver/The Dragonfly Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Keep and {{versions}} disambiguation. Whilst it is not scan-backed, it is sourced, and would count as a separate edition,and it would also seem to be the earlier published version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 Keep, different editions. You are right that the poems published in The Harp Weaver should be moved to subpages. Since that work is currently in progress, I assume that will be done as part of the transcription effort. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: about the subpages aspect. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Books may be republished due to popularity without becoming a new edition. New editions are typically revisions of the original work. " [5] do we need to a have a page for each print example of a poem? without a revision? Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
For a book reprint, sure. But The Harp Weaver is not a republication of the February 1922 issue of Vanity Fair. Both editions are well within scope on their own, and there is no reason to delete one just because the other exists. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I also want to say that I think it is perfectly reasonable to replace a non-scan-backed work with a different-but-identical scan-backed edition, and I would even encourage this for works where the scan is unavailable or to large to reasonably undertake. In this case, however, what's done is done. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 Keep There's no reason not to have copies of poems published in non-book works. If I had been transcribing the book, I would have created the page as a subpage; however, Slowking4 overwrote The Dragon-Fly (Millay), and I created the new page in that style.
As you can see from the HaithiTrust page, the poem is a tiny part of the page, in a volume that on HathiTrust is 1468 pages long. I hate to load single pages out of context, but I hate to load huge volumes that probably will never been completed; the Weird Tales has a much higher percentage of modern interest, but I still tend to feel when working on them that there's a lot of slow work for stuff that has largely escaped anthologization for good reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that wrt the Vanity Fair one, while ideally it should be scan-backed and moved to Vanity Fair (magazine)/date/whatever/The Dragon-Fly, can stay where it is indefinitely until such a time as someone is willing to go through the huge effort of setting up the scans and structure for the whole magazine. But the one in The Harp Weaver already has the scan and structure, so there is no reason not to move it. I would do it myself but I don't want to step on the toes of that work's proofreaders. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If it's not clear, I definitely approve of moving the The Harp Weaver material under that structure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
you own it; you fix it. i see you will edit war to protect non-scan back versions from a decade ago. your idiosyncratic naming style is imported from english, not Wikisource:Style guide. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 13:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Done, the work is properly disambiguated, and the poems in The Harp-Weaver are properly structured. The scans of Vanity Fair can be dealt with eventually but is beyond the scope of this discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Lisa With These Lovely Eyes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Long held and long tagged poem with no source, no evidence of publication and unknown author. The only other place that it shows is the Poemhunter site, and that means nothing as either could be the source for the other. Time to cleanse this. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete no sign of author at worldcat Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 23:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Pope John Anthem.pdf and page: ns

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and proposed for deletion at Commons.

High school's school song. Out of scope for English Wikisource, as not certain that it is published, nor able to be released to the public domain by the uploader. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Delete Clearly in someone's copyright and Ghana is generally pma. 70. --Xover (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Looks like the uploader is the author of the prose content of the PDF file, but clearly has no right to the content that would otherwise be in scope. Other uploads by that user have also been deleted on Commons due to copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Duplicate to Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 which has already been validated. Posted in response to objections on the Scriptorum about moving the pages to the consolidated djvu.

(The only pages that were moved so far were the two Erratum pages, a move which can be reversed by an admin.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment I haven't looked in any detail, but my immediate thought is that this is a larger cleanup project. The validated version seems to be backed by individual per-page DjVus that preferably should be moved to one complete DjVu (but which may be more effort than is merited). I am also uncertain of the status of the two errata pages and the relationship between the two versions of the work. Perhaps I will understand better when I actually read the referenced Scriptorium discussion. :) --Xover (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
     Delete Ok, since nobody speaks up in favour of retaining this, and based on Tarmstro99's assessment below, I'm going to land on delete. And if nobody dissents soonish I'll also go ahead and close this thread accordingly. --Xover (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly,  Delete. It is true that collecting all the pages together under a single file better fits our current practice (Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 was added 12 years ago! Times were different then.). But as I stated in my comment in the Scriptorium discussion, there would be a lot of cleanup work involved in joining the pages. This is not a document that can be transcluded in its entirety just by giving a range to <pages>. Rather, the last one-third of the document is a very complex three-column table in which many entries are assembled using portions of multiple pages joined together with mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion. It renders correctly as is, but redoing all that item-by-item transclusion work by hand seems to me not to be worth the effort that would be required. Tarmstro99 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speech on Conciliation with America

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Unsourced fragment of a speech which is available at On Conciliation with America (Burke) (with poor style but at least sourced and complete). Would have just gone for CSD 4 but it's not exactly redundant since it's not the same version. —Nizolan (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Delete. This abridged version appears to originate from here, which could also make this reduced edit under copyright as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Recollections of Abraham Lincoln 1847-1865

The following discussion is closed:

Rescued by Beleg Tâl.

This work is a paragraph of text, unsupported by an image. It was dumped, and left, and is very much abandoned. Whilst it is not out of scope for the works that we host, it is out of scope as simply an extract of a work, and incomplete. Being an excerpt, and abandoned, that form is out of scope, and we should bite the bullet and delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added a scan and set up the transclusion project; deletion is no longer needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the no need to delete. These works sit there in a dilapidated state, and in the presented form are out of scope. We can delete these works and they can be resurrected when they are of a quality to present. We should not be the home for rubbish. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you have done significant work on it. [So being less strident] I think that we need to look at being less reactive to deletion discussions if the answer is always going to be "but there is a scan". If every time that a nomination is made that someone then goes and spends time doing the work, then why isn't the work being done already? There needs to be a more efficacious space here. Crap work on site, untended for years, splash a rescue effort when someone speaks about the crap. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I spend a lot of time doing rescue efforts on crap uploads. I think that works that are in scope, like Lamon's Recollections, should be rescued rather than deleted if possible. The real issue is that it is very easy to start a work and then abandon it. This is a particularly egregious example, but this also applies to scan-backed works that are partially proofread and then abandoned. Thus Wikisource becomes littered with partial transcriptions of works which will remain unattended indefinitely. I don't think the answer is to delete them, but maybe we can find a way to encourage editors to work on abandoned and incomplete texts? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I am significantly torn on this: depending on context I agree with you both. We have too much crap sitting around with no hope of ever improving and that we should get rid of, and we should try hard to save such works rather than just deleting them out of hand. Adding a scan and an index doesn't make the two page excerpt in mainspace any more valuable in itself. That plus proofreading the whole work is awesome, but is that really the best use of our limited volunteer resources? Adding a scan + index and proofreading just enough that it doesn't get deleted is counterproductive.
I don't really have answers, but I'm vaguely thinking along the lines of "Delete" for such works really meaning "Untransclude until more of the work is completed" when a scan and index is available. Incomplete stuff that isn't sitting in mainspace is a much smaller, and somewhat different in nature, kind of problem.
But for sufficiently short or poor excerpts, where the effort to preserve it now is larger than the effort to re-proofread it later, I'm going to pretty consistently land on just plain "Delete". --Xover (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"Adding a scan + index and proofreading just enough that it doesn't get deleted is counterproductive." no, that would be crowd sourcing, responding to an adversive "delete to force improvement." counter-productive is when you delete incomplete work preventing eventual completion, because of a lack of leadership. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 07:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Rubbish. Certain works that are dumped will never be completed when they are not sourced, edition'd and have some rubbish blocking progress due to the confusion that exists around the contribution. A removal can be responsible curating. Sometimes leadership is making the hard decision. Our crowdsourcing ideally takes place in the Page: namespace, and with our people watching and managing that space (as you will have seen from my repeated transclusion of transcribed works in recent times.)

@Beleg Tâl: Putting transcriptions into the Page: namespace, and having links from author pages is the means to manage these, though to still delete the main namespace pages where they are just trash. Our responsibility is to manage the nexus of presentable works, and those not ready; to manage the framework, and to guide people to where transcriptions take place, hence {{small scan link}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Scan of a 1911 edition - https://archive.org/details/recollectionsofa00lamo ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Heimskringla; or, Chronicle of the Kings of Norway Vol 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

No community support for deletion, and no policy grounds for doing so.

Abandoning this due to the inability to represent the sidenoted content that doesn't involve an overly complex custom layout.

Deletion proposed to allow other contributors to start afresh. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a brief look at this work, and the sidenoted content appears to be very simple and well within the capabilities of our basic sidenote templates. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
See Page:The Heimskringla; or, Chronicle of the Kings of Norway Vol 1.djvu/232 for some very nicely implemented sidenotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not compatible with mobiles/tablets, where {{MarginNote}} is not an ideal solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case the discussion should be "fix mobile display", not "delete indices with {{MarginNote}}". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Keep Nearly half of the work is proofread, with only two pages tagged as problematic; and I don't see any particular reason this should be deleted (apart from individual frustration). --Xover (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Statute table and related.

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

Per the views of certain contributors about my tendency to implement over-complicated and convoluted solutions.

Proposed for deletion as an overly complex train-wreck, that could just as easily be done as a plain table, given that it does not implement any link processing currently.

However, this template should not be deleted until it can be cleanly subst: in respect of it's current widespread usage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Statute table/titles/entry}} Does some link processing, but given it's limitations to British Acts, the loss of this wouldn't be a great loss, as there are considerably more red-linked entries than existing ones currently.

The related templates being:

Template:Statute table
Template:Statute table/chapter
Template:Statute table/chapter/doc
Template:Statute table/chapter/link
Template:Statute table/chapter/sandbox
Template:Statute table/chapter/testcases
Template:Statute table/continuation
Template:Statute table/continuation/doc
Template:Statute table/doc
Template:Statute table/footer
Template:Statute table/header
Template:Statute table/header/doc
Template:Statute table/header/sandbox
Template:Statute table/header/testcases
Template:Statute table/sandbox
Template:Statute table/testcases
Template:Statute table/year
Template:Statute table/year/sandbox

Template:Statute table/titles/entry
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/doc
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/sandbox
Template:Statute table/titles/entry/testcases
Template:Statute table/titles/entry noyear - this was speedied under G7 author request because unused—then I discovered this link
Template:Statute table/titles/footer
Template:Statute table/titles/header
Template:Statute table/titles/header/doc

{{Statute table/titles/entry}} was subst en-masse, and is in the process of being cleaned up, the header is needed to import a TemplateStyle and so should be retained.
Template:Statute table/collective/entry
Template:Statute table/collective/header

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support on condition that current uses are replaced with a working alternative —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn provisionally as these are being reworked to make them subst:able, a re-nom will be made when that subst is possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Module:Short title

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

Proposed for deletion, given the views of certain contributors about overly complex templates. Most of the function of this template can potentialy be more efficiently done directly with a pipied link anyway. Delete once usagae can be cleanly subst as piped links en-masse. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn - Over-reacted, but will consider documentation for this, and the relevant higher level templates associated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Table-page

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This is an old experimental template, that is apparently unused, the issue it was trying to address eventually was as recall resolved by changes in the guidelines on how to code table split over pages, which resolved the issue this template was trying to address as I understood it. If this template is still needed then the intended uses case it's trying to meet should ideally be clearly documented. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tf/s

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted, to match parent

Refferal because it's unused, but it was used here https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/6&oldid=9402083 to do the formatting. Is having nested inline DIV's really a better way of doing formatting like this, than having a template with a readable name? If so, please suggest why. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

deleted' as Template:Tf went through the deletion discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal about I Support Hong Kong Police

The following discussion is closed:

Beyond scope + copyvio. Deleted as a semi-speedy since nobody argued to keep it, and far more than average for discussions here voted to delete it.

No source, no author, no ToS-compatible licence (see the provided template). Appears to be a personal manifesto by the uploader. BethNaught (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Header/sandboxarjuna

The following discussion is closed:

Speedily deleted under CSD#G7

Unused and redundant fork of the header template, apparently an abandoned user experiment (creator and sole editor has not edited for a year) in the wrong namespace, thus matches criteria #4 for speedy deletion. Nevertheless, my {{sdelete}} was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you bring this up on Arjunaraoc's talk page as I suggested? They are still active on other projects and edited on Telugu Wikipedia (their home wiki) six hours ago. If they no longer need it they can ask for speedy themselves under CSD#G7, or move it to their user space if there is no particular reason to keep it in the Template: namespace. --Xover (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@User talk:Pigsonthewing,@Xover, thanks for notification. please delete. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: Thanks for following up. Speedily deleted under CSD#G7. [Courtesy ping: Andy Mabbett] --Xover (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Coleridge - La Chanson du vieux marin, trad. Barbier, 1877.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Barbier translation of the Ancient Mariner, This should be on fr.wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is on French Wikisource . The English text is in it too. That might be why we find it here too.. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
But on frws only the French text is transcribed. p.11 here used to have the English text and then the French iwpage'ed in, but someone removed the iwpage. Is this something we want to host here, and if so, with or without iwpage'ed French text? My immediate thought is that hosting it without the French is kinda pointless, as there are much better English-language editions (and this transcription project seems to be abandoned after doing just the one page anyway). But would that be an appropriate inclusion of a non-English work? This is a French work that happens to include some English, rather than vice versa. --Xover (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 Delete. It's a rather fine line, since we do often host bilingual editions. However, I would consider this particular edition to be a French work rather than a bilingual work, since the English text is presented in the form of a gloss rather than as part of the work itself, and the work is clearly intended for a French audience. If frWS doesn't want to fully host it, I think mulWS is the place for it. It might be worth involving frWS in the discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Can you provide some insight here? --Xover (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I would rather say  Keep, @Beleg Tâl: this is a bilingual text. True the presentation of English text is smaller (almost illegible) and placed as paratext but it's the full text (plus it's the original text as this is an English work). Anyway, even if it's deleted here, I would still very strongly advise against putting the English text on French Wikisource (which is meant to host texts in French languages), especially as it is already transcribed multiple times on en.ws : The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, so yes mul.ws would be the solution (but it sounds quite strange, why not host the English text on English Wikisource?!?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: to me the fact that the English text is paratext is reason enough to not host it on English Wikisource. When we add English works with French paratext, we generally host the French paratext here on English Wikisource, rather than offloading it to French Wikisource. Does French Wikisource have a policy that prevents them from hosting their own paratext if the paratext is not in French? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: not a policy but a strong habit. And sometimes, we do also host paratext in foreign language when it's short, but - AFAIK - not when it's the entire original text. That said, I'll ask on the French Scriptorium to have more point of view (edit: done here fr:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Juillet_2019#Texte_bilingue) so until then, I suggest to put this request on hold. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
 @VIGNERON, @Beleg Tâl: My French is a bit, ah, "rusty"… Was this resolved in the discussion on frws, or do we need to keep this open a while longer? --Xover (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: No resolution yet. Just a rehash of the discussion here, and some technical resolution of a formatting problem that had stalled proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
 @VIGNERON, @Beleg Tâl, @Zyephyrus, @ShakespeareFan00: Ok, now three weeks with no movement on frWS or here. How do we move this forward? --Xover (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

IDK how long it will take for the frWS discussion to be considered closed; I would suggest that if the frWS discussion is closed without further contributions, that we proceed to delete the edition here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Melkite Catholic authors

The following discussion is closed:

speedy kept, rationale for deletion is no longer relevant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Tagged {{delete}}, unused, no discussion for months.--Jusjih (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support. There are lots of Melkite Catholic authors, but none with pages on Wikisource, so I guess we can delete the category until such time as relevant authors are added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Is there need for a speedy criterion for empty and unneeded categories, ala. unneeded redirects? Would probably necessitate some way to tag intentionally empty categories to prevent overeager gnomes from deleting them and similar mechanisms, but empty categories otherwise seem like the kind of mostly-technical (non-reader-facing) issue that would benefit from less bureaucracy. --Xover (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete for now anyway. While sorting out other Eastern Catholicism-related stuff some months back I looked around for suitable authors to rescue this category but I haven't managed to identify any Melkite authors with English works in the public domain. —Nizolan (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Keep
    @Jusjih, @Nizolan, @Xover, @Beleg Tâl: This category is now populated with two Melkite Greek Catholic authors. Disclaimer: I am Melkite Catholic. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Author:Paul Sutermeister

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete.

The author did not publish anything in English. For publications in German language, the site already exists.--2A02:AA12:400:F180:F9AC:C0A7:128F:E065 10:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

All public domain, freely-licensed, or user-generated translations of Sutermeister's works are in scope here, so the author page is in scope also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Noting that this is the English-language page for the author, rather than the page for English-language works; and the page has am interlanguage wikilink to the German-language page; and as per the WPs pages exist in each language. That said, I have removed the red wikilinks for the works as we wouldn't be linking to the German-language works locally, and only to English-language translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Heeder

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unused and redundant template, apparently an abandoned user experiment (creator and sole editor has not edited for three years) in the wrong namespace, thus matches criteria #4 for speedy deletion (ditto for its sandbox and testcase pages). Surprisingly, my {{sdelete}} was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  •  Delete (just not speedy, and not under G4). As best I can tell, this is one of GOIII's several abortive c. 2013–2015 attempts to rewrite {{header}} to use <div>…</div> instead of the then-current table-based layout. I don't think it contains anything we particularly need to keep; it's not used anywhere; and is only linked in old technical discussions. But perhaps Hesperian recalls details? --Xover (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Short stories by Frank Gelett Burgess

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected to scan-backed version.

I'm very much uncertain on this one, but before I start making a ton of versions pages…

I just finished proofreading The Master of Mysteries (1912) by Frank Gelett Burgess (1866–1951)—a connected collection of short stories originally serialised in the Sunday Magazine—intending to replace what I thought were non-scan-backed and unsourced individual texts previously uploaded by Radartooth:

However, on closer inspection I saw that a few of these (***) do list a source, albeit a dubious one. The last three variously reference scans of the original Sunday Magazine editions, but are clearly not actually from there. The first—The Fanshawe Ghost—however, cites this scan at IA. The scan itself lists only the bibliographic data from the original 1912 collection, but contains a foreword by Richard A. Lupoff (1935–), and this leads to this edition from Surinam Turtle Press (looks like Lupoff's own vanity imprint: it's print-on-demand through Lulu). They're a bit short on details, but it looks like it was published in 2008.

Absent definitive documentation, my best guess is that the above listed texts were taken from the Lupoff-edited edition on IA.

The text of the stories themselves are still obviously public domain: Lupoff's own description is that it just applies modern spelling rules, so any copyright claim would have to argue for "sweat of the brow". The foreword at IA is a copyvio, but as it's not reproduced here that's not our problem. In other words, I don't think copyright would prevent us from hosting these texts here.

But while I am significantly ambivalent, I still lean slightly in the direction of deleting these due to being effectively without a source (that they're from the 2008 edition is just a guess) or with patently false source claims, and non-scan-backed with unknown quality, and so redundant with the scan-backed 1912 edition. The factor that tipped the scales for me was realising I don't even know how we would list these on a versions page since provenance from the 2008 edition is just a guess, and even the accuracy of the 2008 date itself for that edition is in doubt.

Bottom line is, I am sufficiently uncertain about the proper course of action for these texts that I am seeking the community's opinion on how best to handle them. --Xover (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should host questionable copies when we have good scan-backed editions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to review these in depth, but in my opinion: if your scan-backed edition is substantially identical to the other edition, and if the other edition is unknown or difficult/impossible to scan-back, then by all means delete the other edition in favour of your new scan-backed edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This text was marked as {{no source}} and after several hours of research, I finally tracked it back to it's original source. Please bear with me for the explanation... Way back in 1991, MICRA, Inc., a.k.a. Patrick Cassidy, created an electronic version of the 1911 edition of Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, but updated for 1991 readers by adding over 1,000 new words not present in the original (as well as notes by Cassidy). This electronic edition, which I'll call the "Cassidy edition", became one of the first ebooks hosted by Project Gutenberg, back when it was just an FTP site and didn't have any kind of community proofreading process (it was ebook #22). Several years later, in 2004, L. John Old at Napier University took the Cassidy edition and cleaned it up, removing all of Cassidy's notes and custom mark-up, but leaving all the new synonyms that Cassidy added. I'll call this the "John Old edition". This edition also got published to Project Gutenberg, as ebook #10681. Then in 2017 an anonymous IP editor took the John Old edition from Project Gutenberg, stripped the explanatory headers off, and pasted it into Wikisource with no other information.

So the text that we have here is a 2004 edition of a 1991 edition of a 1911 edition of an 1852 book. Here are all of the editions for reference:

Regardless of the copyright status (Cassidy appears to have released their additions to the public domain), this is not a faithful reproduction of any commercially published book. Instead, it's a reproduction of a self-published, heavily modified electronic version of Roget's Thesaurus. As WS:OR says: "Works ... not published in a verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum do not belong at Wikisource". As there are now numerous OCRed scans of pre-1924 editions of Roget's Thesaurus available on the internet, I would like for us to delete this one and start a proper transcription (perhaps of this 1923 edition). Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support, though generally I'd hope to see a better version added first, and then this version deleted afterwards. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Started a new transcription here: Index:Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases (1894).djvu Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete per nom, and as a copydump of limited value even were it not for the sourcing/scope and possible copyright issues. If it's just a copy&paste of a Gutenberg text, hosting it here provides no more value to our readers than hosting a mirror of Gutenberg would. --Xover (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple previously tagged empty categories

The following discussion is closed:

Some deleted, some kept, in accordance with Beeswaxcandle's proposal.

The following empty categories have previously been tagged for deletion but not resolved:

I see no immediate reason to retain these so long as they are empty. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete the user-language category. When someone again claims to be a native speaker of Aragonaise, it will be automatically recreated.
  • Keep Shiism as a part of the series of religion categories.
  • Probably should keep Valedictories as it is for a literary type. We may well have some that just haven't been categorised.
  • Delete the remainder until they are needed, with no barrier to recreation at that point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

17th signal

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

2006 copydump from user with 1 edit (this one). No source, no license (though it's most likely PD-USGov), no attempt to format it for Wikisource. A quick round of Googling did not reveal the original of the document. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

God’s Love is so wonderful

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No source, no license, no bibliographic details… Looks like it could conceivably be an Indian nursery rhyme translated into English by the uploader, but it's really impossible to tell. My Google-fu has been insufficient to find any information about this at all (it could be original writing here for all I can tell), apart from some really creepy kids youtube videos. --Xover (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Delete It appears to be essentially the same song discussed here, and appears to be genuinely traditional, but without a source to confirm the PD status of this particular edition I would still delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

War and Economic Performance

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No source, no license, I can't find anything about the document at all —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  •  Delete This looks like part of someone's thesis paper. I can find the articles it cites, but not this article itself; which means it's probably languishing in some institutional repository somewhere. In any case, since it cites works less than two decades old we know it can't be older and copyright has definitely not expired. There are no apparent copyright exemptions that might apply, and no sign of compatible licensing. So it's a probably copyvio too boot. --Xover (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

All of the works listed on the page Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol have been deleted due to copyright violation, which means the page is going to be just a list of works that cannot be created on Wikisource. So, there is no use to keep the page here on Wikisource anymore, and a request for deletion of the page is hereby made. --Miwako Sato (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Revoked per Billinghurst's reasons on its talk page. 🙏 --Miwako Sato (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Veue of the Present State of Ireland

The following discussion is closed:

Mainspace text deleted as out of scope as an excerpt. Indexes and scans kept due to no policy reason to delete, and no community consensus to delete.

There are perhaps two of 250 pages of this work, in three separate excerpts, which are not scan-backed, and date to 2006. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC).

As an excerpt this text is out of scope, but it would be very good to add the whole work. Maybe a proposal for WS:POTM? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This scan is now at A View of the State of Ireland - 1809.djvu. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete per nom, unless someone (individual or PotM) actually volunteers to work on adding the full work. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would propose deleting the page, deleting the index and base file, and continuing any Spenser work from this collected edition. In addition, I may be working on some Spenser in the (near (?)) future, although I may be too caught up in other work before that time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC).
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Does the collected edition actually contain the work at issue here ("View of the State of Ireland" and "Campion's Historie of Ireland")? I agree with deleting the current mainspace text as an unsourced and non-scan-backed excerpt, but I don't quite see the benefit of deleting the index and scan that Inductiveload set up for it. If somebody wants to proofread it then we'll simply have multiple editions, and at worst it sits untranscribed outside mainspace for the foreseeable future. If there is active work on the collected edition that will automatically be a much more attractive project for other contributors, so I'm not sure splitting of effort is too much of a problem here. --Xover (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    FYI, I uploaded both these indexes. I'm not aware of there being a interdiction on the creating of index pages without proofreading. My thinking was that that's a back-end job that can be done in order to convert {{ext scan link}}'d Author-page entries to {{small scan link}}, reducing the technical contributions (uploading to commons, creating pagelist, inserting placeholder pages, etc) needed by others to proofread the works in future. Particularly for collective works, where it's natural for contributors to only contribute some of the full volume. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Keep and no, i do not do sword of damocles; if you are so distressed by not scanned back versions, you do it. it is only 470 pages --Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 02:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I've done a first pass on the portion of the scans uploaded that represent this work, I'd appreicate a second set of eyes proofreading though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Installation Controversy of the Indian Catholicos: Judgement

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as multiple problems.

Copydump added by IP in 2006, with no evidence of previous publication, no effort at formatting, no source, no author, no license, no… Just no. Google didn't turn up any likely source, this would in any case not be salvageable short of proofreading from scratch. --Xover (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  •  Delete, multiple problems. Tarmstro99 13:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find a source either, which is too bad because this would otherwise be in scope. The court judgement is not particularly notable however, even within the context of the Malankara conflict, so it is no great loss. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: Note that it is not clear from your above what your position is on this text. I can guess, of course, but given the low participation in these discussions—and the attendant challenge in assessing consensus—I would feel much better if no assumptions were needed come closing time. That's a general nudge to all commenters and for all these discussions by the way. :)
    Not that there's anything wrong with just adding a comment or providing some research or other information without necessarily taking a firm position / voting. But to the degree you (the collective "you") do have a position, being explicit about it would be helpful. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
     Neutral —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete, without prejudice to recreation with a proper source and permission. Based on the poor English in the page compared to the average Supreme Court of India writing (for a start, "St Ignatious" is incorrect), as well as the fact the content isn't a judgement, it's a petition, I strongly doubt this is actually an "judgement" (SCI or otherwise) as the title suggests. Rather, I think it is some kind of document submitted to some court (perhaps the SCI) by the "parishners" (sic) of the church in question. I'd say "ask the contributor", but it was a drive-by in 2006, and it was the IP's only edit. Based on edit date and dates in the document, it's from July or August 2006, so it's possibly related to some subsequent court case, but it's hard to guess which one (and in which court). In this case, it's a copyvio too, unless whoever wrote the petition releases it correctly. Furthermore, it's a rather peripheral document to the topic: it's probably not out of scope, but it's also not of particular value. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It does look like a judgement to me, given the information later in the text, and noting that other judgements from the Kerala court also note at the beginning that they are petitions to the court that are being judged. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Duh, yes, you are absolutely right. However, it doesn't seem to be Kerala High Court or the Supreme Court of India, so it might be some lower court. Searching the lower court websites is rather a faff (and I have learned that according to the captcha, I am at least 50% robot), but I didn't find anything that looks too likely in Kottayam and Ernakulam District courts, but I only looked in a few likely-looking courts (you can search here, under "Services"). I still lean delete, as without a source or even knowing what court this was, the document is rather "unmoored", even within its topic. Recreation with full providence would be trivial, should an appropriate source be presented. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I cannot find a backlink to the work, though I only did a light search. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Hymn/header

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete. Whether to keep or delete this template requires a wider policy-ish discussion whose proper venue is WS:S.

Marking this for provisional deletion as the works on which it is used, are now (or will be using the header formatting provided via the Score extension.

This should be removed when the conversions have been completed.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Tentative  Keep. Who decided to deprecate it and replace it with directly using the score extension? Placing this text within the score extension prevents any text processing whatsoever, which is why I have always transcribed this metadata directly outside the score extension. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any decision to deprecate this template. Aside from a single discussion on my Talk Page in 2015 (User Talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive5) there has been nothing that I can find. As I said in the referenced discussion, the metadata is already in the {{header}} template—which is where it belongs as that's where WD will get it from. I have included the info in scores so that when a single hymn is downloaded the metadata goes with it. At the rate I am entering the scores for The Army and Navy Hymnal it will be a several more years before they are all done. Therefore, this discussion is moot. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The template {{hymn/header}} has nothing to do with {{header}} (which you know, but other editors might not know); it is used to format content that exists in the transcluded text. Since you are editing The Army and Navy Hymnal and I am not, I do not oppose your replacing {{hymn/header}} in that work particularly. However, as I said in the discussion on your talk page, I think it is a poor decision, and I do not support this as a site-wide practice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Template:Hymn/header wraps Template:Music/header; both of which are currently in use. Both were marked as deprecated with no apparent discussion. The actual issue appears to be whether header type information belongs inside or outside the domain of the LilyPond code in the Score extension. If it belongs with the Score, these templates are not needed; and if it doesn't then these would seem to be eminently suited to format it. Whether to keep this information inside or outside is a question of some principle applicability and probably merits wider community discussion than a proposed deletion of a template affords. I thus think this discussion should be closed, and the question of principle raised at WS:S; and in the mean time the practice for a given work is up to those working on that work. --Xover (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Do you think that the template should be deleted in the meantime, or kept in the meantime? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think the conclusion on the templates hinges on the discussion of principle, and so their status cannot be reasonably determined in this discussion. Thus, procedurally, the outcome here would be "no consensus to delete". While I have some initial thoughts about the underlying issue I feel I know too little there to address that question directly, so I'm also loath give a straight up "keep" or "delete" on the templates; even though "no consensus" is a de facto "keep". But, yes, I think the templates should be kept until that issue is resolved, or a different rationale for deletion is presented. --Xover (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Old transcription efforts...

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to scan and kept.

Deletion requested due to low quality nature of transcription and unclear sourcing (by current standards.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

These all appear to be from The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead). Should be easy to move to subpages and scan-back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also (on quality grounds)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

These were from scans on Google Books... so if someone ever wanted to retrieve the set of volumes concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete I'm actually going to vote delete on these, per the nominators rationale. While they could be salvaged as Beleg Tâl proposes above, I don't think the effort is commensurate with the value, and they would better be retranscribed from a known source and in a consistent manner, as part of a concerted effort for Ruffhead. Or put another way, the effort required to salvage these is larger than retranscribing them would be. --Xover (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
     Keep In the interest of testing out my assumptions I've gone through all of the above and scan-backed them in the Ruffhead project. Sadly this pretty much only confirmed my initial assessment: the transcriptions are of relatively low quality on average (as the nominator/author noted in the nom; had they tagged them for speedy under G7 I probably wouldn't even have blinked), scan-backing them piecmeal was a lot more work than it would have been to proofread them from scratch in a concerted effort on Ruffhead, and the quality has not notably improved through this exercise (that would require proofreading from scratch). So the next time a case like this comes up I will definitely be voting to delete. BUT… since these are now scan-backed and part of a larger transcription project I am going to change my position to a weak keep. They're still low-quality fragments sitting exposed in mainspace, but at least there is a not-completely-improbable chance of improvement at some point, so they's probably best be kept around until they're renominated eventually. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    PS. As this has been open since August and mine was the only vote supporting deletion, I'm going to close this as keep some time soonish. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment i would prefer to keep things until they are replaced. deletion is not a quality improvement process. better to organize the editors by making it fun. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 01:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unsourced synthesis.

This work seems to have been copied from http://www.jasoncolavito.com/epic-of-gilgamesh.html or similar site, though that site quotes

Sources: William Muss Arnolt, "The Gilgamesh Narrative, Usually Called the Babylonian Nimrod Epic," in Assyrian and Babylonian Literature: Selected Translations, ed. Robert Francis Harper (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1901), 324-368; L. W. King, Babylonian Religion and Mythology (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., 1903), 146-176 and Morris Jastrow, Jr. and Albert T. Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic on the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts, Yale Oriental Series, Researches IV, no. 3 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920).

I can see that work at https://archive.org/details/ldpd_6951443_000/page/n99. All that said there is no guarantee of authenticity to the text, so it is out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible scanned version of a different translation. - https://archive.org/details/anoldbabylonianv00jastuoft/page/n12 ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
There's also a translation starting page 185 of Index:The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Volume 01.djvu —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, work itself within scope though OCR copy and paste without quality, and not supported by scan — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is another one of those butt ugly copy and paste jobs from an archive.org work and still retains the headers and footers inside the ugly pastes. No person is going to bother to wade through the ugly text, , if they want something of this quality they are better to just go to archive.org and read the scans. The work would be within scope it was properly transcluded, though that will never happen with the work in this dilapidated form, and separate from the scans of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Delete, the dump is too bad even for match and split, and a rescue would essentially require proofreading from scratch. I have uploaded scans for a proper transcription. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:The Miller, His Son, and Their Ass

The following discussion is closed:

disambiguation pages preferred to categories — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much completely redundant to The Miller, his Son, and their Ass —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright contributions of the authorship of Sukavich Rangsitpol

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as CV, further conversation has been undertaken at WS:CV that relates to further additions, and undeletion requests. More appropriate forum for the conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

''' His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol ''' the directions to develop quality of Thai people in the future

The article constitutes a copyright violation. The author is still alive and has never released this work into public domain. Moreover, the work does not fall under any of the exemption criteria according to PD-TH-exempt as tagged by the uploader, as it is none of the following:

  1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
  2. Constitution and legislations
  3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
  4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
  5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

Therefore, the work should be deleted. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Declaration of education The announcement of Fifty Industrial Community College on 18 June 1997

The work, which appears to be a translation of a government announcement, is not covered by PD-TH-exempt as tagged by the uploader. PD-TH-exempt only allows a translation of a government announcement when the translation is made by a public agency, not by an individual (Sukavich Rangsitpol as indicated by the uploader). Therefore, the work is copyrighted and should be deleted (not to mention that the translation is completely incomprehensible). --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

His Excellency Sukavich Rangsitpol,Minister of Education Thailand (1995-1997)and The Effects recorded by UNESCO 1998

The author is still alive and has never released this work into public domain. Also, the work is not covered by PD-TH-exempt as tagged by the uploader, as it is not a piece of news of the day, legislation, judicial decision, etc, or a translation thereof made by a public agency. So, the work is copyrighted and should be deleted. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

His Excellency Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform

Copied from a website which says "Copyright © 1997 MOENet Thailand Service Program by Mr.Bumrung Chiablam". --Miwako Sato (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

''' His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol ''' the directions to develop quality of Thai people in the future world.

Copied from this website, which appears to be a work originally authored by a still-living person, T. Manitkul; and no information about the copyright is available (other than "Copyright Academia ©2019"). --Miwako Sato (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thailand Ministry of Education’s Policies 1995

Copied from this website, which says "Copyright © 1997 MOENet Thailand Service Program by Mr.Bumrung Chiablam". --Miwako Sato (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:My Secret Life Vol 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Closing as the file has already been speedied under G4.

Only a few pages transcribed, no OCR text layer, and duplicate of Index:MySecretLifeVol1(1888).djvu which is about half proofread. Ping Hrishikes who added the former, and DeirdreAnne who added the latter, in case I've misunderstood something. --Xover (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Delete as speedy-G4 (redundant) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

File:UN Treaty v750.djvu and Index:UN Treaty v750.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Partially-proofread three-page excerpt of a ~500 page work, not transcluded or linked anywhere, and uploader has not edited since 2014. --Xover (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Delete The pages are most likely lurking somewhere, however, I feel that we can delete the index and proofread pages, no value in trying to manage this stuff any other way. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: This appears to be the TOC from this UN document. File:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963).djvu appears to be a single-language derivation of that, without this TOC, and including only the English pages (the original is in English and French on alternate pages). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Translation:Mayan legends

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as non-policy-compliant and out of scope.

No original source, much less the required scan-backed original on esWS, despite the uploader being prompted to provide it on their user talk page back in 2016. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I suspect that this is not an original translation of a published Spanish-language work, but rather an original unpublished version of a collection of stories of Spanish-language origin, which is not something we include at Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Luisalvaz: Your one and only edit on English Wikisource was to move this page out of the uploader's user space after an admin had moved it there. Can you please explain the background and reasoning for this? Can you shed any light on the provenance of this text? --Xover (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ledger

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No code here which couldn't be implemented directly. This template should be subst and deleted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Related templates :-

Template:Ledger
Template:Ledger/b
Template:Ledger/doc
Template:Ledger/header
Template:Ledger/n
Template:Ledger/p

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively it could be retained, but it should be marked for subst. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete I don't see that this template (family) provides any benefit over coding the desired formatting directly. If anything it would have to be standardisation, but I don't see that applying here. If anyone really wanted to keep these I wouldn't necessarily object, but absent any arguments in their favour I see no benefit to keeping them, and all such templates have a maintenance and complexity cost. --Xover (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    @ShakespeareFan00: Please don't tag something for speedy when it is already being discussed here (feel free to suggest a speedy criteria applies in a comment here, but don't mix the two processes: it just creates confusion). In any case, nobody seems to be arguing in favour of keeping this and it looks like it is no longer transcluded anywhere, so I'm going to go ahead and close this as a delete soon-ish. --Xover (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Modern

The following discussion is closed:

Subst'ed and deleted.

Proposed for deletion on the grounds that it makes harder to actually figure out where a page is faulty.

ONE logic path for the behavior of a rendered page, makes it far far simpler to find out WHY and WHERE a Lint concern ACTUALLY broke a page, without having to run around chasing down two different versions of page determined by where it's being transcluded/rendered, through use of this template.

Deletion of this template is recommended in the interests of simplicity and sanity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Prompted by An_Essay_in_Defence_of_the_Female_Sex/Section_8/Modern which is complaining about "Mis-nesting", which is next to IMPOSSIBLE to pin down with this Template in the markup.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Delete in favour of sanity and simplicity, PROVIDED that this template is first removed from all instances where it is currently used, and a reasonable alternative method of annotating these texts is implemented instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the lint errors weren't caused by this template, they were caused by splitting italics across a template open like this:
''Sugar-{{modern|Jobber''...}}
This would break for any template that open a div, as the opening <i> is in the parent element, and the closing </i> will be in the tag provided by the template:
<i>Sugar-<div>Jobber</i><!--whoops!-->.....</div>
Some new-lines might make that work more "sane" as it's a pain to edit, but it's not an issue woth {{modern}} specifically - it would have happened with {{smaller block}} too! As I mentioned previously on the Scriptorium, methodical bisection of the text makes it easy to pin down the offending content. Delete half, see if it fixed it, if yes, the error is in the deleted text, if no, it's in the undeleted half. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete Hmmm Looking at the exemplar above I find it a horrid complex mess and have trouble finding commensurate value. BUT! …the idea of a template that adapts behaviour between namespaces (think links in an original ToC), or ways to mark up a work such that it can adapt itself to different needs and different contexts, is a generally good one. I am uncertain whether this template is one concrete instance of the good idea, just with a bad implementation. For a lot of things where this kind of thing would be good, templates are not a good technology match, and this may be one such, even if the functionality is otherwise a good idea. In sum: "Hmmm". --Xover (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, after significant mulling on this, I don't think this template brings anywhere near sufficient value as currently implemented and as currently used to justify the costs (the linked example is both unreadable and uneditable). So I'm landing on delete: in practice we need to change template to always just emit the original version (first para), then subst: every instance of it, and then delete the template and all the /Modern subpages. Simply deleting the template will leave a big unfixable mess behind. --Xover (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment It’s an intriguing idea being able to read a work in both original and modernised spelling. But could you imagine marking up The Canterbury Tales that way? Every second word would be wrapped in {{Modern}}! That’s an extreme example, but I’m thinking that works which have a sufficient density of archaic spellings to benefit from separate modernised versions would also have so many uses of the template to make them cumbersome to work on. That said, I’m not active in that area so maybe somebody else can say how useful or difficult it is to work with. Pelagic (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking specifically at the normal and modern versions of An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex, there’s some creative use of the template to provide tool tips and wikilinks selectively into the modern version. Pelagic (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment2 As for the broken formatting, the answer is simple: thou must not interleave markup! Is there anything wrong with two adjacent runs of italics like the following?
''Sugar-''{{modern|''Jobber''...}}
(Agreeing with Inductiveload on this aspect.) — Pelagic (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:for, Template:for loop, and Module:ForLoop

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

The templates / module Template:for, Template:for loop, and Module:ForLoop reimplement a basic programming construct for use in Mediawiki templates (i.e. they are strictly meta-templates, not really suitable for exposing to normal users). Almost any conceivable use for this is better solved through an actual Lua module with a suitable template frontend. But so long as these exist they will end up being used somewhere; to wit, the only two transclusions of them are in two Page: pages from August of this year (where they're used to achieve brevity in a disputable tradeoff with clarity and standard practice). All three were experiemental imports from other projects in 2014, and have not been touched since.

I propose that we remove the two extant uses and then kill it with fire! delete them. --Xover (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eliyak, @Mattsenate: pings for completeness — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support Sam Wilson 07:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pages of w:University of Farmington

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope.

Copies of webpages contributed by user:Cuatro Remos

Rationale for retention: "I believe these pages should be kept here for historical and educational purposes". Seems the website was a honeypot set up by a government agency (see linked article).

I don't see that they are within scope as expressed at WS:WWI. There is also no certainty to whom created the pages, and the content to know that the specific pages are created by government employees, or contractual agreement. (Noting that I have not tagged the individual pages.) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not mind having them deleted. However, it should be noted that this is not just another spoof site. It was a site set up by a US govt. agency in order to deceive undocumented immigrants and have them deported for a reason. Having these texts here may not make a difference at all, but I think they are of historical interest and may be interesting from that side. But, I repeat, I don't really care if you decide to delete them. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There are many things that are historical interest that we can not include because there is an absence of a clear line to the public domain. We don't know, frankly, whether these documents are copyright free. BD2412 T 01:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the asserted authorship setting the copyright question? Hesperian 04:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:numbered div family

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator (and the community was leaning somewhat towards keep in any case).

Also listing the related {{numbered}} and {{numbered div}} family below, because they use a near identical technique to the previous incarnation of this template, with broadly simmilar incompatiblites.

In line with the on-going efforts to remove overly complex and incompatible layout templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Neutral on these, I do not know how they work, but I would think a simple numbered div template should not be overly complex. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete I have no idea what a "numbered div" is ideally supposed to be, but when I went to check what these were used for I found that they are actually used for creating fake lists with list item markers like "(a)" or "a." instead of just "a". This is really poor coding practice for accessibility purposes; from a semantic web perspective; and from a maintenance perspective. I'm sure there's a good "numbered div" use case out there somewhere, but actual uses were not it: lists should be marked up as lists. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
An example usage would be - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Compendium_of_US_Copyright_Office_Practices_(1973).pdf/11 to get specfic formatting, which when the template was written was not feasible with plain lists. However, now that templates styles has been implmented the approach should be revisited. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn - It should be feasible to reimplement this as a definition list and style sheet? (see. https://clicknathan.com/web-design/styling-html-5-description-lists-formerly-known-as-definition-lists-properly/ for inspiration on how it might be done.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Keep It enables to adjust formatting of the list like set margins etc. very easily. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It does need to be completely re-coded (and possibly modularised) so that common styles can be "classed" so as to reduce the sheer amount of code this generates at present. If you look at the usages, MANY of them are repeatable (and thus classable codes as opposed to the inline styles used currently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have not noticed any problems caused by generating amount of code so I am not convinced there is something that needs to be solved. However, I am not against creating an alternative template which would be able to do exactly the same things with some better code. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

AWK Language Programming

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. And while not entirely conclusive regarding where to draw the line in edge cases, Prosfilaes provided the following wise rules of thumb: We should keep books, including stuff like Knuth's self-documenting source code books that were published as books and are kept on the main shelves of libraries (at which point we can include them) and I have a lot more problems with things that never showed up on library shelves and never would.

This is the documentation for w:AWK (a domain-specific programming language often used for text processing). The version we're hosting is licensed under probably-free but nonstandard terms (it pre-dates the GFDL iirc), and a previous copyright discussion concluded that it was sufficiently free that we could host it in terms of copyright and licensing. See the previous copyright discussion.

However, one concern raised in that discussion, and which I share, is whether this is the sort of text we should host at all.

What we currently host describes an ancient version of AWK (1996 is the stone age in software terms), and was never completed (it's a fragment / excerpt). The original for this text is in w:Texinfo format, and is hosted in version controlled repositories with numerous global mirrors under the auspices of the Free Software Foundation.

I can't see that we add any value whatsoever for this work, and certainly not when we only have less than 5% of it. If we wanted to help out the FSF we should just get the WMF to mirror the texi2html-generated HTML version somewhere and not bother wasting resources on turning it into wikitext.

So… To generate a discussion of that issue, I am proposing that we delete this text as being outside the purpose of and a bad fit for Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Keep if we can get the full text. It should also be moved to scan. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that the same edition? --Xover (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 Keep My personal collection has many programming books from the 1960s, so 1996 is hardly stone age. Especially for Awk, which has hardly changed since the 1980s. If it can be completed, it's a valuable work for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but this isn't so much a book as the "README" file distributed with the software (not literally of course; I'm making a point here). The "authorative" source for this work isn't a paper book that we can scan, but w:Texinfo source from which various displayed versions can be generated (one such would be something suited from printing as a paper book). What is the added value that we bring here? What is the point of taking Texinfo source, building PS or PDF, printing that to a book (notionally), scanning that book (again, notionally), transcribing and formatting it in our own markup format (instead of Texinfo), and then have Mediawiki generate HTML that gets displayed to the reader (if there are any)? Why not let Texinfo generate HTML directly? What value would this bring to our readers and reusers that justifies our expending the resources for that mildly insane process? --Xover (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You could make a similar argument about a lot of stuff we host. We have a lot of texts that are digital publications only, and we convert them from HTML to MediaWiki only to be displayed as HTML again. And this is significant content too, like the huge amount of presidential texts we have that are taken from the White House website. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly, to a degree; and I would make that argument, to a degree. For anything whose native format is very close to our output format—i.e. HTML or a HTML-precursor markup format, or something that has the properties of HTML—we should be asking the question of what added value do we bring to our readers and reusers, and is it commensurate with the resources expended on it.
The closer you get to a traditional printed work like a book or magazine, the more clear the answer is; so that things like the Mueller report, that's published in a typeset and paged PDF essentially identical to a scan of a paper publication, are essentially no-brainers for inclusion. Hosting a work here has some inherent advantages like providing complete collections of related works, and navigability and discoverability (and don't underestimate the value of our having vetted works for copyright issues either!). The "curation" part of our work, in other words.
But our main value proposition comes from proofreading, and validating, and dynamic presentation of works; and none of these obtain to any significant degree for HTML-like "born digital" documents. So long as we get these for "free" (a reasonably low amount of our most precious resource: volunteer effort) the inherent value suffices. But the second the cost goes up—because of licensing issues, or lack of formatting, or being incomplete—that equation changes. A HTML-like "born digital" document that we have only a few percent of has a massive cost to complete, and the result adds very little value compared to a simple web archive of the original. This particular work can be treated as both a traditional work (a book) and as a "born digital" document (both are correct), but for the vast majority of "born digital" content, Wikisource is just simply not the right tool for the job. Computer program documentation like man pages, on the one extreme, belong in source code control repositories (like Github), and web pages need something like a web archive like IA. (actually, come to think of it, for your typical web page, "evolving work" applies) --Xover (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment we are going to have more born digital works with the right license going forward. they are in scope, aren’t they? Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I think they are unquestionably in scope both in terms of de jure policy and de facto community practice as they currently stand. This thread is more of "strawman proposal" to generate some discussion on whether all such "born digital" documents should be in scope.
The AWK manual, while I did stumble over it by chance (and apart from the discussion of principle it is an excerpt etc.), seemed a good example sitting in a grey area there: it is formatted as a book, and, I believe, was available as a physical printed book at some point, but its native and authoritative format is a kind of source code (Texinfo is not really human readable, but sort of markup-y) and it lives in the source control repository along with the program code for AWK. I am here asserting that it is more akin to program source code than to a book or other "document", would cost us a lot of effort, in a technically nonsensical process, and would bring very little added value to our readers and reusers.
A more extreme example would be a literal README file, or the groff source for a man page included in a source distribution tarball, or even the source code file itself if it included "self documenting comments". We need to draw the line somewhere, and this seemed a good example to generate a discussion of where those lines are. --Xover (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that AWK Language Programming is very solidly on the in-scope side of the line, especially since it was published and distributed as a print book, and we do have access to a PDF edition for proofreading. Compare it to a document like the Apache License, which straddles the line between document and source code in a much more obvious way, and I think you will see that the work in question isn't anywhere near that line. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The fact that we have access to the original formatting code should not be a reason to not include a book; that's a feature, not a bug. It's not a README file, it's a textbook for a programming language, and not even a proprietary dialect; it adheres to the POSIX standard fairly closely.
I have a lot more problems with things that never showed up on library shelves and never would. We should keep books, including stuff like Knuth's self-documenting source code books that were published as books and are kept on the main shelves of libraries (at which point we can include them).--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment i would encourage you to edit more and develop work flows, and theorize about edge case "strawman proposal"s less. if you don’t come to the bridge don’t cross it. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 23:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:TOCstyle and associated module..

The following discussion is closed:

speedy closed; not actionable for widely used template. Please start with {{deprecated}} discussion — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the views of other contributors, too complex to use reliably, and eventually overruns Mediawiki limits. Delete once an "appropriate" alterantive have been provided. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment
  • ToC = table of contents. For a limited purpose it is probably fine. It is not fine for large indexes. Please do not over-react.

Closing as this is not the appropriate means to discuss widely used template, whatever one's personal views would be. Please start with better doucmentation that will limit its use/misuse. Have a conversation on the talk page, and possibly link to it from WS:S and look to have its use {{deprecated}} as a starting point. — billinghurst sDrewth

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Huon of Burdeux

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as abandoned excerpt. Inductiveload and Beleg Tâl have set up a scan and an Index and moved the existing transcription to its Page: pages. The annotated version was additionally deleted as user-generated content outside policy.

Incomplete work without a source, that has been long abandoned. If someone can find a text that matches then it is presuambly resurrectable, however, at this time, it is just problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Keep the "original" version, there is a scan matching it here. I'm inclined to delete the "respelled" version as an abandoned annotated edition with no chance of completion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    I am not saying that the work is out of scope, I am saying that what we have here is valueless and abandoned in the main namespace. There are so many differences: name, pages, etc., we should ditch what is there. No one is going to work on it, and it should be despatched. We should stop having rubbish hanging around. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: This discussion tends towards delete, and after 6 months a close is way overdue, but I see you're doing some work here. Are you doing/planning anything that would affect the conclusion? Should I sit on my itchy "clean out the backlogs!" hands for a while yet? --Xover (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: If you look through the archives of this page, you will see many discussions that began with consensus to delete, and then were speedy kept after a scan was added. I want to make sure that this work is only deleted if there is consensus to delete it despite the presence of a scan, and despite the precedent of speedy-keeping such works. However, I have no intention of doing anything more than scan-backing the existing content. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Regardless, Inductiveload's creation of Index:Huon of Burdeux - Lee.djvu has significant potential to affect the conclusion, and so we should definitely keep the discussion open a while longer (unless you think there is reason to speedy close). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: Thanks. Did you also clean out the annotations (NB! see my initial comment) from the "original"? In any case, I'll probably still land on {{vd}} of the mainspace text (not the scan and index; they're fine), but you may want to ping the other participants in this discussion. It was mere happenstance that I noticed you had done some work on this, and the odds of anybody changing their vote based on changes they are not aware of seem rather slim. :) --Xover (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    The annotations in the "original" version are actually included in the published text! (In italics though, not in grey.) The "respelled" version has been moved to Duke Huon of Burdeux/Annotated per the standard used by {{annotation header}}, and I still think it should be deleted because (unlike the transcribed text) it is user-generated content that is genuinely and uncontroversially abandoned. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    …?!? Wow, good catch! It didn't even occur to me to check that. (And, yes, unless someone in this discussion specifically argues to keep the respelled version I'd be strongly inclined to delete it as outside policy irrespective of whether the "original" is kept or deleted.) --Xover (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete per Billinghurst; and because even the "Original" version is actually an annotation: In this e-text, under the original chapters, letters in grey do not appear on the manuscript, but have been supplied here for clarity's sake. (For example, qd has been expanded to quod.). But just to be clear, I think what was attempted here was a very good idea and something we should give some thought to how we can achieve. But in this specific case what we have is an abandoned annotation without an unmodified original (i.e. it is outside policy). If we can find some way to put this into a policy framework and completed I would be happy to see it undeleted. I see it was largely created by The Man in Question who is still active on enwp. Perhaps they would be interested in working on it? With an unmodified original available, I think this would be a great annotated edition. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    Still landing on {{vd}} for the mainspace text (and definitely the annotations), despite the scan and index (which, obviously, should be kept). The uploader is editing enwp but has not responded to a query on their talk page there (or the ping here), so I think we need to conclude they are declining to do so. If nobody else sweeps in I'll leave this open for a little bit longer in case someone else wants to chime in or change their minds, but right now it looks like it's heading for deletion. --Xover (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete per reasons above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    It is great there is now the scan, but until some sensible progress is made in its proofreading there are not many reasons to keep the empty pages in the main namespace, so I still stay with my previous decision. It is no good when a reader browses our works and keeps bumping into empty and abandoned pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete: uploaded a scan at Index:Huon of Burdeux - Lee.djvu, which appears a complete 2-volume binding. What we have isn't enough to keep (3 chapters from the start of Vol 2), no-one's ever going to finish it the current mainspace form. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes

The following discussion is closed:

Closing as kept. “Since the nomination, Arlo Barnes and MSG17 has put in a significant amount of work proofreading this text. It is now scan-backed and ~30% proofread, and work appears to be ongoing towards completion at some point within a reasonable time span. We can revisit down the road if progress stalls.”

Dump and forget text that is ugly OCR. Whilst the text is in scope, the presentation is most definitely not. The contributor is long gone, God rest his soul. If someone feels like trying to getting something, it is at Internet Archive identifier: lastwilltestamen00rhoduoft — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment While my immediate inclination was to agree with you, I notice that there was an effort to clean it up as recently as two weeks ago. If someone is interested in salvaging it I would be inclined to give them the time to do so. @Arlo Barnes: What're your plans for this work? Are you planning to clean it up completely? Billinghurst has found a scan (see above), so if you're interested we could help you get set up to proofread it properly to modern standards. Otherwise it'll probably get deleted (with no prejudice to recreating if someone wants to work on it in the future) because as it stands it's just a cut&paste of the OCR text at IA. --Xover (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Here is your index page: Index:Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes.djvu —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am new to Wikisource QA, but I would be willing to give it a try (I ventured onto that page from the Wikidata entry, where I spend more time). Arlo Barnes (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Excellent. I'll follow up on your talk page. --Xover (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment deletion is not a text improvement process. rather, if you must, put on a maintenance category, and elevate non-scan backed texts at central discussion. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 23:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, and having revolting OCR pastes has always been inhibitory to text improvement. If your methodology worked, then I could see its purpose. Ten years experience would say that it has, at best, a 1% chance of working. Removal and adding scans and encouragement has always been more effective. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don’t delete something if you don’t have better to offer; if you just deleted every text that was subpar your collection would be pointless - the whole philosophy of a wiki is that things get better with time. Lemuritus (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep I have recently changed the page from a mere OCR dump to cover the opening section and and table of contents, which has links to other pages each covering a certain section. These pages are based off the index mentioned above and are in much better quality (albeit incomplete). I think that this work has a lot of potential for improvement. MSG17 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep Since the nomination, Arlo Barnes and MSG17 has put in a significant amount of work proofreading this text. It is now scan-backed and ~30% proofread, and work appears to be ongoing towards completion at some point within a reasonable time span. We can revisit down the road if progress stalls. --Xover (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cl-act-p

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

Overly complex, will soon be unused (outside of testcases). Per certain contributors views on over-complicated layouts. The related family of templates and associated module should probably be reviewed as well.

This is an overly complicated train-wreck of a template, that would need a major overhaul before it's anything like suitable for use on English Wikisource, and still remains incompatible with many other templates in common use.

Delete and redesign, once existing usages have been resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support after current usage replaced —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Also excluded -

  • Cl-act
  • Cl-act-TOC-h0
  • Cl-act-TOC-h1
  • Cl-act-TOC-h2
  • Cl-act-TOC-h3
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1
  • Cl-act-TOC-s1/2
  • Cl-act-TOC-s2
  • Cl-act-h1
  • Cl-act-h2
  • Cl-act-h3
  • Cl-act-layout
  • Cl-act-missing
  • Cl-act-cons
  • Cl-act-amend
  • Cl-act-pre
  • Cl-act-pre-nt
  • Cl-act-s
  • Cl-act-s1
  • Cl-act-s1-repealed
  • Cl-act-s1/2
  • Cl-act-s2
  • Cl-act-s2/3
  • Cl-act-s3
  • Cl-act-s4
  • Cl-act-style
  • Cl-act-t
  • Cl-act-t-int
  • Cl-act-t-int1
  • Cl-act/doc
  • Cl-act/sandbox

As these are STILL in use (and the previous attempt by others.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Template was repaired, and complexity is not a deletion reason. Module code needs commenting on how things are done...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: JesseW (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Chart

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This template is not currently transcluded anywhere on the project—and as best I can tell never has been—and was imported from enwp (over an older WS-specific template) by John Vandenberg in 2008 based on a WS:S discussion where it was brought up as one possible solution. Apart from a few discussion pages that link to it, and See also links from the docs for {{familytree}} and {{chart2}}, it's not used anywhere on the project. So far as I know it's been entirely obsoleted by Chart2, and all these are likely to be even more obsoleted once the WMF eventually gets around to start pushing their horribly overengineered modern and powerful general chart solution.

This template and all its myriad subtemplates are currently generating about a hundred lint errors. --Xover (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean Extension:Graph which seems more concerned with data charts, or Extension:Graphviz for things more like org charts and family trees? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The former. See e.g. task T137291. The Chart extension seems likely to be the new basis for all such functionality eventually (but probably not very soon: there still aren't dedicated resources assigned to it afaik). --Xover (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Meh, its presence isn't hurting anyone —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Delete happy to cull an unneeded, and code problematic template. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  DeleteMpaa (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Delete, although in the year this has been listed here, it's gotten three uses (one by @Chrisguise: and two by @James500:). JesseW (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    @JesseW: Thanks for chiming in! And you highlight neatly one of the reasons why it is important that people participate in these discussions: having them drag on for months and months leads to confusion and wasted effort. This one has been left open mainly because the participation was borderline in terms of deciding community consensus (numerically in favour of deletion, but no strong arguments either way, so I was hoping for larger participation before closing).
    And looking at this I found that none of our templates for making family trees were very good and had various technical problems. So I've imported {{tree chart}} from enwp, where it has replaced all the previous templates they had for this (of which some of ours were imports, some with changes, some not, and none updated in recent years). I'm hoping that can become a workable replacement for the historical templates here too, preferably without needing local modifications (which are near impossible to maintain).
    To that effect, Chrisguise and James500, I have made an attempt to replicate your three usages of {{chart}} using {{tree chart}} at this sandbox. I know these are really labour-intensive to do so I didn't want to just unilaterally overwrite your efforts; but I think these are a reasonable compromise between maintainability and representing the original. Could you have a look and let me know what you think? I would very much like to get these three usages of {{chart}} replaced so we can finally close this. --Xover (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Hopefully the Familytree template is easier to use than Chart2. It wasn't the most enjoyable of experiences putting the original version together. Chrisguise (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chrisguise: Thanks. I've made the replacement. Sadly, {{tree chart}} is not noticeably easier to use than {{chart}} or {{chart2}} (I've found none that are actually easy to use), but it has the advantage of being slightly more modern and better maintained in a purely technical sense. --Xover (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Xover has asked me to comment. The template was not added to either of the two pages by me. It was added by Noswall59. I have no opinion about the template. James500 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
D'oh! Indeed, you're right. My apologies for the intrusion! --Xover (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Noswall59: Since you have not edited here since April, I have gone ahead and replaced the two remaining uses. Please let me know if this caused any problems or undesirable changes. --Xover (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of Rojava

The following discussion is closed:

Userified to User:Dlpkbr/Constitution of Rojava.

Incomplete machine translation untouched since 2016, and by a contributor that has not edited since 2016, with no source, no license (though we would probably consider it PD-EdictGov), and in the wrong namespace (it's a Wikisource translation of the foreign-language original). It popped up on my radar because it's the kind of thing that attracts both vandals and "factual corrections". --Xover (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource translations are kind of the wild west. Suggest to move to Translations page and tag it with translation license
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifest

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. No consensus.

Previously discussed at WS:CV as a copyright issue (kept). Original PDF was deleted with minimal discussion at Commons, and an undeletion request declined citing privacy concerns. As best I can tell regarding copyright, this is simply {{PD-ineligible}}.

However, a recurring issue in all the previous discussions was whether the data is in scope per WS:WWI. It was highly relevant in 2014 at the time of the incident, so it was probably smart to keep it at the time for that reason alone, but now that it has had time to fade into history a little bit I think we should assess properly whether this is worth keeping. And let me be clear: the same factors that make this ineligible for copyright (lack of original expression) also argue that this is not within scope for Wikisource. Arguments to the contrary that turn the work into being a copyright violation are probably not particularly effective. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

 Keep This is clearly in scope as a documentary source, being "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". I also agree that this is {{PD-ineligible}}. We will need to get a hold of that PDF for local hosting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The PDF can be retrieved from w:File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a raw list of passengers on the relevant flight that IMO bears little resemblance to … constitutions and treaties [and] personal correspondence and diaries.. It does, however, sound quite a lot like 1. Lists;… 3. Tables of data or results, better known as Reference material, to me. However, the full report on that accident—which presumably includes that list in an appendix somewhere—would clearly be a documentary source. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Reference material is also in scope if "it is published as part of a complete source text". As far as I can tell this PDF is a complete source text, or do you have evidence to indicate otherwise? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The exception for a "complete source text" refers to Reference data that is provided as part of larger publication (tables, appendices, etc.) is perfectly acceptable. The passenger list is just a dump of data from the airline's booking system (it's literally a tab separated dump of some rows of the database with minimal formatting: I've written the code to produce such about a gazillion times for various purposes over the years); unlike the complete accident report that would include such data as a table or in an appendix. That a mere data dump is "complete" does not ipso facto turn it into a "publication"; and reference material is not in scope on its own, it is merely "perfectly acceptable" if it is here because it is a part of a work that is in scope. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the fact that by publishing this data dump as a complete PDF document, AirAsia has turned it into a documentary source that is evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events (the other stuff listed there are just examples and their similarity to the document in question is of no relevance). The entire contents of this documentary source is reference material which is published as part of the complete source text as released by AirAsia. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, it is still a valid interpretation of WS:WWI and therefore in my opinion this document should be kept regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
 There appears to be a fundamental disagreement on the best course of action for this work among the (two) participants in this discussion. I would therefore request wider community input to enable a proper determination of consensus. All input would be valuable for that purpose: "keep", "delete", "dunno", "don't care", and whatever else you think relevant would all be helpful in that regard. --Xover (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Beeswaxcandle: As the only two still-active participants in the previous discussion, do you have an opinion on this issue? --Xover (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion and the community made a decision at that time. I generally don't revisit discussions unless there is a specific change in the circumstance around the decision. Generally we would live with previous discussions whether we agree voted for or against it, whether we agree or disagree with that decision. [Don't pick scabs] — billinghurst sDrewth
  •  Keep: This seems like a fairly un-controversial piece of documentary evidence. It's not particularly mind-blowing, but it's real, and it was part of a then-current event. Assuming it really is {{PD-ineligible}} in the places needed, that is - it's PD in Indonesia because it's not a "work" there. Does it also need to be PD in the US, and if so, is it? If it is PD, recommend scan-backing to the PDF and tidying up. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: The copyright issue was settled well enough in previous discussions, whose conclusions I agree with: this is ineligible for copyright in the US due to not rising above the threshold of originality (it's just a dump of their passenger database). For works that are not eligible for copyright protection at all in the US, we don't need to care about the usual URAA and status in country of first publication stuff (AIUI).
    The question at hand in this discussion, and which is what has made it linger without resolution, is whether it is in scope for Wikisource. The question was raised repeatedly in previous discussions, but never addressed directly (the context then was copyright); and in this discussion I and Beleg Tâl reach diametrically opposite conclusions (and Billinghurst robustly refuses to address the issue). --Xover (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is in scope of WS, and it looks like it falls under PD-inelligible. If kept, it should be backed by the PDF document. However, if Commons declined the document for privacy reasons, can we ignore this concern? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: We have no local policy that addresses privacy beyond what the WMF Terms of Use impose. This is also a well-publicised public record (you can bet this same list of names scrolled across the TV screens of a bazillion news broadcasts at the time), and not all that sensitive, so whether we host a copy of it is of little matter in that sense. I brought up the Commons deletion mainly because it smacks of being a knee-jerk deletion. I don't personally think we should give Commons' decision excessive weight in this particular instance (others may of course disagree). Iff we keep it we'd need to upload it locally instead of on Commons, but we do that all the time anyway due to the differing copyright policies.
    That said, I do agree we should consider privacy in such cases in general, and particularly when, like in this case, it's just a list of victims names. But to me that falls under the scope issue that prompted this nomination: where is the value we bring there? Why do we need to host this mere list of names stripped of context? As a data appendix to the full air accident report, certainly; but when stripped out on its own like this? I just don't see that it falls within scope as defined in WS:WWI (which is, as all our policies, way too imprecise and handwavy for comfort, but…), and if it does then I don't see why it should be. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, we should definitely take privacy issues into account and the value of the bare list of victims’ names is so low that it cannot overpower this concern, no matter whether we take it as a separate issue or as a part of our scope. So finally I come to  Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Keep: In scope and ineligible for copyright in any country, including the US. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2019&oldid=13430147"