Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2021

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Anne of Green Gables (ex Gutenberg)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as a conflated text.

I've recently worked with 4 transcriptions of Anne of Green Gables : Anne of Green Gables from Wikisource (the non-Gutenberg one), Project Gutenberg, Digital Proofreaders of Canada, and my own.

The PG text is definitely an outlier in this set. The PG text has over 900 diffs with my transcription, and my transcription is now very close to that of Wikisource. About 50% of those diffs are due to Americanization and modernization.

The remaining differences are concerning, given their number and character. Here's a listing of its diffs with my own transcription (which, again, is very close to Wikisource's non-Gutenberg transcription). You shouldn't use the github default UI; just download the raw file; it's easier to do horizontal scrolling that way.

In this listing, I have gone through a few chapters and inserted summary notes here and there (incomplete; I didn't do the whole file). You can scroll through and judge for yourself, to get a sense of what's going on with the PG text (look for the + - signs).

I see issues with:

  • word changes
  • italics missing
  • punctuation changes
  • extra spaces

The PG text is unsourced. It doesn't state its source copy-text. I've tried to do some detective work on the likely copy-text. The result is inconclusive. This PG text has attributes from different sources. More details here.

Overall, I would say that the source copy-text is a rather random US mass-market book, which has been edited a bit aggressively. It's definitely not close to the original text from 1908, even factoring in Americanization/modernization.

Should this PG text be kept on wikisource? If yes, shouldn't readers be informed somehow of the above facts, which make the text somewhat questionable? As it stands now, on the launch page which shows the two versions, the user sees no difference between the two transcriptions. My feeling is that does a bit of a disservice to the reader. John O'Hanley (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting it, personally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
yeah, we need a process to migrate old gutenberg to scan backed, and if they cannot be sourced, then regretfully delete the old web1.0 that we have displaced with a web2.0 version. this will be a continuing problem, as first scanned later editions conflict with first editions. Slowking4Rama's revenge 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree in the future; there's no reason to delete properly scan-backed editions. Once the work has been done on an edition, there's no reason to delete it, but a Gutenberg edition of unknown origin that we can't effectively improve is not valuable to us. First editions are not sacrosanct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It's great we can have a theoretical deletion discussion of future imaginary edge cases. speaking theoretically, in this case, if we found a 2000 paperback edition scan, i would be tempted to vote delete, anyway. first editions tend to go to the author's intent, rather than the editorial decisions of corporate aggregators decades after the author's death. there is nothing sacrosanct about the first scanned edition, or the sunk labor of past transcribers. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about tendency--I certainly hesitate to summarize given huge policy differences across genre and publisher--but I can come up with numerous exceptions to that rule, and there are some major examples, like the Hobbit, where second and further editions reflect corrections and changes made by the author to the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of Gutenberg texts are composite editions, drawing from several published editions. If we have a scan-backed alternative, and cannot identify a single published edition that the Gutenberg text is based on, then I am all for deleting the Gutenberg edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think John O'Hanley neatly demonstrates why all Gutenberg imports are at best suspect, and generally aren't even good starting points for match and split: when they are not composite texts (such as this one is) they have been subjected to editorial judgement (as this one has), or more commonly both (ditto). Gutenberg texts, as a general rule, are simply not faithful to any particular edition at all and should be aggressively purged when we have a scan-backed alternative. No rule without exceptions, of course, but that should definitely be our base stance on the issue. --Xover (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We determined back in about 2010 that Gutenberg versions should not be matched and split as we never had edition information. Re deletion, why? What harm is it doing? Mark it for what it is and move on. You are not saving space, what are you achieving. De-emphasise them, and emphasise why our scan-backed methodology is preferred. They are not out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that nothing at WS:SCOPE approves of a work first published in the 1990s or 2000s without peer review or editorial controls. There's no reason to treat non-notable modern editions of works any differently from any other recently published work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
^ this exactly. Some of the newer Gutenberg editions are taken from one single published edition, but when they are not then they violate WS:OR and should only be kept as a stop-gap until a scan-backed edition is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
yeah, i kinda agree. intelligent readers will know, looking at an author page, to pick the earliest. but new readers might well be confused. lots of warning templates in the future "de-emphasising". and we need a process to notice uploads of works already done. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes and Beleg Tâl—unverifiable texts are not in scope.
Also, re "what harm is it doing?" Everything has a maintenance burden, as I'm sure you're acutely aware of after replacing all those Pd/1923 license tags. When an unverifiable Gutenberg edition duplicates a verified, reputable published edition, it adds no value, so it is a net negative and should go. The harm is made worse by reader confusion, or alternatively by the extra work necessary to ward off reader confusion, and to maintain that messaging. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If it has significant errors, then I would say it harms the reader.... De-emphasize sounds interesting: how is that implemented? John O'Hanley (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Should this discussion be moved to WS:PD? BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems logical, yes. John O'Hanley (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1923-abroad[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
kept and renamed to match template for which it is paired at Commons

Unused template. If kept, it should probably be renamed, but I do not think we need it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Template can be used with files migrated from Commons; they use for their files to be migrated prior to being deleted there—there process of marking. Files should not be retained here with tag—why it would be unused here. It serves a purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: In such a case, it should at least be renamed e.g. for PD-US-expired-abroad (which is how the template is called in Commons). The year 1923 in its name is confusing, as the text speaks about works published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1926 (and the date is going to change every year). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sure Yes check.svg Done , wasn't aware that they had renamed at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The King's English[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
superfluous, replacement with transcluded proofread version

The King's English (1906) by author:Henry Watson Fowler. While the work itself is not out of scope, this is a very incomplete and abandoned copy and paste version that does not add value to our collection in its current state. Best to blow it away, and make a scan available from the author page and restart. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete but redo. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PDF already existed (a Fae-ism): (transcription project) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I am editing The King's English by transcluding Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf. It will take me probably several months. But please trust me that I will finish it. Several months seems not too long if we consider the fact that The King's English was created more than 14 years ago (on 17 October 2006‎). --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems fair. Thank you for doing this btw. In that case keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete @Neo-Jay: Sigh. What you are doing is jumping the gun on this deletion discussion before it has concluded and, despite your apparent intent to vote keep, deleting the text Billinghurst proposed for deletion. You are doing this through overwriting the text of the 1931 third edition with the text of a 1906 printing of the second edition. There are (reportedly) significant differences between editions and printings of this work, and we would normally host multiple editions side by side.
    In fact, by cut&pasting the text of a different edition over your OCR you've added subtle differences that are hard to spot while proofreading and so made your own work harder.
    Now, as it happens, I agree with your actions (not your vote) and with Billinghurst: the old text that used to be there should be deleted, and when someone proofreads it from a scan the new text should replace the old deleted page (whether now or later down the line). That's what delete means in this discussion.
    Keep in this discussions means that we revert all the changes you have made to transclude the 1906 text, and move it to The King's English (1906) instead. We'd then move the existing text to The King's English (1931), and convert The King's English into a versions page linking to both editions. --Xover (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    By Keep, I mean overwriting the old abandoned work with a new complete version. I don't know why that is inappropriate. The old abandoned work has only 18 pages (see this and this), while Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf has 370 pages. Sorry that my cutting and pasting the 18 pages causes some (maybe a large number of) errors. I will proofread them and will add the rest 352 pages. I don't think that we must delete The King's English, erase all its edit history, and then create a new page with the same name. Frankly speaking, my main motivation for proofreading Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf is to save the long edit history of The King's English. If this page must be deleted, I am not sure that I will be still interested in taking time to proofread it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Now I have proofread all the 18 pages (1 to 18) that I cut and pasted from The King's English/Chapter 1/General Principles and The King's English/Chapter 1/Malaprops, and made 8 corrections (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). And thank you for your help (e.g., this and this). --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Neo-Jay: "Inappropriate" only insofar as you've done so before this discussion has concluded (there's a mandatory minimum of one week for discussion, and the outcome is not fixed before the discussion is actually closed). If the outcome of the discussion was eventually "keep", that would mean we keep the old (poor quality, incomplete) text. It doesn't look like that will be the outcome, so "no harm, no foul", but it's generally bad form to preempt a community discussion.
    Nobody is arguing in favour of deleting the old page revisions: we're discussing the (old) text that was on the page(s). If the outcome of the discussion was eventually "delete" there are any number of ways that result could be implemented. One of those ways is using the "delete" command in MediaWiki to completely remove the page from the site (which would have the side effect of also hiding its revision history, but that's not the goal of the exercise). Another is to overwrite it with a better text, which is what you're in the process of doing. In some cases (not this one) we might also turn the page into a redirect. And in other cases we might delete the page now, but undelete it later if the circumstances merited it. All these are mere technicalities, ways of removing the old undesirable text from view: the primary purpose of the discussion here is deciding whether we want to keep the text on that page or not. The method of doing that is a mere detail.
    In any case, from the discussion so far it looks like everyone will be happy with the approach you've already started on (by my read, everyone commenting, including the proposer, agrees with you), so please don't fret too much about my harping on formalities. But in future, trust the process to get a good outcome, and let it runs its course. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Neo-Jay Yes, we are saying that we wish to delete the existing text as it stands—as I noted the work itself is not out of scope. Xover is saying that you can always proofread text of any fresh edition of a work, and in this situation we then make the decision whether it replaces or sits beside an existing work as a version. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Xover, @Billinghurst: Thank you for your explanation. I think that my vote Keep should be changed to Overwrite. Sorry for my misunderstanding.--Neo-Jay (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    No probs. Sometimes we do have a little bureaucracy. With these nominations we often have someone stick their hand up to improve the work, and it is fantastic that you did it on this occasion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1984[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Not done. Work is still in copyright in the US, and the old text is not a suitable starting point in any case.

Please check whether there's any content in the deleted pages here that would justify undeletion. The book 1984 by George Orwell is now in the public domain. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

At least in Orwell's native U.K., along with the EU et al. (Already PD in Australia, with such an edition causing an uproar back in the late 2000s when Amazon USA deleted it from customers' Kindles--or so I once heard the story.) Stateside, though--not until 2045. --Slgrandson (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done published in 1949, so not out of US-copyright as indicated above. It is not a good copy anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the relevant copyright terms in the US. Commons says For works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication, and is therefore currently expired unless the owner filed for renewal during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication. I can't find that there was a renewal for any of Orwells books. Therefore, it should already be in the PD in the US. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@PaterMcFly: That is for US-published works, and does not apply for foreign works. We are generally in "1925 through 1977 >> Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal) >> 95 years after publication date". If we can find a US-published edition that was within 28 days of the UK publishing, then we can reproduce. The evidence is going to need to be dug up to get that work, and it does not lie with what was deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
How did you look for renewals for Orwell's books? Stanford's renewal's search brings up 26 of them, including one for 1984, which seems to have published at the same time in the US as the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I used this link. It brought a lot of hits, but none that seem to match anything related. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't have any records before 1978. It may turn renewals for works first published in 1950 and later, but not anything earlier. The Stanford renewals lacks a bunch of non-book renewals, but is generally the best first source to look at.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this classic novel in particular has been talked about so much here just goes to show how sad it is that we have to wait 24 whole years for it to go PD. Orwell is dead and has been for a long time, so keeping a copyright on this is completely pointless—the rights-holders ought to just release the rights worldwide already. (We know they won't, though, as was the case with The Great Gatsby until this year, when its "rights"-holders have been forced to accept that its copyright just expired.) PseudoSkull (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Latin for beginners[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Converted to a redirect for the scan-backed version. The redirect can be changed into a versions page later if needed, or we can move the ~100 (sub)pages of the scan-backed version to Latin for Beginners if anybody feels up for the task.

Latin for beginners (1909) by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge. This work has preface and some of the first chapter and is then abandoned. It is not backed by scans.

To also note that we have Latin for beginners (1911) by the same author that is complete, and back by scans.

Essentially we have an incomplete earlier without ready means or desire to complete.

In reality, we should consider converting this to a disambiguation page that links to our edition, and lists other editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - This copy is backed only by a Gutenberg copy, but has almost none of that content. As noted, we have a complete copy of a specific edition backed by a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, abandoned 14 years ago. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Year by category[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

An imported template that sets up a competing style to {{categories by date}} and its use. I don't think that uses of the template should stand either, and the underlying works migrated to the existing category system, and the template and categories deleted. I don't favour having an increasing number of categories by year/date without some community consensus that we can manage and sustain such a setup. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Kill it with fire! --Xover (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Catalog raisonné[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Both of these, added in 2017 and basically zero-content.

Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Nuke under the "zero-content mainspace pages" policy. :) --Xover (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A Text-book of Sex Education[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Another cut and paste of raw OCR from IA. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: I may mention also that this copy is incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Famine or Not Famine[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

More raw OCR from IA. --Xover (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In the Midst of the Starving[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

More raw OCR. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Apart from two headings (using == … ==), this is just raw OCR. No source and untouched for 12 years. --Xover (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, will be easier to proofread from scratch than to try and fix this OCR —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Kronstadt Rebellion[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Raw OCR serves no purpose: even if a scan is produced the OCR in its text layer will at worst be the same as the copydump, and it will quite possibly be better due to improved OCR software.

Consist only of cut and paste of raw OCR text from Internet Archive. --Xover (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I will scan-back this work soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: By "scan-back", do you mean "I will proofread this work from scratch"? Because just adding a scan will do zero to improve this text: apart from the first couple of paras the text there is exactly the same raw OCR you'll get from an unproofread scan. And if you're proofreading from scratch anyway, what value does the text that's currently on that page bring? --Xover (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Index:Cowardly Lion of Oz.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

This is a Project Gutenberg printout. There's no reason to try and transcribe it; we could just copy from Project Gutenberg, if we are so inclined.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Soft redirects to translated works, 220 redirects and template:translation redirect[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

220 soft redirects have been in place since we created the Translation namespace, and moved the works. It is time for the redirects to be removed. I would suggest that any future removes should better utilise {{dated soft redirect}}. If that is agreed then the category and the template used can both be deleted. With Wikidata in place, it is a superior place to store any pertinent links to works. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete But note I have no objection (in general) to real redirects from mainspace to Translation:. I don't want (undated) soft redirects there, and these old ones should go in any case, but hard redirects are fine by me for future cases. Unlike other cross-namespace redirects, I mean. --Xover (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bible and Islam[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

One chapter partially completed, but with many problems, and the rest are just cut&paste of raw OCR. No source and it's been sitting untouched for 12 years. If somebody wants to pick up work on this it'll be (far) easier to start from scratch than bringing this dump up to snuff. --Xover (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The first chapter sways my vote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the work itself would be in scope, however, this rendition is predominantly one chapter of corrected text (no scan) and OCR text. We can do better. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Golden Bowl (mixed source edition)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

The Golden Bowl (mixed source edition) was originally a copy of the Project Gutenberg text, which is based on the 1904 American 1st edition; but then someone partialy proofread it against a scan of the 1905 English 1st edition.

Now that we have The Golden Bowl (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909), I think it would be better to delete this mixed source edition rather than try to sort out its provenance issues and salvage it.

Hesperian 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the mixed-source edition. How hard would it be to add the 1904 and 1905 editions? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have preferred to have transcribed one of those first editions rather than the 1909 NYE, but at the time there wasn't a nice clean scan of either. Hesperian 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete mixed source, when better exists. Do what you want for earlier pure editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia-inline2[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Template created in 2015 and added to all of 5 works. It creates a link to a Wikipedia article formatted like: [w]. As this is an annotation I have removed it from the few pages where it was used. Since its use is inherently an annotation I propose we delete it outright. --Xover (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I can imagine that this template could be used in annotated versions of works which are allowed, but since nobody has used it in that way throughout its existence, I agree with its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete we don't need non-standard means to link. One standard methodology is sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:VIAF not on Wikisource[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

This is a junk category for us. We haven't added that data locally, for many years, and its use is redundant to all the positive categorisation. We need to remove it from Module:Authority control and delete the category. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Just a couple days ago I was looking at this category when I noticed that an author was placed there although the authority control box listed the author’s VIAF ID, which did not make sense to me at first. Then I realized that the AC box takes it from Wikidata and that the category contains also authors who have VIAF in Wikidata but not directly in Wikisource, and I wondered what it could be useful for. So I agree with the deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not having VIAF data stored locally is now the normal state and not something that needs to be tracked. The tracking code has been removed from the template so the category should empty out as the category tables are updated. --Xover (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Raven - Coleridge (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

There is a sourced edition available.Languageseeker (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Pagetype[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Now-unused (was only ever used in two templates as best I can tell) and now-broken experimental meta-template (a 2014 GOIII experiment), with attendant Lua modules, whose functionality is now provided by {{namespace detect}}. In addition to being inadvisable for use it contains some code that puts it into a global maintenance category in a way that makes it too much hassle to figure out how to defang it. --Xover (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Coming of the White Men OCR text[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

This work, while not apparently out of scope, is just a copy and paste of OCR text without correction and still containing page headers. If it is to be retained it should be corrected or replaced with transcluded text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Critique of Judgement[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

A long unfinished work that would appear to be abandoned. The work itself would not be out of scope, however, no scans provided to complete the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Dreamer: A Romantic Drama In Three Acts (Mary R.P. Hatch)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Incomplete, unsourced work that has been abandoned. Work itself is not out of scope, however, no indications of veracity nor capacity to continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary The Tale of Gha-nim ibn Ayyub[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Unsourced copypasted text, probably from https://books.google.cz/books?id=HwF0J_jGp_0C&pg=PA316 . I did not manage to find the date of translation, so there are some copyright doubts too. However, it should imo be deleted for reasons of quality regardless of whether copyright is OK or not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete A trifecta: an extract/raw OCR/maybe dodgy copyright. We also have The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Ghanim Ben Eyoub the Slave of Love, so a definitely-PD, scan-backed and proofread translation of this already exists. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (text)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

The_Jungle_Book_(text) is an unsourced text for which a sourced text exists The Jungle Book (Century edition). Languageseeker (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete — we need to clean out the unsourced cruft here for sure. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Twist[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn by proposer.

Scan-backed first edition exists. This edition has no authoritative value. Languageseeker (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought this issue was just fixed before? This is a scan-backed edition, it's just an index linking to each scan-backed volume. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It still say unsourced on the author’s page and there are links to the three separate volumes. Perhaps, this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion?
Withdrawn Languageseeker (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights (unsourced edition)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

Delete Wuthering Heights (unsourced edition). Sourced alternative exists. Languageseeker (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, sourced edition exists, and this edition is of spurious origin —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Tristram Shandy[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an excerpt and copydump.

Incomplete, poorly formatted work from an uncertain edition. Languageseeker (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

David Copperfield (1869)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Has no authoritative value and a proofread version of the 1860 first edition exists. Languageseeker (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity and main ns subpages[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an excerpt / premature transclusion.

The work is in scope though its presentation is not. Though there are only a few actual pages of proofread content and lots of pages transcluded of yet to be created. When there is content to be transcluded then they can be done so, whereas at this stage we should have rely on links from author page to the Index: page. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as it is in the process of being scan-backed.

Unsourced version where sourced version exists, possible copyright violation, and no clear evidence that this is the 1884 edition. Languageseeker (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After search and comparison, I think that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn's source is Project Gutenberg's Plain Text UTF-8 (Chapters 01 to 05, Chapters 06 to 10, Chapters 11 to 15, Chapters 16 to 20, Chapters 21 to 25, Chapters 26 to 30, Chapters 31 to 35, Chapters 36 to the Last), or sources of them are the same. They use same capitalizations, symbols (e.g., using "--" as en dash), styles (e.g., using ALL CAPS instead of italic, using double space after colon/period, etc.), newlines, etc.. I have added the source information to Talk:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Is this acceptable to Wikisource? If not, could The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be moved to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) to save its edit history? I am willing to overwrite it by transcluding Index:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).pdf. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: There's no need to move it. So long as we only have one edition we don't disambiguate page names; and if you Proofread an edition from a scan you can just transclude it over the old unsourced pages. Just remember to move the subpages for the chapters to use arabic numerals rather than roman when you do (the current pages use non-standard names). --Xover (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you for your message. We have another edition: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). The only difference in title is whether or not "The" is used. I think that maybe it would be better if The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn could be redirected to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the versions page, and all the specific editions, no matter whether "The" is used in title, could have publication year in parentheses for disambiguation. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Ah, I see. Yes, in that case we'll have a {{versions}} page at The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, linking to the various editions at, respectively, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). I'll have a look as soon as I'm done untangling the current issue I'm wrangling with. --Xover (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: We already have a {{versions}} page: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (without "The"). And the 1885 edition does not have "The" in its title, so it is at Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), not The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). Do you mean that we need to change the {{versions}} page from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (adding "The"), and move Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) (also adding "The")? Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: No, I just meant to outline the structure and that the page names should be consistent. Since the versions page and existing scan-backed edition are already at a page name without "The" the most expedient fix is to move the Gutenberg/1884 edition to a name consistent with those. I'll take a look at it now. --Xover (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: What was the point of re-moving the pages, while I was working on them, to add the "The" to the page name that I'd just told you we wouldn't have in this case, and leaving a whole mess of redirects behind? --Xover (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you for moving The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and its subpages to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884). I re-moved Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) and its subpages to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) (adding "The") because the 1884 edition has "The" in its title (see this). It's different from the 1885 edition, which, as I said above, does not have "The" in its title (see this). I think that the page title should be the same as that of the physical edition. Is it right?-Neo-Jay (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Most of the time you can assume the title is simply what's printed on the title page. However, in this case there are a couple of factors modifying that. The first is that the difference is in an article, which are usually omitted in title listings for sorting purposes, and which is sometimes omitted in page names (not the displayed title, just the page name) here precisely to get nice sorting in category pages etc. The other is that the use of the definite article in the 1st (UK) edition is conclusively a mistake (Clemens made a mistake in a letter to the UK publisher), which makes what's printed on the title page even less of an argument in favour of using it.
That's not to say opinions couldn't differ on what page name we should use, so it's entirely possible we could have ended up moving it to a page name with "The". But the only reason for an additional move here would be if there were people who felt strongly enough to argue about it, in which case, by definition, we would need to have a discussion to determine the final name (vs. unilaterally moving it). Moving it to a new name to include the "The" after I had just moved it is just pointless, much less while I was still working on cleaning up after the move. And for large numbers of pages you should generally let someone with admin tools do it simply because cleaning up the redirects afterwards is more work than just doing the move and suppressing redirects. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I am very sorry that I moved these pages without discussion and have caused so much trouble. I will be more cautious in the future. As for the naming issue, I am not sure that "the use of the definite article in the 1st (UK) edition is conclusively a mistake". The current version of the English Wikipedia article Adventures of Huckleberry Finn says that the title with "The" is used in more recent editions. And I also found many editions whose title has "The" on Amazon.com (e.g., this 2014 edition, this 2019 edition, this 2020 edition, etc.). I think that the titles with and without "The" are both correct. So, in my humble opinion, it would be better if the 1884 edition has "The" in its Wikisource page title as its printed version. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: caused so much trouble would be rather overstating it. If I gave the impression it was a big deal I have to apologise: it wasn't optimal, but the harm was minimal.
As to the title, I had to research that when I started looking at this request, and as is often the case I found that Wikipedia wasn't entirely up to date on this issue. The bit you quoted from my message was a summary of what I'd found, but I realise that it looked like I was just making a bald assertion. And, amusingly enough, my journey through this issue almost exactly mirrors these guys: "Will [The] Real Huck Finn Please Stand Up?" (modulo having librarians at the Mark Twain Room at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library on speed-dial). The short version is that Twain scholars have given the issue some attention and concluded based on the original manuscript and Clemen's letters.
In any case, it is still arguable whether it should be at a page name based on what's printed on the title page (mistake or not), or at the "real" title based on that research, so I'm not going to move it yet again unless there's a discussion here that determines consensus for one or the other. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Many thanks for the links. I learned a lot from this interesting post. And I really appreciate your insights and discussions. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Copyright issue [resolved]

[ moved into a sub-section top try to maintain some semblance of structure. --Xover (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC) ]

@Xover: The Gutenberg is not the 1884 edition, but a modern reprint. As the comments on the talk page state, there is evidence of copyright infringement that needs to be resolved. I didn't want to copyvio the page if it's might be deleted, but it seems that this needs to be a part of the conversation. Languageseeker (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: What copyright issue? Which comments? What evidence? --Xover (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: see Talk:The_Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn_(1884)#This_version_is_very_different_from_the_scanned_book. There's evidence that it's not the 1884 edition, so which modernized edition is it? Is that edition under copyright? Languageseeker (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: The chapter titles were added on 16 December 2005 and were not included in the original versions (see this and this). The chapter titles were copied from Project Gutenberg's 1912 edition, while the content of book were copied from Project Gutenberg's another version (not the 1912 edition), whose links I have provided above (or see this). I don't think that copying Project Gutenberg's editions would have copyvio issues.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any source information in the PG link. The issue is that if PG violated copyright and Wikisource imports that version, then Wikisource also violates copyright. Even though the original of these works are in the PD, subsequent editions can still be under copyright. Languageseeker (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: There is absolutely no reason to assume PG violated copyright; the comments on the talk page in no way shape or form suggest a copyright issue; and there is not one shed of evidence presented anywhere to suggest it is a copyvio. There is also no reason to assume later editions are in copyright. They may be, but only in certain narrow circumstances. In other words, your assertive phrasing in this regard is wholly unmerited. --Xover (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: The difference between the Project Gutenberg's Plain Text UTF-8 version and the 1885 edition is the specific manual of styles used by these PG's Plain Text pages, e.g., using "--" as en dash, using ALL CAPS instead of italic, using double space after colon/period, etc.. Are these copyrightable? And those Plain Text links' front pages (e.g., this) also provide HTML links (e.g., this), which present scanned pages of the 1885 edition. Does this indicate that its source is the 1885 edition? --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I was raising an issue that a user raised in the talk section. I believe that all scan backed versions are trivial to resolve a claim. I’m not overly concerned with how PG sources it’s works, but I that we should exercise caution when importing wholly unsourced editions. The HTML version does appear to provide better evidence of the providence of the work which is the 1885 edition. So, this alleged 1884 edition is actually the 1885 edition that we have a sourced copy for. Therefore, it’s a duplicate. This is why accurately citing the source of a work matters. Languageseeker (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Thank you for raising this issue. Now The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been moved to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884). I will overwrite its text by transcluding Index:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).pdf (thank you for creating this index page). It might take me several months. Best regards.--Neo-Jay (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I truly appreciate you sorting this out and figuring out the source of the unsourced text. Thank you for working on this important text. Until you get a chance to override the text, do you think it makes sense to put a disclaimer that this is the 1885 text and not the 1884 text? Languageseeker (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: I added a note to Talk:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884), stating that the Project Gutenberg Plain Text UTF-8 version (source of the Wikisource's original version) is possibly based on the 1885 edition (I am still not 100 percent sure that the 1885 edition is the source of the Project Gutenberg version since PG does not explicitly state so, but just presents some scanned images of the 1885 edition). Thank you so much for the discussion. Best wishes.--Neo-Jay (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Trumpet-Major[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as excerpt.

Incomplete, unsourced edition.

Sourced from Gutenberg, which is the 1920 Macmillan edition. A scan of an earlier printing of essentially the same edition is here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
My basic qualm is that nobody is going to or should finish that project. The Macmillan is a reprint with no input from the author. The deletion is because of the unfinished state of import. Languageseeker (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Life of Henry the Fifth (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The First Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Macbeth (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:Weird Tales volume 02 number 03.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Existing pages moved, and index speedied as redundant.

I tried working on this, and found it illegible, so I generated a DJVU from the IA JP2: Index:Weird Tales volume 02 number 03.djvu, and copied over the transcribed files. Any objection to deleting the PDF index?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection, though moving the pages might have been better than copying (then they'd still be validated)?
I'd support the addition of "supplanted index" to WS:Deletion policy#Precendent for this kind of thing. If the pages have been moved to a new index and all the Page: subpages are either redirects or moved without redirects, I'd also say this could be a CSD G4: Redundant speedy (obviously if page NS redirects exist, they should be culled too).
By the way, the poor PDF thumbnail quality is phab:T224355 and is to do with the fact that the embedded images are 600 dpi, but the file is rendered by MW at 150 dpi. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note that I moved the existing pages over to the new index to preserve edit history and validated status. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

All items with source Frederic Bancroft, ed., Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, Volume[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Invalid proposal, withdrawn by proposer.

The complete works just got posted on the front page so all works with Frederic Bancroft, ed., Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, Volume as their source on the title page should be deleted. Languageseeker (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Languageseeker: You're describing a search strategy, not a set of pages. Please either list all the pages you are referring to, or, at a minimum, more directly describe what pages this proposal would apply to. I also recommend giving some attention to your proposal rationale, as I couldn't really make heads or tails of it. --Xover (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Basically, it would be to delete all the pages in this search [1] such as The_Writings_of_Carl_Schurz/William_Steinway Languageseeker (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Why.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
They come from The_Writings_of_Carl_Schurz that just posted as a scan-backed version. Therefore, these entries are duplicate content. Languageseeker (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
* Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you should list all the articles proposed for deletion. When possible I did a move to integrate them with Schurz's papers, but I had reasons for not doing the integration. Sometimes it was a different version (newspaper or pamphlet transcription with headlines and/or intertitles; Bancroft had a distinct editorial style and regularly altered capitalizations), sometimes it was part of a series of articles (e.g. Harper's Weekly editorials, letters to and from Lincoln) and I couldn't do the move without interrupting the series. Maybe people could suggest alternatives, but just deleting the whole wad would leave some disruptive red links. I did consider all of them individually, and didn't leave around needless duplicates. Please note I also do business as Bob Burkhardt, but currently I am not active with that account. I can see I should check in with it occasionally. Library Guy (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the William Steinway article you cite, it is not a duplicate of anything that I know of. This is one of the articles I integrated. Look at the page history. So your search strategy is defective I believe. Library Guy (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually now that I look, you are proposing to delete many of the integrated articles. None of these are duplicates. When I did the move, I retained the talk page just because it was part of the history of the development of those particular articles. Library Guy (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Then should we remove the talk pages to avoid future confusion? Languageseeker (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think they should be deleted. They are part of the history of the article. History, even its own, is a lot of what Wikisource is about. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


I'm ok with saying that the article was formally sourced from these collection, but it's no longer accurate to say that they are sourced from there. Languageseeker (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
William Steinway certainly is sourced from the collection. That's what transclusion is all about. Perhaps the alias I'm using is throwing you: The Writings of Carl Schurz. This is just taken from the page headings. The formal name is Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz which only exists as a redirect. It seemed kind of unwieldy to be copying the formal name into all the subpage titles. It is so long. Your banner at Letter from Carl Schurz to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1860 is what caught my attention, and on closer attention I would consider deleting that article as well as letter from Lincoln it links to, but I need to replace the links to it with links to the new article from the collection. In retrospect I should have done a move there, followed by a transclusion, as I did with the other articles I integrated. The links in the header are duplicated, so there would be no loss there. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I know that you and Library Guy are the same user. I think that transcluding over unsourced text is the right way to go. I also think that once you transclude the text, there is no longer a need for the source template because the tranclusion creates a link to the source. So it's a bit confusing to keep them. Languageseeker (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
So please list the files you wish to nominate for deletion. The only one I know about so far is Letter from Carl Schurz to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1860 and that is because I found the banner there. In the past, when one of my files was nominated for deletion, I got notification on my talk page. I don't see any notification on my Bob Burkhardt talk page or my Library Guy talk page. I would like to keep the talk pages I moved (with the source template on them) so if you propose deleting those pages, I will oppose the deletion. Today I plan to make the changes needed so the Lincoln-Schurz pages can be deleted without trouble, but you need to list them here (and put a banner on the pages involved if you want to delete them (they are community property and the community needs to have the opportunity to comment) and I think a notification needs to be posted to my talk page. Deleting pages is a serious matter. If you have the time to post the banner on a page, you need to take the time to post a link to the file here. If you don't have the time to do it properly, please don't bother us. Library Guy (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: (CC Bob Burkhardt) Modulo necessary contractions etc. you should put the work at its title as published rather than invent your own name for it (let me know if you need any help with moving pages etc.). If the textinfo on a work's talk page is no longer accurate (for example if you have replaced the contents of a page) you should update it, possibly by just deleting the wikitext and leaving the page empty. It is likely such pages will be deleted at some point because we don't tend to keep around such just for the no-longer-relevant textinfo template, but if you don't want to tag them for speedy deletion you should at least make sure they don't contain actively misleading information.

@Languageseeker: I am not seeing any valid deletion rationale for anything at all here. Is there anything you are still proposing be deleted or has that issue been resolved to your satisfaction? --Xover (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: I didn't make the name for the title up. This is the title the editor uses for the work in the page headings, and I think the editor and I have the same motivation. The title on the title page is very cumbersome to work with. If all these pages are moved (and I do not have the patience, or the necessary experience with bots or whatever) either a lot of redirects would be left around, or a lot of other fiddly changes would be necessary. On the other issue, looking at Talk:The Writings of Carl Schurz/William Steinway, I don't see anything actively misleading, and the other talk pages are similar. The newest work was done under an alias (Library Guy instead of Bob Burkhardt). Rather it is duplicate information generated in an earlier version of the article. It is part of the history for me. I've been working around this particular project for over ten years. It is really hard for me to imagine the ramifications of proposed sweeping changes. I realize others probably don't wish to put this kind of time into it, but I hope they will respect the time I have put into it. I can deal with proposals to delete individual files, and in my updates I have carefully considered the changes I have made. I did flag a lot of redirects for deletion during my latest work on this project. I think I have organized things sensibly. Library Guy (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m going to withdraw this in deference to Library Guy. Thank you for all your hard work over the past ten years. Wish I could buy you a wiki drink to celebrate at an appropriate social distance. Languageseeker (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: If the editor intended the work to be called "The Writings of Carl Schurz" they would have put it on the printed title page. What is put in page headings in a work is fairly random, and is usually not decided by the author/editor. You have substituted your own judgement for theirs, which in addition to being a bad idea in general, is explicitly against our policy. Not, I hasten to add, in any major way (the substitution and reasoning for it is in itself entirely sensible), but you definitely shouldn't be doing that. There's no rush, and you don't have to do it all yourself, but it should definitely be addressed in due course.
You're right that the textinfo templates are a trivial issue (assuming the one you linked is representative); they're mainly just redundant to the info provided inherently by the Proofread Page system. So long as the information in them isn't actually wrong they do no harm. --Xover (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: I had a quick (and I do mean quick) look at what it would take to move the work to a new page name, and it looks like it would be relatively straightforward. It would go something like 1) move all the pages with a bot, leaving redirects behind; 2) search and replace with a bot all the associated Page: pages to replace the old page name with the new; 3) have a bot force a recursive link update on all the mainspace pages to update the transcluded links; 4) bot-delete all the redirects for the old page names, except for the top level page. All of that is relatively straightforward and mostly work the computer does for you. It shouldn't even disrupt the work while it's processing (users/readers shouldn't notice a thing). It will take a little effort up front to plan, make sure of the page names, etc.; and it will take some-to-a-bit quality control afterwards to make sure the bot jobs didn't mess up anything. I didn't really dive deep into it so it's possible I missed something, but that should be a reasonable enough outline to start from.
Can you follow up on this once you've had time to mull it over a bit and have some available time? I'd like to close out this deletion proposal (to clear out the backlog), but I don't think a page move for this (truly monumental, kudos!) work is something to rush into, so I think it's something that should be handled separately and with due consideration.
PS. There are several people that can handle automated / bot tasks like those I describe above. You can feel free to ping me directly, or you can ask for help in Wikisource:Scriptorium#Repairs_(and_moves). Don't hesitate to do so: the stuff that can be done by computers is the easy stuff, it's the stuff that can't be automated that is hard. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I am content with the filenames the way they are. The headers all use the title page's long name. I try to make sure the filenames are related. The book itself is much the same way. The long name only appears on the first page. After that one just sees the page headings, which matches the shorter name I used for the filename. Can you refer me to a help page which gives guidance on filenames? I've seen some awfully long titles. Library Guy (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: We do have some guidance related to page titles at Wikisource:Style guide#Page titles, but I'm afraid it's rather limited and not of much use here. Mainly because it is taken as obvious and unnecessary to mention that a work should be given a page name that corresponds to the actual title of the work, with some consideration for abbreviating the excessively long and complicated titles that were common in early modern works.
But let me put this a different way… If you do not want to move it to a page title concomitant with the work's actual title, one perfectly acceptable way to address the issue is to open a discussion on the Scriptorium to see if the community accepts your alternate page title as within the bounds of good practice. I am, in this context, mainly trying to clear the backlog of proposed deletions without letting any identified issues fall by the wayside and be forgotten.
Normally I would have just moved the work myself, but I didn't want to unilaterally do that when you were clearly reluctant, and when it is such a big and complex work as this, and one in which you have invested so much time and effort. That's why I asked if you could follow up on that issue: so you could take your time, mull it over, control the details of how the move is done and the timing of when it is executed, or, if you still disagree, you can bring it up for discussion with the wider community when it suits you to do so and framed in a way you are comfortable with (rather than whatever I would have been able to come up with).
I understand and appreciate how much effort you've put into this, and how attached one gets to every single detail of such efforts. I don't want to badger you or run roughshod over such a monumental effort, or unduly rush you on something that is certainly a minor detail in the bigger picture. I only want to make sure this one issue that cropped up in the discussion doesn't get forgotten about and go unaddressed once this thread is closed. --Xover (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I think you are the one who should open up the Scriptorium conversation since you want to make the change, as people with proposed deletions do here. Maybe there is even a banner you could put at the top of the page so people in the community interested in the work will be alerted to your issue. My plan is to put a note on the top page of the work noting where I got the filename. This is not the first work I have utilized the page headings in. I used them to construct a TOC in Summer on the Lakes. It's kind of like the way the aboriginals used the whole buffalo. Thank you for not acting unilaterally, especially on an undocumented policy that you think is "obvious and unnecessary." Bob
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Works of John Ruskin[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Nominating The_Works_of_John_Ruskin because it's a duplicate of content on Author's page. Languageseeker (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So? I don't know how entirely to handle that, but The Works of John Ruskin is a multi-volume work and like any work, deserves to have its own page. You see this at many levels; books of short stories get their contents listed on the book page and the author page as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: In this particular case the mainspace page exactly duplicates (I assume) what's already on the Author: page, and it contains no content beyond what properly belongs on the Author: page, so as it currently stands it has no reason for existing. Once the work is actually proofread it should, of course, have some sort of collecting structure (possibly at this page name, possibly as a portal). But for the fact we have an ongoing discussion on "substantially empty works", that affects several long-open discussions here, this page would have been speediable (after its contents were moved, or verified to already be at, the Author: page). --Xover (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree with deleting the page as there is no proofread content. Such pages should be founded only to roof individual volumes already present at Wikisource. Not necessarily all of them, but at least a couple of them should be proofread first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Languageseeker: You forgot to inform us that you had changed the page to a completely different presentation and a completely different edition before anyone had time to comment here. @Jan.Kamenicek, @Prosfilaes: You may want to have a second look at the page and either reaffirm or amend your position on this. --Xover (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Now the page lists individual volumes of the 1891 editon of The Works of John Ruskin, but the links do not go to transcriptions of those volumes, they go to some other editions. E. g. Seven Lamps of Architecture, which is supposed to be the 7th volume of the 1891 work, links to an 1849 edition of the book, which has nothing in common with this 1891 multiple-volume work. The page would make sense only we we had transcriptions of the particular volumes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. As I can see, indexes of 1903 edition of Ruskin's works are ready, so there's no more use in this old page. It doesn't have links to transcription projects of 1891 collection's volumes, so it's out of WS:SCOPE. Ratte (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Judaism and Islam: A Prize Essay[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

OCR copy and paste of work in poor state. Not been rescued in its time here, time to cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree and Comment. Why hasn't anyone made any effort to correct the OCR? What should be done about all the footnotes? Rickyrab2 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Index for anyone who wants to work on it: Index:Judaism and Islam, a prize essay - Geiger - 1898.pdf. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Am ok with deletion so long as it's indexed and moved appropriately. Rickyrab2 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
But I would like to keep the source material somewhere because it's easier to copy and paste from this source to the index than it is to work on the raw OCR of the indexed material. Rickyrab2 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Note. The material has now been copied over to the Index and is available for working on. Rickyrab2 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Rickyrab2: DjVu works are way better than PDFs. For any work that has come from archive.org, I would suggest to head over there , go to the ALL FILES section and you will see a djvu.txt version, and from that you can usually get a good set of the text to paste. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Ideals[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedied, no content —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is just a header, with no other content.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Suakin, 1885: Being a Sketch of the Campaign of this Year[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept: moved to scan, OCR errors (mostly) eliminated, ready for further proofreading —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete copy and paste of a work, some formatted, some straight OCR. Long abandoned. Time to cull rather than leave in its present form. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks clean enough that M&S shouldn't be too hard. I'll give it a shot before we nuke it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Moved to scan, OCR errors mostly eliminated, ready for proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Under the Knife (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
speedied: redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced with multiple sourced alternatives. Languageseeker (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Improperly titled index page[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as G7.

My apoligies, I flubbed the Index: name (left File: as part of it) and hit publish instead of preview. Please delete Index:File:A tribute to W. W. Corcoran, of Washington City (IA tributetowwcorco00boul).pdf. Thank you. Tcr25 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tcr25: Done. For future reference, you can move pages to the correct name (and request speedy delete of the redirect if not needed with {{sdelete}}). Xover (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Xover. I couldn't figure out a way to add {{sdelete}}) to an Index page, but I didn't think about trying move. Thank you! Tcr25 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The Plattner Story (unsourced)[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.

Unsourced with multiple sourced alternatives. Languageseeker (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As always, Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I honestly wish we could just speedy these. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: you can use https://text-compare.com/ to see whether the text is identical to the sourced edition; if it is, it can be speedied as G4 Redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)