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 in , 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)

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. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama'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. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama'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)
 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. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama'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

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)

  •  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 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

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)
 Delete PDF already existed (a Fae-ism): (transcription project) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 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)
  •  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

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)
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

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Year by category

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Catalog raisonné

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:17, 8 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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Famine or Not Famine

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Kronstadt Rebellion

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

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)

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

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)

  •  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

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Golden Bowl (mixed source edition)

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia-inline2

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)

 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)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:VIAF not on Wikisource

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)

  •  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)
  •  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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

 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. Inductiveload—talk/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)

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)

 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

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)

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)

 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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:18, 12 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

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)

  •  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)
*  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

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)
 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)
  •  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)
  •  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

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)
 Delete. Index for anyone who wants to work on it: Index:Judaism and Islam, a prize essay - Geiger - 1898.pdf. Inductiveload—talk/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)
 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

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

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)
 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)

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)

 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

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)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

As always,  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)

Jaikant bhardwaj

Looks like a biographical stub, unsourced, created by an anonymous user with no other contributions. —CalendulaAsteraceae (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: Speedied as clear spam. Not sure what it is about Indian actors and musicians specifically that encourage people to make really bad biographies for them at enWS. Thanks for the report. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Speedied as spam

Account of a visit to the front

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

OCR copy and paste text in a poor way. Long labelled, should be culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Tender buttons: objects, food, rooms

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: speedied as redundant, converted to redirect

I just created a scanned version of the original printing at Tender Buttons. I like what was done in 2004, but it lacks any source that might indicate whether this is a corrected version. The date at that page, 1914, is ambiguous, the first rather than editions's print date (which might be free of copyright). So although it's probably fine and great it was here, delete that page now I think, redirecting it to the new version. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Politicization of Gender Relations in Indonesia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No license, and no obvious indication of a Creative Commons or free license at the given source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Delete and I would be in favor of speedy deletion for this very reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude to War

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Horrid, abandoned copy and paste of text and has been labelled with migrate forever. Better off to delete it and let someone find its index via the author page and have a proper go at it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Celebrated Trials

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Incomplete copy and paste with OCR. Been that way for ages and never rescued. Time to cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Nothing to rescue here. Set of scans avaiable: (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Gondreville Mystery

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

A small part of a paste of a work by Balzac. We would be better to delete and have a scan copy replace it at some point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Delete We have a (very nearly) complete set of Balzac scans, this is v. 30: Index:The Works of Honoré de Balzac Volume 30.djvu. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Index:A Child's History of England (IA achildshistorye05dickgoog).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Missing pages and is the wrong volume for the set. Created by mistake. Languageseeker (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this not qualify for speedy deletion? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
According to Xover, it does not. Languageseeker (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Languageseeker: Your speedy-deletion request was denied because your reason, “Not an edition that Dickens was involved in,” is not a justification for speedy deletion. The reason you provide here is a valid reason, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus (Project Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Unsourced with sourced alternativeLanguageseeker (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Gutenberg is a source. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutenberg is a website, not a source itself. It may contain unsourced editions, which should be removed from WS (like Gutenberg's Agnes Grey or Anne of Green Gables). Ratte (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Gutenberg is a source... of proofread content, it has not been deprecated at Wikisource [and fills an otherwise empty title, redlink, or other edition in minutes rather than hours of actual proofreading by several users here, but this is not the place to discuss Gutenberg]. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a good enough source though in its own right IMO; scans themselves are far better. Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Also, is this edition not identical to The Works of Thomas Carlyle/Volume 1, besides Gutenberg omitting the front matter? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fire, Famine, and Slaughter (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Redundant: unsourced with sourced alternative Languageseeker (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaves of Grass (Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. There was overwhelming support for deleting a Gutenberg text once a scan-backed alternative is available. There was also generally a strong sentiment against hosting Gutenberg-mediated texts except as a starting point (like OCR) that is subsequently properly proofread.

Non-scanbacked copy with scan-backed alternative. Languageseeker (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It is what it? What is that supposed to mean? Clear  Delete as it's not scan-backed, has a scan-backed alternative, and the validity of this Gutenberg source is dubious anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete. The Gutenberg text, being self-published by Gutenberg editors and not linked to a properly published edition, is not really in scope. Since we have scan-backed editions available there is no reason for us to continue to host it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " keep; it is a gutenberg edition, and it is what it is." I could not have put it any better, it is attributed to a site that produces high quality and complete texts using multiple proofreaders and error checking. One hopes that our versions are going to be better, but we don't have the same level of quality control before publishing to readers. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it worse, rather. While they do have a good proofreading system, they don't produce scan-backed works that you can check yourself against their scans, so there is virtually no way to verify the accuracy of their text like could be done here. Your comment is just an appeal to authority, not a trust in evidence. Also, why keep a "Gutenberg edition" in its own right, when we do have a more verifiable alternative? This site isn't Gutenberg! We do things differently here, we actually do clarify what edition/version we're talking about while they most often do not care enough to do the same. They also don't tend to include multiple versions of a single work (AFAICT) like we would. They often don't include typos in the original texts like we would, and it would be impossible to tell where original typos might be by looking solely at their transcriptions. They also don't have the same formatting standards that we do, as we can see at the actual page referred to here. If you compare this to something like this page, for example, the difference is clear. Looking at the sheer beauty of our scan-backed texts vs. the absolutely abysmal looking Gutenberg copy-pastes, it's obvious to me which one wins in the end. To clarify further, I have also seen typographical errors (ones not true to the text they were transcribing) in Gutenberg texts several times in the past; I think I remember seeing at least two in their version of Bobbie, General Manager. And there are copyright issues with at least one of them that I've found, that we unfortunately still have. Project Gutenberg is not immune from errors, and I have seen their errors before. Why are we suggesting to pretend that this isn't the case? So to have Wikisource trust Gutenberg texts wholeheartedly like is being suggested is dangerous, and I wholly oppose such a notion. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I agree with most of that, if I think it worthwhile I do scans from scratch. I don't think putting a PG text next to scan is a good idea, because the 'corrections' are difficult to detect; the transcript may as well used here and blame attributed to them. Repeating the process to catch minor changes requires the time and focus of users here, which is fine if they think it important, but there is a lot text that distributed proofreading at PG have not produced. I don't think the efforts of that site can be so readily dismisssed, the gain of verification requires more time and focus; it is not a simple cost/benefit sum. Having the text integrated to wikimedia is likely to be a benefit, this site should mirror PG texts that are absent for that reason alone. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment
A side question I've been wondering about as I've seen them crop up in recent weeks -- what on earth is a "Gutenberg edition" anyway? I'm reading through What Wikisource includes (a page which, I should note, is badly in need of some general introductory text...which would probably help in a case like this) and I just don't see where the work product of a website that's generally similar to Wikisource (in the sense that volunteers are transcribing pre-published works) would be worthy of their own pages here.
It seems to me that we generally publish transcriptions of published works, and while there might be a little haziness around what "published" means, I can't see how Gutenberg would qualify as its own independent publication, for our purposes. A Gutenberg text is typically an effort at faithfully reproducing an existing published work. So, for instance, if the Gutenberg text is a transcription of the 1882 edition, our page should reflect the 1882 date, or the name of the 1882 publisher, or whatever; the Gutenberg text might be a really useful tool in getting a head-start on proofreading it, but republishing the contents of Gutenberg transcription should never be an end in itself.
Of course, sometimes -- and in this case -- Gutenberg volunteers do not bother to tell us which edition they have transcribed, and that's a little frustrating. (This lead to an incredibly frustrating, but also fascinating, situation with The Oregon Trail, for instance...still have to figure out how to sort that one out.) But, IMO a situation where the original source is unclear is best resolved by doing the research and figuring it out, or just by bypassing the Gutenberg text and starting the proofreading from scratch.
But why we should ever host a text with "Gutenberg" in the page title, indicating that Gutenberg is a publisher similar to those with editorial staffs and the like, is a mystery to me. So, I guess this is a long-winded "delete" (or retitle and do some heavy editing, if somebody is up for that) vote, but one that is also requesting some clarification from anyone who thinks something like this does belong on Wikipedia. What's your vision of how Gutenberg and Wikisource should coexist in the world, if it differs substantially from what I've described? -Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 Delete IMO Gutenberg editions aren't totally useless once added to Wikisource, since they do fill a redlink. However, once we have a scan-backed version I do not see the value in the PG version. Technically, they are a new PD edition, but I really don't think they are a value-add for us to keep around in addition to "real" editions. PG provide access to their own "editions" and also occasionally update them as well as provide ebook downloads. We can't be as faithful to the edition than they are themselves.
WS isn't a live backup service. If PG went under and their work was about to disappear, I could see the argument for mirroring, but they haven't, and probably won't any time soon.
I'm also pretty lukewarm on importing new PG texts, since what happens then is that we end up with a dumped (and old) PG edition forever and no-one bothers to sort out a scan-backed version because it's more fun to fix a redlink that tosh up a bluelink (and since the backlog is, for all practical purposes, infinite, that's reasonable enough). That's a question of "is a dump better than nothing", to which I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. So I wouldn't really be in favour of a retrospective purge of existing PG works, though obviously I would be in favour of a drive to tidy them up a bit. As !voted above, I am in favour of deleting PG versions once supplanted. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: On the note of preservation, Internet Archive does a pretty extensive job at keeping Project Gutenberg archived, it looks to me like anyway. Almost every book I've looked up there with a Gutenberg text has had at least one archive there. Most of their texts are probably copy-pasted on many other sites across the Internet as well. So if Gutenberg went down tomorrow, I still wouldn't think archiving all of their content here would be necessary. (I wouldn't be entirely opposed to keeping Gutenberg texts in a separate namespace for archival however, such as in someone's user subpages, or have the documents uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but as far as keeping them in the mainspace as is, no.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I.e. while there is no denying that Gutenberg is an important website with both significance to Internet history and as a pretty good source of the transcribed texts of public-domain works, I don't think it's necessarily our job to preserve their content under any circumstances I can think of. There are other sites that can do this. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete There are many differing published editions of Leaves of Grass. I do not mean that there are slight differences, but major ones. To quote from the Wikipedia article to see just how radically different the editions in Whitman's own lifetime were: "the first edition being a small book of twelve poems, and the last, a compilation of over 400". If we do not know which edition Gutenberg used, then it will never be possible to call it anything except a modern electronic edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

I suggest to delete A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown-Driver-Briggs) as an abandoned work. Index can stay, of course. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is butt ugly. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 Delete as an unsourced barely sourced and poorly formatted work that, to be blunt, makes this site look bad. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wireless Networking in the Developing World

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

2013 copydump with minimal attempts at formatting, and the contributor has not been active on any Wikimedia project since 2014. There's an Index set up at Index:Wireless Networking in the Developing World (WNDW) Third Edition.pdf, but no progress has been made since 2015 (this is not a good candidate for Match&Split, btw). The work in question is also available online in multiple formats at its publisher's website, http://wndw.net/book.html, so no great loss to the world if we don't host this exceedingly low-quality copy. Proofreading (if any) can continue in the Index:/Page: namespace until there's something worth transcluding. Xover (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • agree that edition content is in scope though this presentation we should delete the as copy paste version, and present a transcluded work when a`vailable. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete As someone who is very interested in the subject matter, worked on some of the pages, and would love to see it carried to completion...there's just not much to suggest it's on its way to completion. Keeping the pages and Index to support efforts in that direction, though, would be worthwhile. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Diplomacy and the War

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

The work itself is not out of scope, whereas the form and presentation is out of scope. OCR scan text with page header text still included. Work itself should be split and multiple pages. Easier to just start again. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Note, created index here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Monday or Tuesday

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an unformatted copydump. The other discussions belong elsewhere.

Unformatted copydump. Title should not be retained due to publication history (UK = butchered; US = good). Languageseeker (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've said before, we're not here as literary critics. Every published copy is acceptable, not just those judged good by some source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 Delete as an unsourced work. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes about published works are published works, so in scope in that regard. Agree with Languageseeker that it is an ugly paste with a horrid presentation. Sourcing is domain level only. Unless someone feels like fixing the referencing and the formatting to make it presentable, we should cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is not that we shouldn't have the UK version, but that if do create a sourced copy it should not be called "Monday or Tuesday" but either "Monday or Tuesday (Hogarth Press)" or "Monday or Tuesday (Harcourt Brace)". So even if someone decides to reformat this text, they would need to distinguish which is the source of the text. "Monday or Tuesday" is too ambiguous of a title in this case. Languageseeker (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think that we are going to have multiple copies? The agreed process for disambiguation, is to do it when necessary, not to do it because it may happen. We also cannot predict whether there is the same named work by another author. With Wikidata being omnipresent, it is even less necessary to overplan as it autocorrects for the versions. It is also why we reserve the rootpagename as we do, rather than the first in, first served approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
In this specific case, the differences between the UK and US printings are notable enough that it might make sense to specify which version it is upfront. The Wikidata for the book doesn't distinguish between the two versions. Tcr25 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Anastasis

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect per nom.

This is an unscanned, unsourced 1947 version of this work without any cleanup or formatting to make it compliant with wikisource style guidelines. Proposal is to replace it with a redirect to the scan-backed 1935 reprint of the 3rd edition of the work here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Almost certainly a 1945 reprint of the same material, an ocr layer with little formatting. The new text doesn't have a smallref tag, but otherwise looks perfect. per nom CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Lausanne (1912)

The following discussion is closed:

Text has been migrated to a scan and completed, so there is no longer any grounds for deletion.

Incomplete for 14 years (sine 2007), and it barely contains a pagesworth of text (with minimal, but acceptable, formatting). Xover (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Prasun Barua

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted

All the contibutions of Skybluepaint regarding a 2015 work: Prasun Barua, Author:Prasun Barua, Wikisource:Authors-Prasun Barua, and Green Planet (so far). (I make this list here to avoid repeated speedy deletion nominations. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: This should probably have gone to WS:AN as it's a behavioural issue more than a content issue. In any case… the pages have been deleted (again) and the user blocked until they indicate an intent to actually contribute to the project. Thanks for the headsup! --Xover (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A Child's History of England (1853)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed transcription.

Not the 1853 edition, but a 1900 reprint which has a separate, scan-backed entry. Languageseeker (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. You appear to have uploaded a scan for the 1853 edition, but are proposing we delete the 1853 edition? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: May I also ask for a more detailed explanation? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The confusion is that the page says (1853), but the source given is on the talk page "Continental Press, New-York, 1900 ". Then there's A Child's History of England (1900) which is scan backed. Languageseeker (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 Delete Thanks for explaining. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Martin Chuzzlewit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to the scan-backed version. The Chesterton intro is a part of a different work (an edition with commentary by Chesterton) and out of scope alone.

Unsourced with sourced alternative Languageseeker (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I notice that this edition contains a 1907 preface which the sourced alternative lacks, can we get a sourced 1907 edition of this text? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

mass deletion of Pages

The following discussion is closed:

Not the right venue for this issue, and no consensus on what, if anything, should be done.

I inquired about some indexes at User_talk:Languageseeker#match_and_split, the response was they did not intend address the problem with the process. Most pages I checked were missing large amounts of content, footnotes, I think, causing the problems. The first index I noticed was Index:Early western travels, 1748-1846 (Vol 1 1904).djvu and see that there are others. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose These are texts that have been proofread by PGDP. A few of the pages have issues, but there are still higher quality than raw OCR. Languageseeker (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Sympathetic as I am to your position here, I don't think this is an issue that can be resolved through a deletion discussion; especially since we do not actually have any policy that says "don't do that". I am going to close this deletion proposal immediately after posting this comment, but I encourage you to bring this kind of concern up at the Scriptorium or another suitable venue. Xover (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Iron Heel

The following discussion is closed:

All non-scan-backed texts redirected to their scan-backed counterrparts.

Please merge the unformatted The Iron Heel to The iron heel. Note the subpage naming of chapters is roman in the earlier version. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ditto Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism and Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism to Roads to freedom. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Transitory Provisions of the Constitution of Ireland

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as WS:WWIout of scope and in conflict with the annotations policy. If anyone wants the text for whatever reason feel free to request temporary undeletion (here or on my or any other admin's user talk page).

This appears to be an annotated excerpt of Constitution of Ireland (original text). Xover (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A glossary of words used in the neighbourhood of Sheffield

The following discussion is closed:

All minimally formatted pages have been matched and split to Index:A Glossary of Words Used In the Neighbourhood of Sheffield - Addy - 1888.djvu and mainspace artefacts deleted. And to the poor schmuck that tries to proofread this: forgive them, for they know not for what they vote (also, feel free to request deletion of these pages if they get in the way).

An OCR copy and paste or an archive.org work with headers embedded in text. Work is incomplete. Not out of scope, though this text is not rescueable in this form. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Evening and the Morning Star and The Evening and the Morning Star vol 2

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Both copydumps, page headers inline, no formatting, etc. Note, though, that this is not uncorrected OCR: it's been cut&pasted from an online transcription somewhere. Xover (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Module:Page

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Module untouched and unused since 2014, that only duplicates functionality already present in the standard MW Lua library. The code is decent enough, but it's intended to allow access to Lua library functions from template code, which is never actually needed because in those cases you're already writing in Lua. In other words, it's a kind of meta-programming framework that we have no need for, and which risks creating a maintenance burden if someone runs across it and starts using it. Xover (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Userspace draft and Template:Userspace notes

The following discussion is closed:

Both templates deleted and all uses removed.

Old Wikipedia import, only used on user subpages of users recently but currently inactive (Geo Swan, Ant 222). The templates are an overcomplicated beast designed for Wikipedia's process with ArticleWizard, the "Articles For Creation" review process, and the inability for new users to create articles directly in mainspace. And it doesn't help that they're partially broken due to an incomplete import. On enWS 99% of it serves no purpose, and what remains (the little visible message box saying it's a userspace draft, which is just a wrapper around {{ombox}}) refers to "Wikipedia".

I don't think we have any real need for tagging userspace drafts here, but if there's demand for it we should just make our own simplified version rather than wrestle with something designed for enWP. Xover (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It literally says "This is not a Wikipedia article." No shit, Sherlock, this is not Wikipedia.  Delete. I don't like it when Wikipedians come over to other WMF projects and start treating them like WP. We have had this issue at Wiktionary too and had to delete a lot of those types of junk templates there. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Greensleeves (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is an unsourced text for which we have a scan-backed alternative. The provenance is also highly suspect, as it was copied from enWP and could have been taken from any number of sources (some of which could conceivably have some sort of copyright) and been modified in any number of ways by enWP editors. The value of having multiple editions and versions of this ballad lies in knowing precisely which edition it is, and knowing it faithfully reproduces that edition. Xover (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. While it would be nice to have a more modern version of “Greensleeves” to replace the unsourced version, the scan-backed version currently in place is fine. Transfers from Wikipedia are generally suspect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Introduction (Molesworth to Hobbes, X) and Homer's Iliads in English

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

These are both cut&paste dumps from the Online Library of Liberty with raw HTML formatting, page headers inline in the text, etc. etc. It's not even a suitable starting point for Match&Split. As an alternative for those interested in this work I've set up transcription projects for all 11 volumes: (transcription volumes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Xover (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thirty-sixth Amendement of the Constitution of India

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Presumably (though not certainly!) PD, but it's a copydump with zero formatting, not even a header template. No source specified. Xover (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage (2nd Edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This work has been abandoned by the transcriber. Less than 20 subpages—which should also be deleted—from what is a work of many hundreds of pages. No scan. Not out of scope, though it should very clearly be a work that should be done with scans due to its complexity. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Undelete: Hamlet, Second Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22276)

The following discussion is closed:

Undelete declined: the deletion rationale was primarily poor quality, not copyright.

This was speedily deleted in May for "copyright violation". Considering this work was originally published in 1604 - more than four hundred years ago - I hereby dispute that this work could possibly under any legitimate copyright - and I think most reasonable persons would agree. Reprinting and republishing a public domain work entitles you to sell the copies you printed and published; it does not entitle the printer to claim any copy rights on it - including facsimiles; it is not their their creative work. Now, if, suppose, the facsimiled pages contain original commentary, or such - could we just exclude only those pages? It seems disgraceful that a four hundred year old work be withheld for copyright violation because a reprinter included a foreward commentary. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: This was deleted because it was a copy-paste dump of the raw text from the Folger website, including their (copyrighted) front matter text. The rest of the text was unformatted and not scan-backed. So it wasn't deleted only for copyright reasons but also quality reasons.
If you wish to work on this copy, you can do so from a scan of the Second Quarto. We do have Index:Hamlet, Second Quarto (Folger Shelfmark: STC 22276) but the scans need splitting. If you'd like to work on it, I can sort that out for you. Scan ready at Index:Hamlet, Second Quarto, 1603 (Folger STC 22278).djvu.
If you just wish to read the Second Quarto Hamlet, you can do so at many places, including https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Ham_Q2/index.html. Until such time as it is proofread properly here, that will be a better option.
We also have an ongoing project to proofread the First Folio: Index:First Folio (West 192) if you'd prefer. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Variants and Analogues of some of the Tales in the Supplemental Nights

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

All three are copydumps without any formatting. Xover (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirects beginning with "WikiProject:"

The following discussion is closed:

All deleted. The two that had links were unlinked or pointed to the target. One had a remaining link in a discussion archive that I didn't consider critical.

I noticed that there are a handful of redirects to WikiProjects in the mainspace, which are listed below. I think they should be deleted.

For any of those wondering, "WikiProject:" or "Wikiproject:" are not namespaces here despite how the titles may make it seem. IMO redirects from mainspace should not go to project namespace pages, unless there is an exceedingly good reason to do so. To add to this point, all the ones below that I checked were created as redirects over 10 years ago, their creations were the only edits to those pages, and the redirects have gotten literally zero pageviews this month, so their necessity as redirects in the mainspace is hard to argue for. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete One would reckon that they were accidental creations due to a link. All okay to delete them now ONCE the links are checked and fixed if requried. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Rider on the White Horse

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Copydump with inline page numbers and zero formatting. Xover (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a version at Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/24, not by Münsterberg (as stated on above) but Muriel Almon, although that is what made me look in the volume. The masterpieces edition is 100+ pages, the above is an excerpt from elsewhere maybe, but there is a scan available (in case anyone thinks to look for one). This should be deleted. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In fact, it is a different translation from The Harvard classics shelf of fiction and that author is Münsterberg. A notable worrk according to w:The Rider on the White Horse CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
PPS There is already a scan here, somewhere in Index:The Harvard Classics Shelf of Fiction Vol. 15.djvu. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The Ethical Theory of Hegel

The following discussion is closed:

kept; work migrating to scan

Incomplete work that is about 15-20% complete of text taken from an IA work. User has left and the work is moribund and won't be completed in the existing form. Work is not out of scope and there is obviously a scan at IA that could be used to present the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When you say it won't be completed in the existing form, do you just mean we need to transclude the TOC and title page from the existing index page? Do we have a rough ballpark of how many additional chapters need to be proofread on top of the existing proofread chapters with scans for it to be left as incomplete as opposed to deleted? MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: I can't speak for Billinghurst, but my guess is that they mean that since the text is not scan-backed it is highly unlikely that anyone but the original uploader will contribute to it. All the text that's there is also already present in the Page namespace so there isn't even anything to migrate. And after 11 years with no progress, I think the patience for waiting for an {{incomplete}} work to be completed in mainspace is wearing thin… Xover (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
All the chapters currently transcluded are scan-backed pulled from the index here, only the TOC isn't. I am fine with saying we are deleting it from main NS because after 11 years idle in incomplete it is dead with the main text (not advertising / indices / appendencies) not done, come back when it is being worked on / done in Page NS. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. I hadn't noticed that. Thanks! Xover (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of reducing confusion I have gone ahead and migrated the front matter to the scan (and standardised the subpage names while I was at it). Xover (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Chronological Table of the Statutes and others

The following discussion is closed:

All texts either moved to scan or userified, except Statutes in Force for which there was no clear consensus in this discussion. Any future discussion about the latter should probably list it as a separate discussion rather than as one among several, as the work has some unique properties that may affect the discussion.

These seem to be fragments from the front matter of more substantial documents that do not appear to have been substantially extended in some time.


The following seem to be front matter from published collections:-

There are scans of these on Google Books as follows (compiled from:- https://statutes.org.uk/site/collections/british-and-irish/chronological/ )

Google also seems to have 1948 as 2 volumes - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iuIuAAAAIAAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZusuAAAAIAAJ ( there was some scans of portions of this from an independent scan uploaded to Commons.)

I will note the source site lists a complete run of the relevant series from 1936 onward ( the end of the current coverage in the relevant template here on English Wikisource.) to 1970 ( anything later than 1970 would still be under a Crown Copyright, unless it was later released under OGL/OPL) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Keep These are exceptionally important works and they are needed both here and to support sister projects. I will put additional scans behind them (some of them already have scans on the commons), and I will add the other sections of them. (I should point out that some of the works listed above are actually complete works. Statutes in Force was a collection of leaflets, and the leaflets that have been reproduced are entirely complete works. The fact that the works are short leaflets does not make them incomplete.) I think it might also be helpful to mention w:WP:NODEADLINE. James500 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (transcription project)
  • (transcription project)
  • James500 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Statues in Force: this is what happens when you don't list sources. Do you have source documents to can share with us? Since SiF is apparently over 60 thousand pages long, it doesn't seem like these are in fact complete in any meaningful sense.
  • Everything else:  Delete (but move to scans). These are not in a fit state for mainspace display. Also note that despite WP:NODEADLINE, if you dumped work in this kind of disrepair at enWP, they'd shunt it to the Draft namespace immediately and rightly expect you to tidy it up before allowing it into their mainspace. The equivalent of that at enWS is the Index and Page namespace (and, to some extent, the Portal/Author NS). In the Page/Index namespaces, there is indeed no deadline and we wouldn't be here if that's where you had been working. And I say this as someone who generally thinks that incomplete but well-formatted collective works are OK in mainspace. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As regards "Statutes in Force", it is not a single work, it is a 'periodical' (strictly a serial) consisting of a large number of leaflets that are separate standalone works that were published and sold separately. The individual leaflets are certainly complete.
    • WP would certainly not shunt anything that capable of surviving an Afd to draftspace (unless they wanted to be desysopped). That basically means anything that satisfies GNG . They have WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD over there. The reality is that they are prepared to allow very short articles provided they are capable of expansion. James500 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @James500: If you don't make this kind of thing abundantly clear, you should not be surprised when people assume it's incomplete like all the rest of your barely-formatted title-page dumps. I suggest you carefully make it clear what each part is and add a note to the top of SiF detailing how the work as a whole is structured. I have previously advised you to add similar descriptions to the notes of top level pages and you ignored me, so I am probably shouting into the void here.
      • They absolutely would move it, and they do: [2]. And they were right to do so in this case because it produced a better result. And it was not by a sysop either. And I would say that that was substantially in better shape when draftified than, say The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1950 is right now.
      • This is all academic anyway because that's enWP and this is enWS. Beyond drawing broad parallels, WP:NODEADLINE doesn't apply per se to enWS. That said we do have the same concept specifically in the Index/Page spaces. Which is where this stuff should go until it is more than an un-formatted title page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Taking Index to the Statutes for Index to the Statutes 1235-1990, The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measures of 1953 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1953, and The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure 1960 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1960, none of the works listed are in a remotely complete state, and the lack of system or scans makes them entirely useless. They should be entirely deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These works do not lack scans. This is the index page for a scan of one of these works. James500 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      @James500: Please either migrate these mainspace pages to the scans, or ask for help doing the match and split, and then work on them in the Index/Page namespace until they are in a fit state to be transcluded. We're way past the minimum discussion time for a proposed deletion so they may be deleted at any time. If there is some particular reason you cannot get this done in a reasonable amount of time then please let me know and I can move them to your user space instead. Xover (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • For a number of reasons, I am unable to deal with the migration of the whole of this particular group of works at this time. The userfication that you offer of the pages in question would be preferable to outright deletion. (In addition to that, I think that I should deal with certain other scans first.) The minimum discussion time for proposed deletion is not in of itself a deadline for the migration of content to scans, because pages cannot be removed from the mainspace without consensus. In this case, there is at this time no consensus to remove the several Statutes in Force booklets from the mainspace. James500 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
        @James500: Consensus to remove them is, in fact, exactly what we have here; but since you are expressing an interest in working on them until they are in a fit state to be presented in mainspace I am offering to find alternative ways to implement that consensus that enables you to do that.
        If you identify which of these mainspace texts belong with which pre-existing scans I can help you use match and split to migrate them there. For those texts which do not currently have a scan, please identify the ones which you wish to preserve in your user space until you have prepared a scan and Index: to migrate them to.
        And let me re-emphasise that in the Index:/Page: namespace, or in your user space, there is no longer any time pressure. You can work at your own pace and in the order you prefer, with essentially zero probability that anyone will nominate anything for deletion. Xover (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
        I do not understand why you think that such a consensus has been reached. It might be helpful if you were to explain why you think that. The chronological table and the two indexes can be userfied unless someone else objects to their removal from the mainspace. I am unable to deal with the Google Books scan for the public general Acts of 1950 listed above at this time. The Google Books scans for the public general Acts of 1953 and 1960 are in progress, as you can see from the scan links above. James500 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
 @James500: Per your request, the following have been either moved to the scan you provided or been moved to your userspace.

Statutes in Force is a somewhat different issue and there is no clear consensus on it in this discussion, so I am going to decline to act on it now and instead recommend (strongly) that you clean it up and scan-back it before it ends up here again. It is fragmentary, not scan-backed, has numerous linking and formatting problems, and it is not at all clear to me that this text, in the state it is currently in, would survive a deletion discussion that was narrowly focused on it (rather than including it as one among several). --Xover (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Grayback (SS208). Port side, 05-06-1941 - NARA - 513040.tif

The following discussion is closed:

Images without text have been deleted.

and Page:Grayback (SS208). Port side, 05-06-1941 - NARA - 513040.tif No text, just an index page and page that transcludes it, for no apparent reason. Commons scope, not here. Jarnsax (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Delete and if deleted, suggest adding "no text images" to Precedent deletion reasons.
Ditto for Index:Men entering a novel billet with their packs. Near Riencourt, France. British Official., 1918 - NARA - 533105.tif. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as long as it's clear that stuff like Page:"Treat'em Rough^ Join The Tanks. United States Tank Corps.", ca. 1917 - ca. 1919 - NARA - 512447.jpg and Page:"Oh, Boy that's the Girl^ The Salvation Army Lassie. Keep Her On the Job. Nov. 11th- 18th. United War Work Campaign.", c - NARA - 512450.jpg are obviously not what should go away. I'd suggest language like 'images with no text content or text in the form of a small descriptive caption or handwritten annotation that is more appropriately placed in image metadata on Commons.' It's just stuff where having a duplicate here is pointless because there is nothing for ws to add. Jarnsax (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: These are already speediable as beyond scope; it's just that once a discussion has started here it's sometimes better to treat it as a normal deletion discussion instead of shortcutting it with a speedy. Xover (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Index:Largest Murder Trial in the History of the United States. Scene during Court Martial of 64 members . . . - NARA - 533485.tif is another one, though at least the handwritten note is longish. Jarnsax (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jarnsax: This image would seem to be within scope (if slightly in the borderlands). That the text is handwritten does not ipso facto disqualify it. Do you still think it should be deleted or would you like to withdraw it from this nom? The other two images (the ones completely without any kind of text) have been deleted. Xover (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Xover I'm fine with it...I had just come across it while looking for other similar issues. Having 'actual descriptive sentences' instead of just a caption written on the negative (or nothing) is probably a good place to draw the line. Jarnsax (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what I don't think is in scope here is stuff like NARA images of a fleet of ships, where the text is just a name written under each ship, or something like that. That kind of content is better presented as image annotations. This particular one just kinda brackets the 'actual prose' side. Jarnsax (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@CalendulaAsteraceae, @Testingitro: You have both edited these pages. Do you have any comment or argument that bears on this discussion? Keep in mind that images completely without text are out of scope for enWS and speediable under CSD G5. Xover (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I'm fine with these pages being deleted. I created the index because the page had no index and wasn't linked from anywhere. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"WP:" namespace

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

There are 4 pages that begin with the prefix of "WP:":

As this is not Wikipedia, I believe that these should either be deleted or moved into project namespace. At least SOCK and LAW, by virtue of redirects already being created in the project namespace with their names, should be deleted. — CVValue (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete all. They don't belong in the mainspace regardless of if the reference is "WikiProject" or "Wikipedia". The Wikipedia thing is beyond ridiculous though. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted the two hard redirects. But the two soft redirects appear to have been created deliberately so I would like to hear from Billinghurst regarding the rationale before taking action on these. Xover (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
They are ten and eleven years old! and will have reflected problems that we had at that time. I have moved them to the Wikisource namespace and the tools that used to have those in their edit summaries are now able to be better customised, so if we have that problem again, we can discuss with the users. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Party list law (R.A 79 41) philippines

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

Copydump, zero formatting. Xover (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as work has now been scan-backed, formatted, and partially proofread (one presumes the proofreading will continue until the work is wholly proofread).

Copydump, zero formatting. Xover (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Does Inductiveload's intervention as alluded to below affect your position? Xover (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter and Wendy (1911)

The following discussion is closed:

Text has been migrated to scan and proofread.

Unsourced version with sourced alternative. Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This version is from Gutenberg, and the Gutenberg version is clearly from [https://archive.org/details/peterwendy00barr2 this 1911 edition) which can be used for scan-backing —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
And Index:Peter and Wendy (1911).djvu has already been created, I see. M&S should be pretty straightforward. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Transcluded OCR errors

The following discussion is closed:

Template is a valid maintenance template. The docs have been expanded with text discouraging long-term use.

Template is pointless and just leads to bad habits or bad work. If the work is not ready for transclusion then it should be deleted, or it should be fixed there and then. We shouldn't be having unproofread pages transcluded. We end up with garbage in main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Has (potentially rare but) legitimate use cases, for example at Bhagavad-Gita (Besant 4th). There I proofread the English, but merely copied the Sanskrit transcription from Sanskrit Wikisource, so that still needs checking against the scan. The work is suitable for transclusion because the English translation is ready, but the reader should not rely on the Sanskrit.
Additionally, it can be useful having "garbage in the main namespace" if only on a temporary basis. For example, in the above work, EncycloPetey used some un-proofread pages to experiment with the different styles being considered for the transclusion. This was necessary to do early so that I did not have to go back later and fix the formatting on hundreds of pages. BethNaught (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 Keep The template plays an important maintenance role and alerts readers to the fact that such errors are present in the work, so it must be used with caution. If you believe that "We shouldn't be having unproofread pages transcluded", then that is a separate discussion. We have hundreds (probably thousands) of such pages, resulting from everything from match-and-split to current works where the transclusion is necessary to check formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
certainly in the thousands, at a conservative estimate, so probably needs a note on being used 'cautiously' in 'legitimate use cases' in the doc. If it occurs extensively in a work it should be brought here, I suppose, but consensus on whether this is okay—transcribing 'not-proofread' content—is mired in exceptions and "encouraging someone-elses to fix it". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 Keep It is a maintenance template. It may be ok for "in progress" works, but it also categorises into Category:Mainspace pages with transcluded OCR errors And anything in that category that isn't actively being worked on is fair game for deletion in my book. The Bhagavad Gita pages should probably be tagged with {{sanskrit missing}} instead of this template (and we should do more outreach to relevant language communities to get issues like this completed). Xover (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Works of Thomas Carlyle

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus, and no bright-line policy obtains to tip the balance either way.

The first item on that author's page, yet it only shows links to files at Commons. Many of the works are already here, including scan backed texts and multiple versions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  •  ping @Ratte: you may wish to be aware of this discussion. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you @Xover:, and apologies for neglecting to do that @Ratte:; I had intended to do that when I saw it created relatively recently. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted to make a project like The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift or The Works of Charles Dickens, to start proofreading Carlyle's 1896 collected works, but now I don't care. You can delete it if you want. Ratte (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • My question is whether or not the text has independent value? Was it printed from the stereotype plates of editions that Carlyle contributed to? Was there some scholarships that attempt to create an authoritative text? If no, delete.Languageseeker (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This text is the Centenary Edition ed. by H. D. Traill. It was generally used for The Carlyle Encyclopedia (see preface). Ratte (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Based on this information, I vote keep. Languageseeker (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Failing to meet those criteria, outlined at 20:48, 20 April, would not have been a satisfactory reason for deletion. Converting the commons files to indexes takes about 7 minutes, apparently, I am not of course proposing that they are deleted. It is a project that I would likely make a substantial investment of time in, having already done that with Carlyle I feel justified in objecting to empty title pages that obscure our actual content and disappoints the reader. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
            Indeed, and those criteria would not have been accorded particular weight by the closing admin, except possibly as adjunct to policy-based arguments had any been put forward. Xover (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Re independent value of collected works, it may be complicated because many of the volumes might be duplicates of existing scans while the Critical and Miscellaneous Essays gather works that were published in a bunch of periodicals which would require a bunch of work to collect and proofread the periodicals or whether they were all published in other collections of essays. In either situation, you are likely to have a large amount of unrelated or duplicate work (e.g. overlapping collections of essays) to produce a fully proofread set. More of the general issues around periodical literature and partial proofreading of collections of independent works... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • «At Wikisource, we allow multiple copies of a work» (c) Billinghurst. Ratte (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I am saying in the context of this is not ready for transclusion into Main until enough volumes have been proofread to avoid having large number of red links / ext scan links in Main. Right now AFAICT not a single page of 30-volumes has been proofread and transcluded into Main. Does it merit listing purely as a list of volumes? Should it be moved to Author instead and then can be moved to main when enough progress has been made? In both cases, I would guess we have some combination of importance (e.g. an important edition) and non-duplicateness / likelihood of being proofread to decide whether it merits listing MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
          @MarkLSteadman: Since your comment here back in April, four volumes have been completed and the series page (the one under discussion here) cleaned up. Does this affect your position on this issue? Xover (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Ratte: I'm not at all sure I understood your message above correctly, so my apologies if this is irrelevant… But if you want to collect things based on a common property but which were not originally published in an inherently collected form, you may want to consider using either a portal or a WikiProject. For monumental efforts like the collected writings of any prolific author, both approaches can be good. And I mention it because the mainspace under discussion here would probably fit well as either a portal or a WikiProject, if you were still interested in working on it. Xover (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't understand you either. The nominated page cannot be considered just as «things which were not originally published in an inherently collected form». It is the authoritative edition of Carlyle's works. Ratte (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ratte: When I posted the question it was not obvious from the page at a cursory glance that it represented a single collected edition of Carlyle's works. The current version makes it clearer what it actually represents. As CI argues below, there is still room to differ on whether it is best to synthesize a title page for the entire series, or to let a portal fill that function and let each volume be its own top level work. I am not aware that that is a settled issue on enWS and thus both approaches are acceptable. Xover (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ratte did not make the collection. This is the The Works of Thomas Carlyle (Centenary Edition) which, as Ratte demonstrated, Carlye scholars still use as the reference edition in many cases. Languageseeker (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that there are now several complete volumes up, however, the one I worked on (German Romance) used a different source (a US printing). I fancied that it was a better scan and text-layer: while this is less of a problem if the transcript from Gutenberg is inserted (not what I did), there are several images which would benefit from the richer data of the US edition. I still think the main title page is unwarranted, the available works are listed in the author space and linked in several ways. There is little that we don't already have, and the rest may be identical to what we do have. It is worth pointing out that a parent page of this type only contains navigation content for the volumes themselves (the actual source), it is only that that I am proposing be deleted. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Cygnis insignis: Having a synthetic "title" page for multiple works in a series (i.e. like this one) is not uncommon on the project, and I am not aware that that approach has been deemed unacceptable in favour of, say, a portal. As I read the discussion, Ratte and Languageseeker support the status quo; MarkLSteadman supports deletion, but mainly because it is premature until more of the series is completed. That shakes out as 2 against and 1.5 for, neither side with any bright-line policy to lean on, which from the perspective of a closing admin tallies up as "no consensus". Unless further discussion shifts the balance, that looks likely to be the conclusion fairly soon. Xover (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, but mass creating these sets is has consequences: the similar circumstances with Tolstoi has seen partially completed indexes deliberately widowed by later uploads of [inferior] scans. That is the most objectionable part, and want I intended to forestall by having these 'sub-projects' discussed first. As a consequence, the exuberant completion of the first Carlyle volume, to save this navigation page, has for no other reason produced a duplicate of Sartor (but we have the [PG?] transcript for the French Revolution, so there's that). The indexes should be marked where there is potential for wasting users time on redundant effort, "a version of this already exists". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Middle Cornish Charter Fragment (Add. Ch. 19491)

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus was to import the text to cyWS and delete it here. It is possible it's better placed at mulWS or kwWS, but enWS has little to add to that discussion.

This is not in scope, because it's not in English. It's not clear exactly which languages we cover, since WS:WWI only mentions English, but while Middle and Old English are older forms of English, and Scots is a sister language that blurs into English at the border, Cornish is a Celtic language that's not closely related to English. This should be moved to the Multilingual Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We said years ago in a discussion here (I think, maybe 2010, 2011?) that for English that would be taking all languages of England. That said I really don't mind where it goes if there is a more aligned and sensible space for it. Couldn't find it in the archives. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 16:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that Cornish, Welsh (and to some extent Breton) are related "Celtic" languages. Had you considered asking if cy wikisource would be interested, in also hosting Cornish works ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
All languages of England? Really? Including texts in all dialects and all historical varieties of English makes sense to me. But including texts in Cornish just because Cornwall is administratively part of England makes no sense to me at all. The page belongs on the Multilingual Wikisource and nowhere else. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@AlwynapHuw, @Llywelyn2000, @Mahagaja: Would Middle Cornish Charter Fragment (Add. Ch. 19491) be in scope for cyWS? If so, could one of you import it there before we delete it here? Alternately, do you have any thoughts on its suitability for inclusion on Multilingual Wikisource or can help importing it there? Xover (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this makes no linguistic sense.  Delete and migrate to Multilingual WS or elsewhere. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
After some thought, I'm at least partially changing my position. The English Wikisource should feel free to include any language community of English speakers that wants to cohabitate; that is, Cornish, Welsh and Navajo should be fine, but any language whose speakers aren't generally fluent in English is better finding a home elsewhere. @Evertype:, as one of the major Cornish publishers, do you think they would be interested in this offer, that you or they have an opinion on where Cornish should sit in the Wikisources?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Cornish is neither English nor Welsh nor any variety of them. Cornish-language texts belong at multilingual Wikisource, which already has several texts in Cornish (see mul:Main Page/Kernewek and mul:Category:Kernewek). —Mahāgaja · talk 21:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Xover! Interesting! I'm surprised no one has mentioned asking kw-wiki editors: @Brwynog, @Gwikor Frank, @DavydhT:. As a rough brush, >90% of Middle Kernewek text can be understood by a Welsh speaker. It is nearly as close as Scots to English, at that period. I'm in the process of copying the work mentioned over to cy-WS for the time being, as there's a threat to delete it from here. I'd be grateful if someone could double check that I've imported all the relevant bits, as Wikisource isn't in my blood, yet. We've started a project to revive the cy-WS, and once we're comfortable we will discuss creating a new kw-WS project with their editors. Most of the kw documents are kept at the National Library at Aberystwyth eg Beunans Mesiarek and Bywnans Ke and cy works quite closely with the kw community. If the kw editors opt for the Mulitilingual WS, then that too is fine by me. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Llywelyn2000. If this process has been going on since May, it doesn't say much for the respect paid by en-WS to kw-wiki that no-one has been in contact with our administrator or another regular editor. I don't know how we were supposed to have an input into this issue. The first I heard about it was when pinged by Llywelyn2000 (thank you). I don't know what the advantages and disadvantages of Multilingual WS would be (perhaps someone might elaborate), but we appreciate the support of cy-Ws/cy-wiki at all times. As far as I'm concerned, if the work is kept in cy-WS, that is fine by me. Brwynog (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Brwynog: It says nothing either way about our respect for our sister projects (whom we value very much!). It says precisely two things: 1) our deletion processes operate at glacial speed, and 2) we have little expertise in these language families and what projects exist that would be interested in them. Once it became clear that the community considered this text to be outside the scope of enWS, our focus has been on finding the most appropriate home for it. As it seems Llywelyn2000 has now imported the text to cyWS I think that discussion can proceed between cyWS, mulWS, and kwWP: enWS has little value to add there. Once I've verified that the import at cyWS is complete I'll delete the enWS copy. Do please feel free to ping me if anyone needs access to it or if enWS can be of any other assistance. Xover (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree it should be moved, probably to multilingual Wikisource, is the Charter Fragment the only Cornish language text that is in the English Wikisource? the portal page at Portal:Cornish_literature only has this, wheras there are more at oldwikisource:Main_Page/Kernewek DavydhT (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Noting that Category:Cornish works also exists, and since this work up for deletion appears to be the only page & there appears to be nearing consensus in this discussion that it should be migrated to cywikisource/mulwikisource, would anyone care if the afromentioned category is proposed for deletion? — CVValue (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Night and Day (Woolf)

The following discussion is closed:

Work has been fully proofread. Big thanks to R. J. Mathar for their great work on this!

Unformatted copydump.Languageseeker (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Delete (NB. This is a covered by WS:D#Precedent) Suspended, pending proofreading work at Index:Night and Day (1919).pdf. If it doesn't pan out, then will re-instate. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: The work now appears entirely proofread (minus ads). I'll presume you want to flip your vote all the way? Xover (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 Keep (ofc). Thank you @R. J. Mathar for your hard work ^_^. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:朝鮮巫俗の研究 上券.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept/withdrawn.

Non-English text, no transcription. Jarnsax (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Keep Theoretically useable as the basis for a translation. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
If there's interrest in a translation, then yeah, keep it. I just figured it was abandoned and not in scope. Jarnsax (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't normally mind things lolling around in Index or Page NS if they're not totally invalid. Examples of that might be a photo or a scan redundant to another, better scan (this is to avoid people wasting time inadvertantly proofreading damaged or duplicate scans, which leads to bad feeling) or some weird home-made excerpt scan where there is a complete work to work from. Because Index and Page are not presented to casual readers, there's no real harm keeping them, especially if the metadata is OK.
But I certainly wouldn't advocate wide-scale proactive creation of Indexes for foreign works, if only because it's a bit of a waste of time if you don't anticipate anyone using it any time soon, because our rate of translation is very, very low.
On the other hand, I do think there is value in creating Index pages for English works, even if you have no intention to work on them, because the upload and Index creation and pagelisting is fairly technical and fiddly and facilitates "drop-in" proofreading later on, thus lowering barriers to entry. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol, funny you should say that... I actually have a whole list of works that have been 'just hanging around', largely taken from the list of index pages, that I intent to just get to the point of 'pages with headers' and proofread frontmatter, to put up as 'transcription projects' with the please edit me template on the front page. Jarnsax (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Henderson v. United States

The following discussion is closed:

While there appears to be further need for cleanup, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete at the present time.

The US Supreme Court decision described does not seem to exist. Lexpaedia (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Both volume numbers given, 23887 and 709, are nonsense. The volumes relating to 1883 decisions are 108 and 109, neither of which mention a “Henderson.” The text is not of a supreme court opinion, however; a distant reference finds this as his petition from Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. It is case no. 709 (as recorded), but I know now where “23887” arises. If this work should be kept, it should be completed and removed to the right type of header template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, good work @TE(æ)A,ea.: all I could find was that #709 was indeed Henderson's case (but not at the Supreme Court). I think this is a case of someone copy-pasting a Wikisource SC page as a template and not realising that that's only one kind of legal case. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Good find! @TE(æ)A,ea.: That looks like the same document but it is just a petition to the Court rather than a Court decision. Does it meet the "notability" criteria? Lexpaedia (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: You may wish to be aware of this discussion. Xover (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep! I've updated the Wikisource to include the correct court in the case Joseph Henderson vs. The United States. I think that the case is important in that it shows how Joseph Henderson, John Van Deusen, William Anderson, and James Callahan petitioned the United States, via the Alabama Claims award, for compensation of their loss of the pilot boat William Bell during the American Civil War. Henderson and Callahan testified to their ownership and status as Sandy Hook pilots during the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. On June 5, 1883, they were compensated for their ownership (Henderson got $6,170.31 for his 5/16 shares) in the William Bell. It is not so much the recovery of damages that is important as the information about New York pilotage in general in their depositions. --Greghenderson2020 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: I am not sure how much work there is left to do on the work. Typically where we are working without scans we would look to set the work up in user namespace, and if there is a lot to do, we probably should move it there. If there are scans available for this work, we would typically want to get those scans loaded to Commons, and proofread from the scans. Lots of the community can help you with that if the scans are around somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks, I've added the entire petition from the court case and updated so it is clear this was a court case not a supreme court case. I could add the Deposition of Joseph Henderson if you think that would be important. From your experience, is there anything else I can add to make the case complete? --Greghenderson2020 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: deposition would be a separate document, maybe best as another subpage, though maybe a document in its own right. [Personally I would do as a subpage]. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One Hundred Poems by Kabir

The following discussion is closed:

The work is still incomplete, but all currently transcluded text is now scan-backed and proofread. As such there does not presently appear to be a consensus to delete. If the incomplete state persists a new deletion discussion can be opened on those grounds at a later date.

Ugly and copy paste with page headers remaining. Formatting poor, and the 100 poems should actually be one per subpage not a stream on the root page. Work itself is within scope in terms of publication and copyright — billinghurst sDrewth

Possible scans for a migration: 1914 London (HathiTrust), 1915 NY IA, 1915 London IA MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that the New York edition (used here) was entitled Songs of Kabir while the London editions were entitled One Hundred Poems MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Scan of NY 1915 edition: Index:Songs of Kabir - tr. Tagore - 1915 (Macmillan, NY).djvu. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
And there already is the London version Index:One Hundred Poems Kabir (1915).djvu MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am doing proofreading of Index:One Hundred Poems Kabir (1915).djvu– Ravinderkap777 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools

The following discussion is closed:

The text is still nowhere near current standards of quality, but as the most egregious problems have been fixed and there have been no additional community input, this discussion is closed as a "no consensus keep".

Copydump with zero formatting (but at least otherwise clean). Xover (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An Essay on Virgil's Æneid

The following discussion is closed:

Resolved.

his work is transcluded twice: once on the main page (here), and again on a number of sub-pages (referenced only in the Index: page here). One of these should be deleted, and the other replaced. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Chrisguise: Could you sort out this mess please? Xover (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. One of those links points to the Index page and the other points to the transcluded copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, this now looks good. This discussion can be closed.
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Gift of Black Folk

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as duplicate by Inductiveload

Index:The gift of black folk.djvu is a duplicate of Index:W. E. B. Du Bois - The Gift of Black Folk.pdf. delete the former. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 23:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ouch, commiserations, delete. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Done I moved the one non-dupe proofread page over. Sorry for your loss! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Image annotations

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; unused, and unneeded. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently an imported template from Wikipedia, created by User:FallingGravity in 2017. No pages link to this template; it is completely unused. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Edmeston Local

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Purports to be from a local newspaper from Edmeston, with three articles transcribed. All three have been tagged with {{fidelity}} for over a decade. Neither article has a title, not any kind of authorship information. None of them are scan-backed and I have been unable to locate relevant scans. Digging through old logs and edit histories, it looks like these were copied from a modern (2000s) local history book, and were part of a larger "History of Edmeston" project that was deemed out of scope (and a copyvio). John V. was in the process of cleaning it up but seems to have dropped the ball on these. Xover (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Gardening

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

1910 work by Liberty Hyde Bailey. Within scope, though started in 2006 as text only and long abandoned. Nobody is going to complete the work in the state that it is currently. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Coffee-House of Surat (Kokielov)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Nominating for deletion. The Tolstoy work is already covered by a scan-backed translation by Maude here. This appears to be an incomplete user provided translation provided originally by User:VKokielov and then updated by an anonymous ip address (65.49.68.187). The anonymous IP update completed the text but follows the Maude translation:

65.49.68.187:

“Can any temple compare with that which God Himself has built to unite all men in one faith and one religion? “All human temples are built on the model of this temple, which is God’s own world. Every temple has its fonts, its vaulted roof, its lamps, its pictures or sculptures, its inscriptions, its books of the law, its offerings, its altars and its priests. But in what temple is there such a font as the ocean; such a vault as that of the heavens; such lamps as the sun, moon, and stars; or any figures to be compared with living, loving, mutually-helpful men? Where are there any records of God’s goodness so easy to understand as the blessings which God has strewn abroad for man’s happiness? Where is there any book of the law so clear to each man as that written in his heart? What sacrifices equal the self-denials which loving men and women make for one another? And what altar can be compared with the heart of a good man, on which God Himself accepts the sacrifice? “The higher a man’s conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man. “Therefore, let him who sees the sun’s whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all. ”So spoke the Chinaman, the student of Confucius; and all who were present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to whose faith was the best.

Maude:

Can any temple compare with that which God Himself has built to unite all men in one faith and one religion?
'All human temples are built on the model of this temple, which is God's own world. Every temple has its fonts, its vaulted roof, its lamps, its pictures or sculptures, its inscriptions, its books of the law, its offerings, its altars and its priests. But in what temple is there such a font as the ocean; such a vault as that of the heavens; such lamps as the sun, moon, and stars; or any figures to be compared with living, loving, mutually-helpful men? Where are there any records of God's goodness so easy to understand as the blessings which God has strewn abroad for man’s happiness? Where is there any book of the law so clear to each man as that written in his heart? What sacrifices equal the self-denials which loving men and women make for one another? And what altar can be compared with the heart of a good man, on which God Himself accepts the sacrifice?
'The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him. And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him, imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man.
'Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world, refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all.'
So spoke the Chinaman, the student of Confucius; and all who were present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to whose faith was the best.

Given that matches exactly and the work has two authors I suggest deleting as abandoned as incomplete and redundant with the existing scan-backed version, rather than moving to Translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Author:Menaechmus

The following discussion is closed:

speedy moved to Portal: ns

Not an author, for our purposes. At some point in time, there were works of his extant, but not for a couple millennia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: things like this can be moved to portal: ns; and change "author" to "person" (for {{person}}) then do a tidy and all is good. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Preview: Take a look a Twitter’s upcoming Community feature

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy deleted as a clear copyright violation. If new information regarding its copyright status comes to light it can be handled in a new undeletion discussion.

It is questionable whether the rules of Wikisource are adhered to here and whether this is a copyright infringement. The text comes from the website Preview: Take a look a Twitter’s upcoming Community feature. --2003:DA:1707:C8FF:4D8D:2E31:2A9E:DE44 09:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear copyvio to me. @Wikibaniz: do you know of any reason this is under a Wikisource-compatible free licence? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

page Monday Or Tuesday

I have erronously created

Monday_Or_Tuesday

but this is an error and a duplicate (note the lower/uppercase o in "or") because

Monday_or_Tuesday

is the adequate page. So the page with the "Or" should be deleted. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@R. J. Mathar: Done. You can also just tag this kind of thing with {{sdelete}} if you like. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Billy Bones's Fancy

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

Unsourced poem, where the original of this appears to be from this 1916 annotated version of Treasure Island. We'd be better off just transcribing that than leaving this around. Not to mention, if the source of this is indeed that book, there are errors in our version. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I don't really think it merits anything, even a redirect, unless we can find a title proving this title is actually in use. As I've said, the version we currently have appears to be inconsistent with all known sources that could be used for the time being, so to me it's as bad as having been made up (which might actually be the case). PseudoSkull (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Redirects are cheap, and mostly invisible to end users. I'm inclined to close this and turn it into a redirect to The Dead Man's Chest, and if anyone wants the redirect actually deleted they can open a focussed discussion on that issue. Sound ok? Xover (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Boadicea

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (converted to redirect).

Let's please delete this unformatted mess. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing it is another option, that is what I did. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The Project Gutenberg transcription (from which the current version is taken) does not match either source mentioned on the Talk: page; it should preferably be backed to a real version. (One thing to note is the title, which should be “Boädicéa;” the lack of accents carries over into the text, as well.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    be bold, but it is a version and there is no basis for deletion now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Images in some chapters of When We Were Very Young need to be moved here from Commons

The following discussion is closed:

Actioned. And a request has been filed at Commons for someone to clean up the leftover files there.

Some of the illustrations in this book that were by Ernest Howard Shepard are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, such as at When We Were Very Young/At Home. This British author hasn't been dead for 70 years, and so the images are (presumably) still in copyright in the UK. So the images need to be transferred here.

This seems to have been the product of the work of User:Languageseeker and User:PawełMM at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. So, the original files Languageseeker uploaded can also just be deleted there. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I thought you had transferred all these from Commons to enWS (per Commons thread)? At least File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0078 A.png exists only on Commons. Which in itself is weird because they should have been deleted again shortly after Languageseeker requested temporary undeletion, but all 180 of 'em are still there. Xover (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload, @Languageseeker: Can you take a look at this? Xover (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Xover Whoops, that completely dropped off my radar. I had to modify the imagetransfer script to do it, so it got shunted. Files all localised now, I'll quickly run though the list and do some basic tidying. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Das Kapital Volume One and Das Kapital Volume Two

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

These two volumes of this work should be deleted as they are not scan backed, are not properly <ref>'d; they are missing references, they have revolting formatting, and plentiful weird scan characters embedded in the body.

I would suggest that it would be worthwhile planning to put this as a POTM or similar and to be a replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

 Delete There's fairly active work at Index:Das Kapital (Moore, 1906).pdf. This work was actually nominated but passed over for WS:MC because someone was working on it themselves (so we put Index:Left-Wing Communism.djvu in instead). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 Delete, we can do better than this. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that the Volume Two and Volume Three translations are from the Progress Publishing in the USSR from 1956 and 1959 so they also are likely copyright violations as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Note-x

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is a new creation, and it was created based on Template:Ref and Template:Note. It is an unnecessary expansion of an old-fashioned and faux means of doing references. It was used I think to avoid using the group= function of references. We shouldn't be creating more kludge when there is a perfectly acceptable means to automatically generate references. I have replaced the three existing uses. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Waldorf public school trial transcript

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unformatted copydump of a court transcript. As copydumps go, this is not a particularly bad example, but it's still below my personal quality threshold (hence the nom); it's just not so far below that it obviously falls under precedent / speedy (so the community needs to decide).

Note that it came to my attention due to lack of license template so it comes here directly from WS:CV#Waldorf public school trial transcript. But that discussion only considered the copyright issue and not the quality issue.

Pinging interested contributors from the previous discussion: Inductiveload. Xover (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mehhhh, I guess a fix-up from https://waldorfanswers.org/TrialTranscript-2005-09-12.html and the PDF at https://waldorfanswers.org/TrialTranscript-2005-09-12.pdf won't be toooooo hard. I'll have to dig deep for a nodule of care-ium though. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Church and State (Tolstoy, tr. Dole)

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected to scan-backed version.

Unsourced edition that appears to mostly duplicate the scan backed version here. Probably should be converted into redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Meech Lake Accord

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Copydump without any attempt at formatting, no license tags, and no actual source specified (the three links are added after the fact and point to "other copies of the accords" rather than the actual source for the text dumped here). It's entirely possible that the text is PD under either EdictGov or "government work" exceptions, but it'll take some research to figure out the details and it's more effort than I'm willing to put in for something an IP cut&pasted in 2006. Xover (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Text has been userified to User:TE(æ)A,ea./Lorem ipsum (unsourced) (ping TE(æ)A,ea.), the sourced text moved to the primary page name, and attendant reshuffling and cleanup performed.

A string of w:Lorem ipsum of unknown origin, unknown veracity, no source, and unknown copyright status; that poorly duplicates a fully proofread and scan-backed text of known copyright status, that also happens to be one of the prominent original examples of lipsum: Lorem ipsum (Letraset).

Note that while strictly outside scope for enWS, Lorem ipsum in general has been previously discussed and accepted as an exception to WS:WWI: once in 2006 whose link is lost to time, in 2011, and in 2017. I would suggest that if someone wants to reopen the scope-based discussion we keep that issue separate.

The 2017 discussion was almost enough grounds to delete the unsourced version (most participants that expressed an opinion supported replacing the unsourced text with a scan-backed version; while the "keep" votes were for a version of the text, not that specific version of it), but not quite. Xover (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
That it is unsourced, when another sourced version is available here, is a good enough reason for deletion.
However, I think I will be copying that talk page for later reference, as the aversion to miscegenation is illustrated there, as in so many places at enWS. I see it as disagreeable. (and for later discussion at Scriptorium (note the irony in that name)) Shenme (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 Delete because it is unsourced. If there are versions different from the Letraset it would be good to have their lineages, which requires sourcing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (that is, keep). This would be a terrible loss for English Wikisource to delete this page. Statements of a number of editors, including one that has already voted here, indicate a distaste for Lorem ipsum on English Wikisource. (In non-English uses, the text is loaned from English.) This does not justify the deletion of this page, which is one of the most popular, and most consistently popular, on this project. More work should be put in to save this longer and more usable version than has been spent starting this proposal. I similarly oppose the idea of allowing unilaterally the deletion of unsourced pages where sourced alternatives exist, but that would be an entirely separate discussion. The first (April 2006, that is) discussion may be read here; this is the last edit before it was archived. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I just want to point out that I did spend a lot of time trying to save this text (though I also advocated for it to be moved to mulWS, a subject which I am not addressing here). Despite many hours of research, I found no matching source, and I strongly believe that this particular version is a self-published user-generated export from MS Word or another lorem-ipsum generator. Furthermore, the only version of Lorem Ipsum that I was able to find that met WS:WWI guidelines, is the one I uploaded at Lorem ipsum (Letraset). I applaud your desire to keep this page, but I have already spent a lot of time trying to find a way to make it compatible with WS:WWI, and I'm afraid it is just not possible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I also want to note that I have no objection to keeping the text itself in a more appropriate place, such as User space, or Wikisource space, and it is already also available in Template space at Template:Lorem ipsum#Full text —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Beleg Tâl: Should this discussion unfortunately result in deletion, I would instead prefer it to be moved to my User: space. I also oppose moving it to old Wikisource, but that is not a topic for discussion. Also, I agree with the first you made in your closing point to the last discussion, and believe that such a path should be implemented. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 Delete. The popularity of a given page is not a good direct reason we should include it. Consistency is very much more important than the argument of popularity. Having any unsourced work here makes the integrity of that work more questionable and it takes more work in research to determine the integrity of what is presented. So IMO all unsourced works, and even non-scan-backed works that link to a scan, are IMO a huge mess here and really should be cleaned up on some kind of massive scale, by either scan backing them or deleting them (and this is something with which I've met much disagreement here and is of course, as you say, a matter of another discussion). The fact that we even still have works that aren't scan backed is encouraging people to produce texts without scan backing them even to this day, and those users appear to meet little to no repercussion for this. The only time I feel it's appropriate to not scan back a work is where the original text was published in HTML or something. The huge amount of unsourced or unscan-backed works is also probably what's actively making people go to Gutenberg instead of us, which is really a shame because a scan-backed work at Wikisource is fundamentally more useful than a Gutenberg text that gives no scan. We don't need to be incentivizing this any further and the broader scale of the problem is not talked about enough. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • “[T]hose users appear to meet little to no repercussion for” “produc[ing] texts without scan backing them:” this is a good thing; users should create texts. To thing this is a bad thing, to think this a thing to punish, is to doom this project to an inevitable destruction. To desire to punish users for creating new pages is a sentiment inherently dangerous to the continuation of Wikisource. The popularity of this lorem ipsum is what has sustained it through three deletion discussions, against arguments of uniformity and “[c]onsistency.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
To avoid veering too much into off-topic territory (since this is a debate I'd like to participate in if the opportunity ever comes to do so seriously), I will make no more comments here on it after this. But every wiki has a form that is expected to be followed. On most wikis if this form is not followed when a page is created it's either fixed or deleted, and the user who made the mistake is warned about what went wrong. It is seen as an offense if done repeatedly after warned. I don't see that as a problem. When it comes to scan backing works, that originated on paper, I think this should be part of our required form in this way, because it is our unique and impressive way of proving to our readers and editors that any bit of text actually appeared in the work. It is something that distinguishes us from any other site that I've ever used and is why I picked reading from Wikisource (yes, I do that too on the side of editing) over reading from Gutenberg or other sites. Furthermore I don't think a more thorough discouragement of producing pages that aren't scan backed is going to "destroy the project", but just encourages a better form. As I've said, if more of our works were scan backed and there were no copydumps whatsoever, people would be reading from our site more actively. I understand that our transcription process is a bit complicated (I was a newbie here once before), but so is Wiktionary's, and their process has only gotten more complex as years have gone by. It doesn't make it wrong that it's complex there either, though. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
However, aside from my opinions on that matter, as they are fringe and do not represent the consensus of the community: my current argument for the Lorem ipsum unsourced work not aligning with consensus is that it has a sourced alternative, while it may be slightly different than what is presented. The popularity of the page here doesn't change that fact. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobel's Bequest

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

Non-scanned back version. The notes link to a different edition, but we have a scan-back version here. In principle we could have the two editions but I propose converting into a redirect for now. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in Russia

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected.

Currently non-scan backed, whereas we have a scan-backed version here from a different edition. If someone wants to proofread from the Index than we can look at hosting multiple editions but for now I propose converting into a redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Emigration of the Doukhobors

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

Unsourced version. Redundant with the scan backed version here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Doon School Weekly and The Journalistic Code of Ethics for The Doon School Weekly

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This seems to be more of a quasi-Wikipedia article on the publication than anything else. The "Code of Ethics" may have been published in one of the early issues (~1936) but I haven't been able to find it so far. The paper is managed by students so many of the contributors will still either be alive or have died within a current pma. copyright term, but without the source its hard to tell whether the "Code" appeared under a specific byline or is attributed to the editor. Xover (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The Geography of Strabo

The following discussion is closed:

Main ns page deleted.

@TE(æ)A,ea.: creator of the page. This is just the title page, there are three volumes, the index appears to have been 'saved out' as not proofread by @James500:. Is there an intention to work further on these volumes? Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments or why you are sending me notifications. James500 (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I wouldn't either, there is no information on what has been done other than a bot routine, probably things I do as I go along while doing the reading. @James500: you are invested in that work, so I notified you. My query to you, or anyone else invested, that is, contributed time and focus, is are you going to complete the transcript or can the page [in the sub-heading above] be deleted? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless someone else gets there first, I will proofread the work eventually, but I am unable to do so immediately or to give an estimate as to exactly when the proofreading will be completed. There are a number of other editors who proofread these sort of pages. I cannot confirm their plans. James500 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @James500: Of course, I am not placing expectations on anyone, just proposing that the page in 'main-space' be deleted. Give a comment on that if you wish. Cygnis insignis (talk)
 Delete and re-transclude if/when work happens. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cygnis insignis, TE(æ)A,ea., Inductiveload: I am having trouble interpreting your !votes fully. Are your respective votes to delete only the mainspace page at The Geography of Strabo, or are you also voting that we delete the bulk-created raw-ocr/nearly-raw-ocr "Not proofread" pages associated with Index:The geography of Strabo (1854) Volume 1.djvu that are a hindrance to other people working on the index? It seems clear that James is the only person that actually wants these pages, but it is not clear to me whether your preferences are to delete them to get a clear slate to work on or just to hide it from mainspace until it actually gets proofread at some unspecified point in the future. --Xover (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Xover: definitely delete the mainspace pages. I don't have a major feeling for the red pages. The main issue I can foresee if that they completely block the ability to do a Match & Split (as the M&S bot currently works). Otherwise the OCR tool will happily overwrite the red pages with fresh OCR. But I would certainly not oppose deletion if the pages are hindering others. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: Thanks for the clarification. M&S is a mostly technical issue. The hindrance I was referring to is that bulk-created "Not proofread" pages is, for many proofreaders, a strong disincentive to work on an index (some will flat out refuse to do so); partly for psychological reasons, and partly because it has a measurable impact on the efficiency of their personal workflow. Personally I just nuke any existing text and proofread it from scratch, but for many people this will have already turned them off from working on the relevant text. Xover (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: I am not interested in proofreading this work, at the moment. If I was, I would request the pages to be deleted. As I am not, I have no opinion as to the pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding Xover's comment above: The page namespace pages are not a hindrance to anyone, since there is no need to use a robot perform a match and split on a single mainspace page (there is only one) whose entire content is already entirely transcluded. The claim that "James is the only person that actually wants these pages" is simply completely untrue since several editors have sent me echo notifications thanking me for creating these pages or have otherwise expressed support for them that I have seen, and they and at least several others are proofreading them. The pages in question are necessary to allow the text to be read, searched, copied, linked to, and so on. You cannot do any of those things with an index page that is full of redlinks. They are also necessary to attract external search engine traffic (our relative lack of content is the main reason for our relative lack of editors, because Google will not prioritise a small number of index pages that consist mostly of alphanumeric goobledegook, and will send people to other sites that have more content) and to advertise the fact that the pages need to be proofread (many readers have no idea what to do with an index page (even if they could find them with Google or otherwise, which is certainly not easy) and do not even know what redlinks are) whereas page namespace pages have clear instructions at the top. In addition to that, an index page full of redlinks is very intimidating to newbies and even to longstanding editors (I know this from personal experience), and they have a tendency to become moribund (whereas my pages do get proofread by all and sundry). And there are probably other reasons that I can't remember right now. James500 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
        @James500: Yes, I am aware that you want Wikisource to be something completely different from what it actually is and am unwilling or unable to adapt your personal preference to the norms of the community in which you are nominally participating. That's your prerogative, but it means you will keep running into conflicts and outcomes that are adverse to you. Xover (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Wikisource already is what you evidently do not want it to be. I have already stopped creating page namespace pages some considerable length of time ago because you have sent me communications that I do not consent to. The only conflict that I might have is with you, and if it continues, it only continues because you want to delete things created some considerable length of time ago. You are assuming that your own personal preferences represent an imaginary community norm for which there is no actual policy or consensus at this time. Nor have I suffered any adverse outcome, apart from the receipt of non-consensual etc communications. James500 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
          • James500: The page saves that you make are a hindrance to a great number of people, including myself. This applies whether or no a match-and-split process in involved. You are certainly the only editor to argue for these pages to be kept, as I have never seen the so-called “several editors” defend the pages, nor the “several others” who edit these pages. The pages in question, by the determination of previous discussions, are not necessary for search-engine traffic; I would expect people to be called from titles, not from poorly-kept text in the Page: namespace. The same explanation given at the top of pages is given above the pagelist. I am more opposed to proofreading an index full of “not proofread” than an index of uncreated pages, and I believe an equal number of indexes (both not saved and saved) become moribund. Again, I do not see your “all and sundry.” Wikisource is a collaborative project, where interaction with other editors is necessary; by participating in the project, you inherently consent to receive communications from other editors regarding your actions on Wikisource. That consensus which is claimed, must be demonstrated, is a belief which should be held by every member of a collaborative project of this type; but this applies to you, as well; and where you take action which is believed by some to be a violation of the rules, as agreed to by consensus, a discussion should ensue to determine consensus. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Examples of thank you messages that I have received: [3] [4]. And in this one I am told that pages I create are "incredibly useful": [5]. Since these were posted on my talk page, I do not think I am breaking any confidances. I think there may be more, but it could take some time to find them. I have also received echo notifications from other editors thanking me for these edits. I am not sure if I am allowed to name names, since that information is not included in the publicly available part of the thanks log. If these editors do not show up here, it may that they simply do not know what is going on. WS:PD is not well known, it is swamped with huge numbers of nominations that make it TLDR, and most editors just don't participate here regularly or at all. And the suggestion of deleting these pages was only made for the first time in the history of WS:PD yesterday. During a thread that did not even nominate those pages. So I do not understand why you expect people to show up at an obscure thread in 24 hours with no notice.
            • Google does tend to return results in the page namespace. For example, in many cases were I have looked for people mentioned in Alumni Oxonienses, Google sends me to the page namespace, not the mainspace, let alone the index space. If, for example, I search for "Robley, Isaac" wikisource, the first result is this. If I search for "rector of Erbistock" wikisource or "rector of Erbistock 1805" (and I might, if I knew who George Robson was), that is the only result that comes up. And if I search for "rector of Erbistock" that page is the fifth result that comes up on the entire internet. My understanding is that search engines are designed to search page content, not just page titles. They tend to be attracted to pages that contain large amounts of ordinary prose. And that is the exact opposite of an index page.
            • When I made my comment above, I forgot to mention division of labour as an important argument for creating these pages. James500 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@James500: I'm going to start a fresh indent because of how far in the conversation has gotten. I think that you point to a legitimate problem which is that wikisource does not expose to google or any other search engine the raw OCR. Many search engines such as academic databases, IA, and Haiti Trust do so. However, I think it might be better for everyone involved to work on fixing the problem at the source rather than trying to work around it. As I see it, the proper solution would be to find some technical solution that would allow users to search raw OCR and not save the the raw OCR as unproofread. This would save you time and avoid a gigantic wall of red on the Index ns. At the moment, WS convention, written or unwritten, states that red links are to be generally avoided. It's a fairly strict rule that unproofread OCR should not be transcluded. However, this is not the issue at hand. The deletion request is confining itself to whether or not the transclusion should be deleted. A transclusion of a title page is not very helpful because it presents to the reader the illusion that something is there when there is nothing. Therefore, I am voting to delete. The other question deserves a separate discussion on the Scriptorium. Languageseeker (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 Delete Main ns content.
Page ns content discussion is out of scope here, and valid in general. Pro&Cons (I see more cons ...) of a gigantic wall of red on the Index ns shall be discussed in a dedicated thread elsewhere, if needed. Mpaa (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Maud, and other poems

The following discussion is closed:

Actioned: Deleted and redirected.

I uploaded and started (only a few pages) the above to Index:Maud, and other poems. (IA maudotherpoems00tennrich).pdf. However, it is a copy of the same edition of the work at Index:Maud, and other poems.djvu and so needs be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: Done Sorry for the effort you made so far! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You needn't be - it was me that uploaded it!Chrisguise (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Old Armchair

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (converted to redirect).

Unsourced edition of a poem by Eliza Cook where a sourced version exists; see Sentimental reciter/The Old Arm Chair. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Index:The natural history of the tea-tree.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as WS:CSD G7 (Author request)

Languageseeker: This match-and-split is terribly broken, with a several-page offset caused by an inability to separate out the multi-page tables at the beginning. It would be easier to delete (the pages, perhaps not the index) and start over. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support deleting the match-split. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Done as a speedy under WS:CSD G7 (Author request). Please do check Match and Splits before running the split. It's easier to fix it up before the split when it's all on one page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Index:Works Translated by William Whiston.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Pp. 537–764 saved by bot without any text as “lint.” (More unapproved bot actions messing up actual editing.) The earlier “not proofread” pages are from a match-and-split, so don’t delete those. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mpaa: This looks like a bug. Can you take a look? Xover (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Xover, yes, I have run some cleanup on the cleaning the lint erros backlog (e.g. this) and something must have gone wrong for those not-existing pages, but it is too old to remember. I will upload the djvu text for those pages.Mpaa (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mpaa: In this particular case it would be preferable if you deleted them instead, cf. this deletion request. Only the otherwise-empty pages of course, and not the match&split ones earlier in the work, per TE(æ)A,ea. up above. Xover (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Xover, it is easier to overwrite, no point in deleting. Mpaa (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. Mpaa (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mpaa: But in this case a contributor has requested that the pages be deleted because they feel their existence hinders them in their workflow. You can speedy these yourself under CSD§G7, otherwise we will have to wait out a full deletion discussion here. Xover (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Xover: I requested their deletion because there was no text. As I have no interest in proofreading this work, if text is added to the pages at hand, I have no opinion on the discussion, and would thus withdraw my proposal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Xover, deletion now is ongoing. Will be over soon. Mpaa (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikilivres pages

The following discussion is closed:

Duplicate discussion to #An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth

I propose to delete pages like O billows bounding far and others similar, which contain only the template {{Wikilivres page}}. Wikilivres is more or less defunct, the links which the template provides lead only to the Wikilivres main page and the work itself cannot be found there.

There is also a related discussion about the Wikilivres templates above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be a discussion on the Scriptorium, and should involve reaching out to the Wikilivres hoster to see if there is any hope of fixing the site. I'll email Arthur and see what's up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Red Jacket

The following discussion is closed:

already redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced duplicate of which the sourced version exists here The Poetical Writings of Fitz-Greene Halleck. Languageseeker (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Alnwick Castle

The following discussion is closed:

already redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced duplicate of which the sourced version exists here The Poetical Writings of Fitz-Greene Halleck. Languageseeker (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Some excerpts

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The following are excerpts and thus out of scope

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth

The following discussion is closed:

Alright. All the pages transcluding these have now been cleaned, and where possible and copyright had expired the originals have been undeleted. Most of them were rather low-quality cut&pasted texts so the benefit is questionable, but they're there now. Several works that had expired were never transferred back from Wikilivres, and since I was unable to find where, if at alll, we originally had the text these are now lost until someone proofreads them from scratch. I have also removed iw links and author-parameters referring to it; but I still have a relatively large batch to go before the prefixes can be removed entirely. I also note that we have acquired similar links to wikilivres.ru, which is a similar but independent site, that poses similar challenges. We will at some point need to take a close look at that too and decide how to deal with it, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

The site is non-functional in its main namespace, and we probably should clear out all our remaindered works and the templates that were pointing to the site. I don't see that it will ever be resurrected. Though I do think that we should keep a permanent record of the pages that we find in this category and record what we do delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The works as they are now are not a problem. The template(s) should not be deleted, either. If any one work is problematic, it should be nominated individually, &c. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A few of those works should be hosted here: Thine Be the Glory, Thine Is the Glory, and The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India, A Warning to the Curious, Luceafărul, Lukundoo all reached the 95 year limit, Futility (Robert E. Howard) will in January. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: I don't recall whether I ever notified you, but in cleaning up these pages I have undeleted the old revisions of The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India and reverted it to the content that was there before it was deleted. As you can see it's not much, so if it hadn't been for all the work you've put in at Index:The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British India.djvu (thank you!) it would have ended up re-deleted on quality grounds. But for whatever use it may be it is now available again (as is Thine Is the Glory, incidentally). Xover (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
BTW Lukundo is on commons (in weird tales for Nov. 1925), and a Warning to the curious is available on GBS Google Books . MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I was about to start removing this template from every page it's on. I hope I now won't have to. I used to be an admin on Wikilivres. The site is dead. Yes, the main page is back but almost none of the links work. The site is functionally useless. And it's never going to go back to the way it used to be. Any remaining links to the useless remains of Wikilivres should be removed. The template should be deleted. Or maybe turned into a redirect to some template saying the work is still under copyright in the US. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All pages whose only content is a template with a non-functional link to the work in Wikilivres should be deleted. We should keep only pages containing original texts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, in general we have moved to discouraging second-hand sourcing and I see linking to external sources instead of scans runs counter to that message, especially in Main. I would be fine with a template on the author page linking to external sources, if the community wants to move towards more linking from author pages to digitized versions as opposed to scans. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Let's remove all the defunct wikilivres links and pages. Languageseeker (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The Republic (Gutenberg edition)

Unsourced duplicate of The Republic of Plato Languageseeker (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about your situation. It sounds very frustrating. Request withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Languageseeker (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

1) This is sourced, it is the Gutenberg edition. 2) I have not undone any transclusions, I simply moved the subpages from roman numerals to arabic numerals. Fair dinkum, I don't know why you would even say things like that. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • billinghurst: It is not scan-backed, however, which makes it less desirable. Also, we do not know the edition of the text edition, which makes it less valuable. My efforts were undone, and it was for that reason that I stopped proofreading and transcluding this work, in which I was formerly much interested; and this was not the first time that had happened. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is sourced, that it is not scan-backed is a different argument. That it is not evident which edition from it hales is not clear is also a different argument, it it is still sourced. Your work was NOT undone, your work stands as it is, all that was done was subpages were moved from roman numerals to arabic numerals per our guidance documentation and links updated. If you follow the guidance then there is no need for any such updates. Do you think that the guidance is there to be blithely ignored just because? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • billinghurst: That is not what you did; and my work was undone. This work is unsourced, as there is no known scan from the Project Gutenberg scan; that is the current definition. You did not even use that justification when you undid my work in the first place. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      What utter hogwash there is a clear version of The Republic at Gutenberg, the work is sourced. Otherwise, show me where the work was UNDONE, and show me where I have made such an edit to not comply with the guidance. I have made repeated requests to you on your talk page about compliance with the guidance documents and local styles, each of those requests is unanswered, so stop blaming others. Aligning works to the guidance is firmly within your control. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Delete once the scan-backed edition is complete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Nicaragua

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as M2.

Wrong redirect. Please help to delete. Thanks!——Zzhtju (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zzhtju: Done For unneeded redirects you can request speedy deletion using {{sdelete}} under criterion M2. Xover (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you!

Category:Siege of Newark

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Unused category does not fit speedy deletion.--Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Index:Select specimens of the theatre of the Hindus.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied.

Unneeded redirect to a deleted page. I would tag it as a speedy but when I try to edit the page it says

Internal error: [ad708b18-4788-4438-97bb-ebdb6d2c1771] 2021-11-29 02:02:22: Fatal exception of type "MWException"

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Done This was the result of a volume II from one edition being renamed incorrectly as volume II of a different edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Travels of Ibn Jubair

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

This currently contains a very poor copy dump of the two English separate prefaces to the 1907 Arabic text as a single "1907 Preface by William Wright." This is also a mistake as the William Wright preface is from 1852 while the 1907 preface is by Michael Jan Goege. Given the main text (the Travels) is out of scope as being in Arabic my initial thought it to delete this entirely and create a new entry for just the 1852 preface based of either the 1852 edition (HathiTrust) or the 1907 revised edition IA. We could also keep just the front matter and the preface as a subpage (properly labeled). MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Euthydemus of Plato (Gifford, 1905).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as author request.

This index page was created for a file that failed to upload completely (only one page was uploaded) and so I've uploaded the complete file and created a new index page for it, so now this, the original, is effectively useless. —unsigned comment by Oryang7 (talk) 2021-12-06 13:28:28.

Done For the record, the replacement index appears to be Index:The Euthydemus of Plato, (Gifford, 1905).pdf. 13:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to delete The Count of Monte Cristo 1844 publication

The following discussion is closed:

Work moved to disambiguated name and replaced by a versions page. Once a fully proofread scan-backed alternative exists it can be speedied as redundant.

This 1844 publication of The Count of Monte Cristo has no source file.I propose to delete it. We are also in the process of proofreading Index:The Count of Monte-Cristo (1887 Volume 1).djvu— Ineuw (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My only comment is that in general it would be good to make sufficient progress proofreading before replacement. While I am totally in favor of replacing it with a scanned version, the proposed replacement, which is currently just a TOC, seems premature at this point. I think the general sense is that reasonably formatted and sectioned unsourced versions have enough value to not merit immediate deletion so the scanned alternative must provide sufficient value as an incomplete work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The main reason is that I had to take possession of the disambiguation page as the main namespace page of my work. They were both spelled the same way. The 1844 version spells "Monte Cristo" without a hyphen, but then its source is unknown. — Ineuw (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ineuw: If the problem is just disambiguation, that's easily(ish) solved. I've moved The Count of Monte Cristo to The Count of Monte Cristo (unsourced) and converted the former into a versions page. Once you've finished proofreading Index:The Count of Monte-Cristo (1887 Volume 1).djvu we can delete the unsourced version and convert the versions page into a redirect to The Count of Monte-Cristo. Xover (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Xover Needless to say that I thank you. It is what was needed. I suspected the there was a solution like "unsourced" but never came across one and didn't know what words to use. As for "when finished" . . . there are five volumes and ~600 images. :-). So let's forget about deletion for the time being.
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Manuscript list of Irish Coleoptera Hymenoptera and Diptera in the Belfast Museum

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

Unsourced copydump. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Delete, though I'd like to first figure out, if we can, where this came from so we can leave a breadcrumb for future. @Notafly: do you recall where this came from? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it this publication: http://www.habitas.org.uk/literature/detail.asp?item=18029. There is a later published transcription of it listed here http://www.habitas.org.uk/staff/rnpublications.html. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Briefer Mention at The Dial (Volume 75)

The following discussion is closed:

This request appears to have been made moot from bulk cleanup by Jan.Kamenicek.

The page: The Dial (Third Series)/Volume 75/Briefer Mention.

There are chapters by the same name (Briefer Mention) at The Dial (Volume 75) so the page is ambiguous. Either delete the page or we should make disambiguate page. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Costume

The following discussion is closed:

Converting a redirect into a dab doesn't need a deletion discussion (and even were it a redirect it can be speedied if it's not needed).

Costume => Costume: Fanciful, Historical, and Theatrical. I don't think it's need a redirection. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have created a stub portal at Portal:Costume it needs populating. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That said I'm not sure if the book the redirect goes to is 'Costume' or 'Stagecraft' ..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ORIGINS OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is an unsourced excerpt from the existing scan-backed Pentagon Papers. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete It certainly is. Also,  Comment that it has a Wikidata item, (Q19089214), which isn't attached to anything else and should probably be nominated for deletion at d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions if this page is deleted. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 Delete — Not to mention, the all-caps here is a major problem with the title, and it goes against our titling conventions. Someone ought to run a script through WS and look for all pages with titles in all caps, so that those pages can be moved to a title-case title. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
All categorized pages with no lowercase letters in title, excluding court citation redirects —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

DjVuImage

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope.

Was created for reference in a WS:S discussion in 2015. At the very least, should be moved to User space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Comparative texts

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. There was also very little actual content here, so no great loss. Most of them very clearly speediable as out of scope; one was already a versions page abusing the notes field. Only two had any real content, and those have now been deleted, along with the category (that should have been nuked in 2013).

This is totally out of scope.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It is difficult to say, for the elegies, because you have broken them. Besides that, I see no reason to exclude these annotations, provided they are placed appropriately. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to bother fixing them if they are going to be deleted, and I personally think they go beyond the concept of annotation and into the realm of doesn't-belong-here, but I am open to being wrong. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I personally believe that comparative texts are an acceptable form of annotation; but that’s not really a topic for a deletion discussion. I’ll come back and look at these examples later, but if they would be deleted in the mean time, please move them to my User:-space instead. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 Delete WS:ANN explicitly states that user created comparison texts are banned. There is precedent to delete these in that we have deleted similar texts in the past. See WS:Proposed deletions/Archives/2017#Psalms (Bible)#Translation comparison. There was an rfc on this topic that decided that we would not accept such pages. See Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works#Comparisons. The texts that are a part of this PD discussion have slipped through and need to follow their peers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sweet. I was pretty sure that we already had a policy against it, but I didn't see it in WS:WWI; I didn't think to check WS:ANN. If I'm not mistaken, that puts these works under WS:CSD as beyond scope, but since the discussion is already open I'll let it play out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works. New RfC would have to precede their allowance. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Epigrams of Plato

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

user-generated collection of excerpts from Lives of the Eminent Philosophers/Book III —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

convert to redirect? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Undelete The Law of Ukraine: On the Self-governing Special Administrative Territory of Transcarpathia, 1992 (draft)

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted as the original deletion was on incorrect grounds: draft laws may still be covered by {{PD-EdictGov}} if they were authored by a competent legislative assembly. And moved to Translation:On the Self-governing Special Administrative Territory of Transcarpathia, 1992 (draft) since it's a Wikisource translation. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please clean up the text to current standards, fix the translation header and other issues (see maintenance categories applied to the text), request the undeletion of the source scan / source image at Commons (linked in the notes field), and bring it into compliance with the translation policy.

Per Georgia v. PRO, drafts qualify as PD-EdictGov. This was deleted through proposed-deletions, thus the request here, although it was deleted on copyright grounds. I came across this by chance, but this should be applied to change a number of prior deletion discussions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

previous discussion Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 Support per nom. Previously we thought that {{PD-EdictGov}} only applied to laws as enacted, but the linked legislation makes it pretty clear that drafts are also exempt from copyright. Note: this appears to be a user translation based on this scan, so we will want to put it in Translation namespace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment can we please confirm that the "Regional Council of Transcarpathia" is a recognised government or of sufficient standing for the license to apply. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: the entity being referred to is the w:Zakarpattia Oblast Council —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Fasti Hellenici, the Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, from the earliest accounts to the Death of Augustus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

a truly atrocious copydump —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Shirley

The following discussion is closed:

All subpages deleted, and top level page converted to a redirect to Shirley: a Tale (1849).

Unsourced edition of unknown provenance when a source edition exists.

  •  Delete Now that there's a replacement, sure. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete It is also not faithful to the original as it is missing all the italics that the author uses for emphasis (not even _underscore marks_); the quoted poetry is not indented (see Vol.1, Ch.6, p.129); the quotation marks have been swapped double for single and vice versa, and some of the spellings have been modernised (see title of Vol.1, Ch.2). — Iain Bell (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lacnunga

This category had only one text in it which has since been added to Category:Old English works. It is redundant and should be deleted. —unsigned comment by Rho9998 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2021‎ (UTC).

Done Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Batch Delete of Lippincotts Monthly Magazine

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied, as there was no content, and only a few OCR pages, created by the nominator.

Could someone batch delete the following volumes of Lippincotts Monthly Magazine that are image-based indexes to make way for future DJVU indexes. They can be sdeleted as original author's request.

Languageseeker (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 1--EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

OCR Scan fail

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as Author request.

Can this book deleted, it is twice.

First scan (this please delete): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_science_of_religion.pdf

Second Scan (ok please stay) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Science_of_Religion_(1925).djvu

Thanks!--Riquix (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Wikipediaref x 3

The following discussion is closed:

The two forked templates have been redirected to the main template. There was no consensus on what to do about the main template (mainly due to lack of attention, I suspect, but them's the breaks) so for that the status quo obtains.

{{wikipediaref}} was deprecated back around 2013 as part of an effort to standardise links to sister projects. No systematic effort was ever started to remove it from use, and it is currently in use on ~2.5k pages. In addition to {{wikipediaref}} we have {{wikipedia excerpt}} (2 transclusions) and {{WikipediaExcerpt}} (8 transclusions). Their output is as follows:


{{wikipediaref|Hamlet}}

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


{{wikipedia excerpt|Hamlet}}

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


{{WikipediaExcerpt|Hamlet}}
— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.


While {{wikipediaref}} indeed produces a link to a sister project, it doesn't actually serve the same purpose as {{plain sister}}: the latter is an interwiki link and meant for navigation between the projects, while the former is meant to facilitate attribution for a copied bit of text from Wikipedia, both visually and for legal purposes (CC BY-SA requires attribution). I don't see that they conflict and I don't see that {{wikipediaref}} causes any problems, but on the other hand does provide a useful and desired function (by definition, since it's been used ~2.5k times).

I therefore propose that we 1) migrate any uses of the other templates to {{wikipediaref}}; 2) convert the other templates into redirects to {{wikipediaref}}; and 3) undeprecate {{wikipediaref}}. --Xover (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree with the proposed solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The decision at that time was that we were not going to encourage further use as it didn't make a lot of sense when 1) we were keeping description and notes condensed; 2) users can follow the enWP link; 3) the point of citing enWP was close to pointless when it changed so regularly. They could be tidied up and removed as people got to works. What purpose does the ref citation serve? I cannot see any. I don't think we should undeprecate it, as I don't see that value. Add to that the articles referenced may or may not even still be at the targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: The point of it is attribution: "this text was excerpted from elsewhere; that other place was this article on Wikipedia". For longer bits of text that attribution is necessary to fulfil the "BY" part of "CC BY-SA", but not for uncopyrightably short bits of text. The vast majority (but not all) uses of the template is in the notes field in mainspace, Translation:, Portal:, and Author: namespaces, where I agree should mostly be so short that copyright is an unlikely issue. However, we do have some exceptions where longer bits of text are warranted, and usages (and use cases) in other namespaces.
    So… how about more clearly describing how and when it is appropriate to use this template, adding a tracking category for it, and then actively patrolling its use (including removing any old inappropriate uses of it, to eliminate bad examples for people to copy)? So long as we don't functionally delete it people are going to continue using it, so we might as well grab it by the reigns and control that use. Or put another way, anything that's deprecated should go away eventually, even if it will take a very long time, and that means doing something active to get us there. --Xover (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Interrogation of Wolfram Sievers

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is a non-scan-backed 11-page excerpt from one volume (Vol. 20) of the full proceedings of the Nuremberg process. The excerpting appears designed to emphasise a particular aspect of the process. Xover (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and versions page converted to redirect until we have more than one version again.

Non-scan backed version for which a scan-backed version exists. Languageseeker (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 Delete BTW, the scan version is Sartor Resartus and On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (Macmillan).
While this is a different edition (the non-scan-backed one is allegedly from the Stoke's "artist's edition" of 1893, not the 1901 Macmillan edition bound with Sartor Resartus), it's missing nearly all the formatting, heading and, notably, the illustrations which rather define the "artist's edition".
If it had the images and wasn't clearly missing formatting and titles, I could be convinced to keep pending M&S since it really is a different edition. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Top 100 authors

The following discussion is closed:

There was no support for retaining the page in its current state. There was some interest in having such a page if it was updated, in which case the page can be recreated with the new data.

The concept of this portal reckons with its annual update, adding new data to the previous ones. This was not a good idea from the beginning, because if it really were updated each year, it would swell enormously. This could be solved by archiving old data and replacing them with the new ones each year. However, the portal is not maintained at all and has not been updated since 2013 and so such an approach has no chance. I suggest its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  •  Delete If someone wants to set up a bot task to automatically generate such a page I'd be all for it, but as a manual process it's doomed to fail and will suck up valuable resources in the process. --Xover (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @EncycloPetey: in past discussions you have advocated for keeping author indices that I thought worth deleting; do you have any thoughts on this one? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    This looks more like a Wikisource-space project page than something I'd put in Portal space, since it's based entirely on Wikisource data and nothing external. If it's not going to be updated, though, I don't see much value in moving it to a new namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Son of Tarzan.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Proposal withdrawn.

Bad match-and-split. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

What was "bad" about it? A random selection of pages have the text matching the scan and the mainspace text purports to be the Grosset & Dunlap edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing texts from captions, improperly joined words across page boundaries, a few suspect areas. Honestly, the experience of Sense and Sensibility and The Great Gatsby demonstrate that match-and-split creates a significant likelihood of introducing subtle errors that slip through validation. I'd rather start from a clean OCR than hoping that users will catch the subtle differences. Languageseeker (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Keep. M&S is not my preferred way forward but the outcome here is acceptable. Now that is is done with these results, it would be a waste of effort to delete and redo it. We don't even know if the OCR would be really better and just to investigate that would be a waste of energy. Mpaa (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In general it would be great to have a bot to regenerate the OCR and dump it as non-proofread. I understand you can now easily do OCR per page via the opt in gadgets but I routinely run into cases where the OCR is misaligned or done 10 years ago and once rerunning it is perfectly good basis for proofreading. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    @MarkLSteadman: Indexes where the OCR is offset is due to a combination of (known) bugs (and only affects DjVu files). I have tools to fix such issues. We can also regenerate most such scans to replace the hidden text layer with an updated version, which will often but not always, be better than the old version. This is strongly preferred over saving out the new OCR text to the wikipages because it can more easily be updated if further tooling improvements materialise in the future; doesn't get in the way of those users whose workflow depends on the absence of "Not proofread" pages; and doesn't misconstrue the progress of proofreading. You can request both kinds of fixes at the Wikisource:Scan Lab. Xover (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
There is the possibility to run bots to upload OCR-text either from the djvu file, phetools or googleOCR. If needed, a request can be placed at Wikisource:Bot_requests. Mpaa (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I did a preliminary reOCR of a few pages and the results are nearly perfect. I plan on including this in the next MC after Tarzan and the Golden Lion are done. Sense and Sensibility and The Great Gatsby both proved that even experienced editors miss errors in match-and-split texts. I would rather start with a high quality OCR then ask users to pick out the subtle differences between an unknown source and the actual printed book. I'm not trying to look down on the work of the previous user, but produce a more error-free text. Languageseeker (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I can run it, just would not like to override above votes (even if there is new input that reOCR is better than current). Be aware that there are several occurrences of fi as in 'profit' and of fl as in 'shuffling', which are difficult to see and distinguish (see e.g. OCR of Page:The Son of Tarzan.djvu/18).Mpaa (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 Keep @Languageseeker: Even if the results of the match and split process were god awful (which they weren't per comments above), why is that a reason to delete an index page? That's called a transcription project for a reason; because it's an ongoing ordeal. If there was a mess-up with the data transcribed, that part could be redone, fixed, or improved at any point. Why delete the entire project for such a reason, just to have someone who wants to improve it have to retype all that info in the Index page form? To summarize, the argument itself that was given for deletion of this transcription project was invalid in my opinion, even if you disregard the fact that the quality of the match and split wasn't even that bad anyway... PseudoSkull (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Sorry, if wasn't not clear. I don't want to delete the Index, but the match-and-split. So that a clean OCR can be used for the MC. Languageseeker (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: I see. Well, I don't think the pages should be deleted either, because that removes the revision history when the page is recreated later. We generally don't want to delete those pages unless we absolutely must. Discuss the issue of the OCR as you might, but in my view this is not a reason for deletion of anything in those namespaces. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I can see no evidence that anyone has performed a "re-OCR" on any pages. Or, if they did, they were silly enough not to save it. There is nothing wrong with the M&S text. The two random pages that I proofread were a perfect match of text to image. The only thing missing was the running header, which is minor. The only thing extra was a references tag in the footer, which is irrelvant. Stop wasting time on frivolities. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: You may think that I'm wasting time, but take a look at Page:The Son of Tarzan.djvu/277 where about 1/3 of the page is missing. Also, take a look prior experiences here and here. Match and Split produces flawed results. Why can the text not be reOCRed by a bot? I can understand that the M&S took significant work, but is this a reason enough to prefer it? Languageseeker (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I'm going to withdraw this proposal. I'm sorry to everyone. I never meant it to create so much bad blood. I'll leave this work for someone else to work on. Languageseeker (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Your request wasn't inherently unreasonable: if text of dubious provenance and automatically or semi-automatically created was getting in the way of your workflow I would have been inclined to at least entertain the request. But in this particular case you're asking for the deletion of pages with a edit history (which is an important factor in a wiki environment), not in order to actually work on it yourself but to add it to your own pet collaboration framework, and based on mistaken assumptions about Match&Split. We generally strive to preserve previous contributors' efforts and improve on them. Even if the old text wasn't scan-backed and is clearly deficient in several small ways, the base assumption is to build on it and improve it, not replace it. In addition, nothing is actually stopping a proofreader from replacing the entire page with freshly OCR'ed text: all they have to do is hit the "Transcribe" button. It also didn't help your case that you apparently just threw the request up here with little effort expended on even basic clarity, much less actually explaining the rationale for your request. Xover (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. There was an overwhelming consensus against deleting this work.

This is probably going to be an extremely unpopular nomination, but I think that a discussion needs to be had about insignificant editions. This is a fully validated, scan-backed copy of Jane Eyre, but it is a mere reprint. It has no authorial or editorial input. What should be done about such works? Languageseeker (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They should be kept. We don't judge the merits of a particular edition or printing. Yes, some of us prefer first editions over later editions, however the later editions are acceptable here. We're also not about to start junking the valid work of contributors unless there is a copyright issue, which does not apply to this particular work.  Keep for this edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: *sigh*
There are circumstances under which we might decide to delete a scan-backed and fully proofread text, but this is not nearly it. Your argument here comes down to mere snobbery: there is no general rule that makes editions "without authorial or editorial input" less worthy. Quite the contrary, for most works the most interesting editions, by some measures, will be ones where an author was nowhere near its production (for example, because it has had spelling corrected or illustrations added, or merely is in a more convenient format).
For some works, authorial input on an edition will be a factor; and for some works the differences between multiple editions where the author was involved will be a factor. For example, in selecting an edition to include in something like the "Monthly Challenge" it would be natural to consider which of the first three editions of Jane Eyre to pick based on such criteria, and in combination with factors such as quality of available scans, ease of proofreading, presence of illustrations, etc.
In general, the "worthyness" of a given edition is only relevant in a situation where we have multiple to choose from and can only proofread one of them. But there is no real limit to the number of editions of a given work we can host, so once an edition exists here that argument becomes moot. We would host even a "botched" edition, because bibliographically and historiographically a "bad" edition is as interesting and relevant as a "perfect" edition. Just think of Thomas Bowdler's literally Bowdlerised Family Shakespeare. And once we're on Shakespeare, the most interesting editions are the great 18th-century editions and the changes they make to the text (see eg. Margreta De Grazia's Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (1991, OUP) for one rather harsh criticism of the great 18th-century editors, exemplified by Malone, and their fetishisation of "the author").
Many contributors here prefer first or early editions (it is an argument), but many also prefer "the edition with the best illustrations" or "the modernised-spelling edition" or "the edition with the most footnotes added" or "the edition with large type, good scan, and great OCR that is very easy to proofread" or "the US English edition" or … In your own efforts you are perfectly entitled, and encouraged, to prioritise first those editions which most interest you. But please don't dump all over other contributors' priorities and interests or devalue their contributions just because you don't personally share those priorities and interests. At a quick glance Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition) is nicely formatted, scan-backed, fully validated, and in general seems up to our highest current standards. Those who contributed to it should be applauded, and we should all express gratitude for their effort.
If you want to do something to raise our average quality, there are literally thousands of non-scan-backed, and often entirely unsourced, texts that could beneficially be replaced by a scan-backed version (feel free to prefer whatever edition you want for the completely unsourced ones). A lot of these are cut&paste jobs from some random website (i.e. of completely unknown provenance), and a not insignificant number of them contain either no formatting, minimal formatting, non-standard formatting, or raw HTML formatting. These are actual problems for which various deletion rationales could be entertained; unlike a hypothetical overabundance of high-quality, fully-validated, scan-backed editions. Xover (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 Keep — Of course, I think that the original novelized edition of any work should be prioritized over other later editions, but that by no means implies I think we should delete them. Yes, there does need to be discussion about what to do with reprints and facsimiles, but that discussion includes how we could theoretically configure more of them faster, and DRY (don't repeat yourself) them up more, not how we can delete all the ones we have. Starting that proposal discussion is on my list.
The reason we don't want to delete reprints is because we want to preserve any content that appeared in those reprints, because they are still usable as what they are, at least to some extent. Even if the only original content in it is a different print date on the colophon, I think it should still get a separate transcription here. And I thought that was the unpopular opinion. Also, some people might remember the book by that specific reprint, so having it transcribed here is also nice for those folks. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 Comment @Xover: I completely agree with you that we should not judge the worthiness of editions. Every editions that you mention, I would keep or argue for their inclusion on enWS. Each one of them has some sort of originality that makes them distinct. This is their merit. The edition of Jane Eyre has none of those. There are no illustrations or editorial contributions or anything else that makes it distinct. Nor was it published during the author's lifetime. It's one of the hundreds, if not thousands of editions that implicitly or explicitly claim to be identical to the original Jane Eyre. Is every copy of Jane Eyre or a similar book in-scope on enWS? Or, should there be some decision as to which of these thousands should be included? Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Dump the texts and show any differences between our two nominally different texts. If there are none, or none of interest, then there's no reason we should keep this. But if there's textual differences, like respelling or slight omissions or even interpolations, then why delete it?
Every old-enough edition of Jane Eyre is in scope at Wikisource. If we could with a wave of a hand, why wouldn't we provide every single edition? Certainly, in an optimal world, this would not have been one of the first editions done. But it was, and if that was the best edition available, that was the right choice, and there's no value in deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: For me, this situation is more of a tragedy. I know how much effort it takes to proofread and fully validate a work. Yet, there is the other side which is the reader's perspective. Each additional edition increases the confusion that the user faces when picking an edition to read. Of course, we can host all the editions, but that will probably overwhelm a reader. How would anyone feel if 500 copies of Jane Eyre showed up on their doorstep? How do the reader pick which edition to read? Why should any reader choose this particular edition.
I'm sure that textual differences will exist between different edition, but, in this case, it will come from a printer's mistake and not any deliberate thought. They're errors not editorial choices. I'm not against different editions that add value, but a mere reprint does not add value. In general, I think that we can group editions of popular works into four major categories. First, the editions that the author contributed to or might have contributed to. Two, editions that an editor contributed to (such as Thomas Bowlder's Shakespeare.) These editorial changes make it a unique text with independent value. Three, illustrated editions where new illustrations can change the perspective on the text. Forth, mere reprints to which the author did not contribute to or are not based on a manuscript, have no editorial input, or illustrations. Why should anyone read these reprints? For me, Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition) falls into the fourth category. I know that making such a call is difficult and care needs to be made avoid imposing totalitarian control over what user do. At the same time, I believe that a certain quality standard should be maintained. Languageseeker (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
So sure you don't even need to check. Bookstores and libraries have many different editions of Jane Eyre, and users in a situation like this are likely to grab the first one or read through the descriptions and pick one reasonably. Why should anyone read these reprints? You haven't made the case that it matters if they do. I don't see any reason we should delete a work just because you think it's the "wrong" edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Keep fully within scope, no quoted criteria are not our measures for scope. Our readers can make up their own minds on what they read, as our transcribers make up their minds on what they translate. We don't burn books based on preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikolai Palkin

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

This is an unscanned version from a different edition of the same translation as present with scan backing here. Suggest converting into a redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Help!

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

This is an unsourced translation. We have a scan-backed translation here so suggest converting into a redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Gróttasöngr and Völuspá

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

In cleaning up the various translations of the Poetic Edda, I came across these pages that I could not identify their source:

Now, it seems that the most likely scenario is that these are original translations by the uploader, that could theoretically be retained in Translation space. However, despite being asked for confirmation of this, the uploader never responded. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history they were the original PD translations and then replaced. I would  Delete as they don't match the main work and we could dig them up if someone did want to start a new translation from the history if someone did decide to start doing a new translation project. Replacing an existing translation is a bit of an odd way to go about creating a new translation... MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hospital Sketches (Gutenberg)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unsourced edition from an unknown source that still needs work. Sourced edition exists at Hospital Sketches (1863)Languageseeker (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal (Unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

An unsourced version when the sourced version The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift/Volume 9/A Modest Proposal exists. Languageseeker (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment convert to redirect (keeping history) and probably worthwhile moving over the {{listen}} in the notes field. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

History of Wyoming

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unsourced, poorly formatted by modern standards, and has been largely incomplete since 2007. More than half the "letters" that are currently present contain just header templates with no content (and seemingly a template error that makes an extra }} appear). If anyone is interested in Wyoming history, however, please scan-back this, since WS's content related to this US state is very lacking. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  • PseudoSkull: There are thirty letters in total, and from what I have found, lengthy appendixes. It’s not a template error; for some reason, that text was duplicated in the notes= section of the header. Lastly, this is not about Wyoming, it’s about upstate Pennsylvania, the location of Gertrude of Wyoming (the namesake of the territory, later state). I don’t see the poor formatting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete It's an abandoned, incomplete project from 2007 involving the copy-pasting from another website. I don't see this being fixed anytime soon. Languageseeker (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Versions of the work are available at IA. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Roll of Caerlaverock

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. A scan has been uploaded and index created so anyone wishing to proofread should go right ahead. Once a proofread version exists in a state ready to transclude into mainspace we can restore the revision history if desired.

There have been deletion of images from Commons for this work, and looking the the original work they are not there, so it seems to be a creation, rather than reproduction. The work is also missing all the footnotes. So we have poorly sourced version of the work, and not of a quality that we would normally host as it is also incomplete without ready ability to do

The work could be redone as the source is available. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Delete Per nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Dream Life, a Fable of the Seasons

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unformatted OCR copydump; Index for scan exists.

Unformatted, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

 Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete As always, work can be done in Index/Page spaces and transcluded without prejudice then. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My Life and Loves (OCR)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted both pages

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

 Comment Note to deleting admin, My Life and Loves (OCR)/Preface is a subpage. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Reveries of a Bachelor, or a Book of the Heart

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted along with Reveries of a Bachelor, or a Book of the Heart/Over a wood-fire and Reveries of a Bachelor, or a Book of the Heart/By a city grate

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

 Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete As always, work can be done in Index/Page spaces and transcluded without prejudice then. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject NLS duplicate files

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as duplicates. Big thanks to CalendulaAsteraceae for doing all the leg work on this one!

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

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

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 01:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

List of index pages

Extended content

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've tagged all the duplicate index pages (listed above) with {{delete}} now! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Rose in Bloom

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Scan found and proofreading begun.

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

  • There is a scan noted at the relevant Author: page; the text should be put through match-and-split and left alone. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Keep, proofread in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: You say that, but I see no progress since the M&S on 15 October. Xover (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Xover: you are correct that there has been no progress within the last two months, but it is still a proofread in progress. I have many proofread projects on the go that I haven't gotten around to in much longer than that! (Also, for reference, per WS:WWI, "When an entire work is available as a djvu file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts.") —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    Does that not refer to incomplete works in the page NS not being considered excerpts and thereby not being subject to deletion on those grounds? Otherwise, if you can defend any incomplete mainspace page on that basis, it creates an enormous loophole for all excerpts and OCR dumps. As long as an index exists, you could transclude a single sentence and say it's OK because it's "in progress", even if no other pages ever go yellow? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Beleg Tâl: I am fully aware of what WWI says, and why it says what it says. I am suggesting that since no progress has been made in over two months, and that progress was just running M&S on it, it seems likely that significant progress, much less actually completing the work, lies quite far into the future. Does this really need to sit in mainspace in its current state until then? Especially since you have the tools so that you can undelete the pages yourself (without needing to go through an undeletion request) if and when you find the time to do the proofreading. Xover (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload, @Xover: It used to be that a partial work on WS:PD would be speedy kept if a scan was added. It looks to me that the community opinion is changing, or has changed. That's fine by me. However, I do prefer to attempt to bring a work to some sort of minimal hostable quality if possible rather than deleting it, and fortunately this is not difficult for Rose in Bloom, so I am M&Sing the rest of the work so that it will at least be complete and hopefully good enough that it won't need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • retraced per Beleg Tâl Languageseeker (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Keep, but only as there's proofreading underway. Otherwise, match and split what there is to page NS and delete the mainspace stub pending a useful quantity of text. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Resolved.

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

No objections from me. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Done Xover (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Xover Oh no, I already overwrote the pages with the correct match-and-split. Is there anyway to undo the delete? BTW, Happy New Years! Languageseeker (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Doing… --Xover (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
But note that it is going to take a while due to what appear to be bugs somewhere down in the tooling. Xover (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Done Please verify that the results are as expected. Xover (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Xover Looks good. Thank you! Languageseeker (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Poems of John Donne (1896)

The following discussion is closed:

Now scan-backed and proofread as far as we have texts hosted. The texts we have are also standalone works (poems) rather than excerpts, and with the now-provided scan + Index + transclusion framework it is reasonably easy for others to contribute towards completing this work.

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

An Incident at Stiffner’s

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Three out of five of those who participated in the discussion were in favour of keeping this non-Proofread text sitting in mainspace.

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

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have cleaned up and scan-backed the work in question; there should no longer be any cause for deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete Having gotten finally fed up with the accumulation of crap I am now leaning hard in the counterweight direction: unless the pages are actually Proofread I vote that the mainspace artefacts be deleted. As noted elsewhere, we currently have 206 966 mainspace pages that are not scan-backed. Since 2019 we also increased our number of Page-namespace pages that are "Not Proofread" from about 500k to over one million (for comparison we have 1 434 979 that are "Proofread" and 524 976 that are "Validated"). In fact, over a week or two in March or April this year we increased this backlog by something like 150k pages (meanwhile, the Monthly Challenge is averaging something in the range of 2000–5000 pages per month processed; not only will it take more than a decade to scan-back the current backlog, but the backlog is growing way faster then we can reduce it). At this rate the number of "Not Proofread" pages will exceed our number of "Proofread" (never mind "Validated") pages within a year. Enough is enough. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Keep Beleg Tâl has scan backed this and the text is in fairly good shape. Languageseeker (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 Keep per Languageseeker. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as incomplete copydump.

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

 Keep But attach to scan (external scan). Given the little that has been done, and the fact that the sections are independent works bound together in the volume, this should be easy to do. It would make a nice item for the Monthly Challenge. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: This is the third attempt after the first two turned into extended rants. So, to keep it (somewhat) brief(er): please have a closer look at Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers and Bound Together, A Sheaf of Papers/Norwich, 1659-1859. This is entirely uncorrected OCR that was cut&pasted, probably from IA OCR, and cost mere seconds of volunteer time to do. This deletion discussion has cost us more volunteer time than adding it did (and other ongoing maintenance will accumulate more over time). At the same time, would you really start from this if you were to proofread this work? If so, I think you're pretty alone. A scan will usually be a way better starting point than this (and we have pretty decent ad hoc OCR gadgets now). And the value of having the text in this state is net negative: it will scare people away from Wikisource and give us a reputation for being a collection of crap.
In other words: please take a second look and assess whether you want to keep your vote. I would especially ask that you rethink the part that amounts to voting that someone else do the work to salvage the text: in practice it boils down to wishful thinking. If you plan to proofread this work in the foreseeable future and you want to use this copydump as a starting point for some reason, then I am of course happy to accommodate. But otherwise I am firmly and emphatically in the "delete" camp on this. Xover (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is already a PDF scan of this work uploaded at Commons. It would not take long to transition from the copy-paste job to a scan-backed copy of the one section. If someone is willing to set up the Index, I have the time this week to proofread the table of contents and the one section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I was going to look at helping out but the link to IA in the 1884 first edition above has different pagination 3, 19, 59 instead of 1, 17, 61. This text is from the Complete Works 1907 edition Google Books which isn't on Commons and I am currently not able to deal with tracking down and converting and uploading the whole set of works merely to keep this edition . I would suggest  Delete this (and the other poor copy-pasted OCRs from Mitchell) and let whoever wants to do the work of proofreading it choose the edition of their liking (first, complete, illustrated, whatever). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per MarkLSteadman and Xover Languageseeker (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete As always, work can be done in Index/Page spaces and transcluded without prejudice then. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Gulliver's Travels (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

 Keep It's not necessarily the same edition, and the unsourced is the version with audio. I would wait until we have a scan-backed stand-alone volume, with matching audio, before we delete the only audio-paired copy we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey I don't think anyone knows which edition this is. If I move the audio links, would that affect your vote. Languageseeker (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
If you verify that the audio matches the scan-backed edition, then that is acceptable. But simply moving the audio without checking would not be appropriate. We have had audio mis-matches before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: LibriVox does not appear to specify which edition they have used for their production (except that one may guess it's the Gutenberg edition, but they don't specify their source text(s) either), and provide no way to verify the audio to the source text, but it does not obviously appear to correspond with the unsourced text we have. Which we also cannot verify because we have no source for it. In other words, it's turtles all the way down.
I am also uncertain manual audio links make sense in general. If we ever start producing our own audio versions then we could easily manage them (and would have tooling support for that). But short of that, why would we give preferment to LibriVox—whose principles and priorities are different and partially at odds with ours—at the cost of manual management, rather than simply deferring that to Wikidata? We could presumably easily extend the header template to show an audio symbol if Wikidata lists a spoken word version on the edition item, and could then add suitable disclaimers or link through a page explaining the issue.
All of which goes to say, that the presence of an—often completely arbitrary—LibriVox link on a page does not noticeably weigh in favour of keep for me (sometimes quite the contrary). There is no particular reason to assume the audio matches the text of our unsourced edition to begin with. Xover (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
We are not linking to LibriVox on those pages, but are accessing and playing the file from Commons. We don't have the mechanisms for what you're proposing. Wikidata is also not set up for managing audio files of literary works at this time, as there is no way to tie a set of audio recordings to the correct portions of a work, the correct edition, etc. Sound recordings are sometimes places on the primary data item, sometimes on an edition, and sometimes on a separate data item explicitly for the audio. Where the recording is divided into chapters, included stories, or portions of chapters or stories, there is no mechanism in place to tie them to the corresponding sub-pages here. Until Wikidata manages audio recordings well, and with means friendly to Wikisource and the visually-impaired, I would not entrust them to handle audio linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey The question is whether or not the audio matches the text. Otherwise, we don't provide the same experience for all users. Languageseeker (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I know. I asked whether the audio matches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Just how do you propose that be determined? LibriVox does not specify an edition, unless it is the Gutenberg edition which… doesn't specify its source. Xover (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey Furthermore, what evidence is there that the audio matches the unsourced version? Languageseeker (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It matches the unsourced edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete Our texts should be sourced. This applies to both written text and audio. It is a pity that LibriVox does not care about the source and edition of the work, but we should. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete and move the audio link to the versions page since it's not definitively correlated to any extant sourced version of ours. Even if it does match the unsourced version, that in itself it not a reason to keep the unsourced version around, IMO. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Religious Portions of the Shih King

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Shû King

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Tiangong Kaiwu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Rural Studies, with Hints for Country Places

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

 Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete all mainspace parts. Index:Rural Studies - Mitchell - 1867.djvu exists if anyone actually wants to do it right. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Speeches of Moses

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope (excerpt).

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

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

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

In principle it could link to works like Speeches of Carl Schurz, Speeches to Ohio Regiments, Speeches and addresses of H. R. H. the Prince of Wales: 1863-1888 etc. but I don't really see the value of that over listing them under collection of speeches or something under Portal:Speeches anyways (which then avoids whether Speeches should link to works like Great Speeches of the War or The Famous Speeches of the Eight Chicago Anarchists in Court or foo/Speeches etc.). So I would  Delete on that page too, at least until we get a poem with "Speeches" in the name or something. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly why I asked. There may be poems, collections, or encyclopedia articles with that name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I started a separate discussion for "Speeches" so this section can be resolved as deleted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Rekha Ganita.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Palestine Order-in-Council

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an unsourced text redundant to Iamblichus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians (Second Edition 1895). There was one opposing vote (keep) based on the unsourced text being from a different edition, but the majority found that unsourced texts are sufficiently redundant for deletion even when the scan-backed version is from a different edition.

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

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete unless it is backscanned. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 Keep As I said when I declined the Speedy Deletion back in July, there is no evidence provided that these are the same. The publishers are different for starters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete per Jan. It is redundant as being the same work, not the same edition. Of course if someone wants to find the scans of the 1821 edition and proofread against them, that would be great and we can host those. But biasing to keeping around non-scan-backed, second-hand versions merely because they are different doesn't seem a good result to me. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The State and Revolution (marxists.org)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

It is also missing the italics that are present in the various partial snippets seen in google books. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman I would just  Delete the second-hand copy and replace it with the scanned version when it's ready. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
They are different translations in case that wasn't clear. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman then I'd move the current version to some name like The State and Revolution (tr. Foobar), place your new version at a similar disambiguated title and put a {{versions}} page at The State and Revolution (which can link to marxists.org for the unsourced one if it gets deleted). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: Just drive-by commenting without actually looking at the details, so add pinches of salt as appropriate…
It's generally a bad idea to overwrite mainspace pages with the text of a different edition because it messes up the Wikidata links. The original page will be linked to a Wikidata item representing one edition (possibly with crap data, but all the same) and when you transclude over it Wikidata can't know that there is now a different edition there without a lot of manual faffing. My first instinct is always to try to preserve edit history on pages, so I've struggled a bit with this myself, but the rule of thumb needs to be to always either delete pages or move them (i.e. technical operations that the software can interpret and handle), and transclude over a new page (possibly at the same name).
Also, moving a text to a disambiguated title and creating a versions page is not something that requires a prior community discussion, so that's a much quicker and easier way to deal with such cases. Any old unsourced texts can then be nominated for deletion at leisure. Based on my experience the community tends to mostly favour deletion of old unsourced texts when a completed scan-backed version is available, but is more divided when the scan-backed version isn't yet complete. Disambiguating and postponing nomination until the new text is finished will thus tend to create easier deletion discussions with clearer outcomes.
It creates a little more work for admins and others, but not, I don't think, excessively so. Xover (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, IMO, it's completely fine if the end result is a versions page with more than one entry, but with only a single work actually blue-linked. The red-linked entry(ies) can still be useful as a place to hang external links, indexes-in-progress or (legal, obviously) external full-text sources even if not yet suitable for Wikisource due to copyright.
Also, this is a deliberate expression of the work/edition split, as also expressed by Wikidata ontologies (also Bibframe, etc.): the work item The State and Revolution (Q509209) points to the versions page, the edition item The State and Revolution (Q110299353) to the disambiguated item. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Versions page created and proofread read version transcluded. The proposal still stands whether we want to keep around a second-hand transcription missing all the formatting in the original. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The nomination still stands. Do we want a work with:
  • No license
  • Second-hand copy
  • Missing the formatting and emphasis which is a major part of the original
  • Of a work excerpted from a larger copyrighted work (the massive Lenin Collected Works) with dubious copyright provenance as well (since the wording has changed between 1933 and that version)
MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete especially since we have a completed scan backed version (even if it is a different translation). No prejudice to a properly sourced version, in the context of a larger work if appropriate, and if copyright allows. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Walk in the Light While There is Light

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

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

Note that there are still two other Tolstoy works of similar copy dump status that have been pending proposed deletion for several months supra (Nikolai Palkin, Help) (update, those have now been deleted). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 Delete nothing here that's useful in mainspace. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that I have been steadily going through and scan-backing the Tolstoy OCR copydump's one at a time, I haven't gotten to this one yet ... No problem if you delete it but I will probably get around to fixing it in the near future.... 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
And there is a proofread version here MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus to keep

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

The scan of the 1954 are on the IA Internet Archive identifier: autobiographyofc0000henn and should be PD-US-No Notice. However, the IA has them locked behind a wall without a 14 day loan period which would allow for a PDF download. Is there anyway to sneak it out? I'm not trying to be mean, but I think that scan-backed should mean backed against an actual publication and not a transcription of a publication. Languageseeker (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the provenance, proposing this for deletion without a replacement is premature. If your aim is to force the issue to get a scan, I find that annoying and impolite to both whoever it is that provides a scan and the original contributor who gets their work proposed for a deletion without a clear upgraded replacement. If you wanted a scan, ask for a scan. If you want to work on scan-backing all the books, the place to request that is WS:LAB, or a dedicated WikiProject for a scan-backing drive, which you are more than welcome to set up (though it seems to me that the MC is chewing though quite a few previously-PG-ish works anyway).
Indeed, part of the reason I set WS:LAB up in the first place was to move quality remediation discussions out of the deletion space. Forcing maintenance at deletion gunpoint is not how we should do things, IMO. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not just to force the issue. I truly believe that Indexes should not be created from transcriptions. I'm was merely trying to help the user who is working on that. Languageseeker (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep on writing that it's a "transcription" when it isn't? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: Footnote 1 on page 1 states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
How do you transcribe a photograph? This is a scan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf It is, in fact, not a scan: the original file is https://archive.org/download/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist/AutobiographyOfACatholicAnarchist.pdf, which has been typeset in LaTeX (I can even tell you it was pdfTeX-1.40.10 and was created on Sun 24 Jul 2011 at 16:29:58 BST). The DJVU we have is just the Internet Archive derivative format (which is also fairly pointless: for a born-digital "edition", ideally you'd use the "original" file, which in this case is the PDF). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
But you can't "trasncribe" a photograph. It was clearly scanned. What seems likely to me is that it was scanned, an OCR layer was created, and that was manipulated or otherwise set in LaTeX. Someone clearly had the book and scanned in the material. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they did, or maybe they transcribed laboriously by eye. Regardless, the file we have here is not the output from any scanner (the cover notwithstanding, that is indeed a scanned image) and does not have a 1:1 correspondence to any published edition, which, in this case, are all physical editions. This self-described transcription would do in a pinch, but since there is an actual scan available, it's very suboptimal. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I am confused what is meant by "transcription" and "original publication" here. We wouldn't say this is a 1920 "transcription" of a 1850 original publication made by some other publisher, delete it, or a 1920 "transcription" with illustrations added or removed delete it? That something like this should be deleted as a 2007 transcription of a 17th century publication and there is no possibility to host it since the owner refuses to allow use of the only copy of the "original publication" so we can't use something like this as a scan-backing? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As I replied to Koavf, the book states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Therefore, I am referring to this 2007 pdf as a transcription and the 1954 physical book issued by Catholic Worker Books as the original publication. As far as I can tell, the source of the PDF is [6] via the IA which "provide at one site the collected works of the major anarchists and an online history of anarchists and anarchist movements worldwide, including a graphics archive." There is no evidence that Catholic Worker Books published a 2007 edition of this work.
In your case, I would suggest using [7] Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed the restrictions the image host places on it are not enforceable with respect to copyright. Index:The Selling of Joseph - 1700 - Sewall.djvu. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is are you saying that if we didn't have the scans from Mass Hist, the desired behavior would be current unscanned version linking to the University of Nebraska version without pagination is acceptable to host but the a scan-backed version using the University of Nebraska version with pagination isn't acceptable to host and should be deleted because it now is a "transcription"? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The point is that printing HTML text to a PDF and acting though it's a paginated "scan" is pointless. If you're going to copydump (and, yes, rarely, that's the only way), just do that. I'm personally not militantly against such "transcription scans" specifically, to me they're just copydumps with extra, pointless, steps (though clearly others are more against them). I am against copydumps in most cases, "fake" scans or not. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm against such scans because they wind up wasting a lot of users time. Koavf spent a lot of time proofreading what they believed was a real scan. Another user was planning on creating an annotated edition based on such scans. Then there are the transclusion in mainspace that will need to be redone. Speaking of transclusion, the current process in a sense "washes" scans and makes fake scans look just like real scans. If we are to allow fake scans, should we not also make it clear to users that they are reading a transcription of a fake scan? That would probably require adding a new field to PP extension and adding code to distinguish between Source (Real) and Source (Copydump). Then all the Wikisources would need to adjust their implementation. We would also need maintenance categories for these.
Also, it's not always possible for users to tell between real scans and copydumps. Languageseeker (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No one alleged that Catholic Worker Books (re)published this in 2007. Should we not have any copies of the Bible because we don't have scans of the autographs from Elijah, Luke, and Peter? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If the options are a photographic scan of a published edition of the Bible or some HTML or TeX on some website that purports to be the text of the edition, then we should use the scan whenever remotely possible. We're not in the business of archiving random websites, the Wayback Machine has that amply covered. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Then why did you change my edit to the Publisher field from unknown to "Catholic Worker Books"? Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, no consensus--Jusjih (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

  • It is one work, though compiled from several sources. I do not believe it is original to Wikisource, but to the United Nations; although I have not verified this presumption. The compilation (being chronological) is not creative, and thus does not have copyright. The coloring is useful, and quite interesting. I do not think it to be quite without scope, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

April the 8th came certain intelligence to London from Brumingham

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an excerpt (of an excerpt). A scan is available for proofreading at Index:The History of Birmingham (1835).djvu, and there is no prejudice to readding this page as a redirect to the text within the context of that work.

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

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

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

@PBS: Thanks for commenting!
Yes, our written policies are rather less developed than one expects coming from enWP, and rely instead on practice developed over the years. It's really not an approach that's friendly to people for whom enWS is not their primary project, but I've complained about it so much people have started to just nod, smile, and back away slowly when I bring it up. Oh well…
Our basic unit here is the previously published work, in a specific edition. God in the Mount (1641) is a work. The History of Birmingham (1835) is a work. The latter includes an excerpt of the former, and April the 8th … is an excerpt from that. In other words, an excerpt of an excerpt. In a citation (i.e. on enWP) citing some fragment of info through intermediary sources is fine and often even preferable for reliability, but the goal on enWS is preserving and making available the works themselves as published. That we have added a scan to back the excerpt does not make it any less of an excerpt; only made possible the production of the whole work. But do I take it then that you have no interest in proofreading the entire work? At a little over 500 pages it isn't insurmountable, and it's not inconceivable that others would be interested in helping out. Xover (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Xover: if I had unlimited time the I would be only too happy to proofread the book. However I tend to proof read text that is useful for my primary work about topics on Wikipeadia. My concern here is that the extract was a quote of a primary source, if primary sources can only be accessed if the whole of the text in which it is quoted then this is a diminution of the use of both Wikipedia and Wikisource to provide information to readers of articles on Wikipedia. Take for example the quote from Richard I. The original will be in French, and will exist in some archive. There are several translation in reliable secondary sources. The reason for placing an extract from one of those secondary sources is it allows a Wikipedia article on Richard to include the statement "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God" with a link to the text on Wikisource. The rest of the book may or may not be worth including here. But the translation of the primary source certainly is.
Another example which is on my to do list is a further transcribing of "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna" That in itself is a large undertaking and usually Wikipedia articles are only interested in specific articles within the treaties that make up the Final Act. However while I see the use of copying all of the treaties that make up the Final Act, I see no reason in the medium term to copy over and proofread the whole of the sources I am using for that text: The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, volume 2, 1 Feb to 6 march 1816. Even more so as the text is formatted in a way that make reading it difficult (so I am using a couple of other sources to help with formatting and some minor translation alterations). As I wrote in the introduction to Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/Act I "This translation was laid before the British Parliament on 2 February 1816, with some additional formatting from the French original." The reason for this is that the French formatting is close to modern English that that used in the Parliamentary translation.
So I think that you need to consider when suggesting that the whole text of a secondary source is included, whether that is the most useful use of editors time or even if it is desirable when what is most useful for modern use by as :Wikipedia:Article titles puts it "The ... description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Ie someone interested in (but probably not an expert in) the Napoleonic wars, or the post war concord, may well be interested in the details of the treaties without being in the leaset interested in the Prince Regents speech to the British Parliament at the start of the 1816 session.
It may be in the future that someone somewhere will want a copy of that speech, but until it is requested (eg via a link from an article on Wikipedia), I think that editors can use their limited time here to support the project in ways that are more help to the someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area.
-- PBS (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@PBS: You need to think of it in terms of things like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYN: if we allowed arbitrary extracts we would allow selective quotation of whatever subsets of a work supported someone's point of view (maybe WP:UNDUE is an apposite reference?). Our equivalent to WP:RS is to make sure works are previously published, and not self-published. For WP:V we use proofreading from a scan of the original, rather than just cut&pasting some text from the web somewhere. For example, if you are adding text that is an amalgamation of multiple sources (the text you mentioned as hard to read), or are adding text from one edition but formatting it according to a completely different edition, you are essentially just creating a completely new edition. In analogy, you are violating WP:NOR/WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:RS.
We do not require anyone to actually proofread entire publications (they can literally be a lifetime's work in length), but whenever you are looking at something more granular than "book" it ends up being an assessment of whether the text qualifies as a stand-alone work (think "stand-alone article" or "… list" in enWP terms: WP:GNG-like assessments apply) or whether it is a mere excerpt from a larger work. A poem of a few lines can certainly qualify as a stand-alone work, but even a full chapter excerpted from a novel would not. Your Richard I example might pass that bar, as it looks like a complete letter or speech (I didn't check its published context; it needs scan-backing and situating within the context of the work within it was published in any case), but the text currently under discussion doesn't because not only is it an excerpt from The History of Birmingham but it is also in turn an excerpt of God in the Mount. Xover (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Biþ On Wæterælfadle

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as corresponding to no known previously published public domain source. A suitable replacement is available at Page:Leechdoms wortcunning and starcraft of early England volume 2.djvu/402 should anyone be inclined to remedy the situation.

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

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

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

This is one of the w:Anglo-Saxon metrical charms. It's certainly a "thing":
The w:Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records contains this in volume 6 (1942), but that was renewed: (Renewal: R491174).
That said, this is from the 10th century: even if ASPR 6 is the only printed source ever, this is pretty clearly PD unless this edition has copyrightable modifications. At worst we could use the manuscript above. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rho9998: this seems like it might be in your wheelhouse: do you know of a good modern-ish source for this that's in the PD? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There is Cockayne's 1864 edition of the "Leechbook" in which the poem is found; I don't think there are any editions in the public domain after that. The poem can be found on page 350 of the Internet Archive upload: https://archive.org/details/leechdomswortcun02cock/page/350/mode/2up
@Rho9998: Amazing, thank you!
The index is already up (along with vols 1 and 3): Index:Leechdoms wortcunning and starcraft of early England volume 2.djvu due to the industry of @User:Beleg Tâl! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: The transcription from ASPR does not appear to match that of the Leechbook, suggesting the mere transcription may have copyrightable elements (akin to a translation). In either case, the fragment at Biþ On Wæterælfadle is not scan-backed to either ASPR or the Leechbook. Xover (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Excerpts of works by Viktor Pinchuk

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope excerpts (and lacking scans, and being dangerously close to not clearing the previously published bar).

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

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The three miniatures translated by me are fully completed little novellas that have only an indirect relation to the content of the book that includes them. This is the case when one work, more extensive, contains another — smaller in volume: this happens in literature. The book written in genre of "travel literature", telling about real events. The miniatures (exhibited for delete) are created in the artistic genre. They are small fantasy scenes played in the mind of the main character of the documentary work. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Виктор Пинчук: If Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are NOT excerpts from Six months by islands..., but instead are themselves complete works, that were published within Six months by islands..., then I believe we can host them. As for Translation:Flight of fantasy, you identified it as a "fragment of an article"; so it does not appear to be a full article. If it is only a portion of an article, I do not think we can host it here. We can *omit* portions of an article, if necessary due to copyright, but in this case most of the article appears to be missing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk in Cyrillic.
I would be gently inclined to keep this as it technically does meet WS:WWI (published, free license, original source text exists). Publication in a local paper is indeed a low bar, but we set the bar at "publication of any sort except self-publication". However, I would like to see the following issues addressed before I commit to a "keep":
Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There are several works by Pinchuk which I am not proposing for deletion, because they are published in a local paper and as such meet our publication requirements. The three which I am bringing to the attention of WS:PD are specifically because they are exerpts and not full works, as per WS:WWI#Excerpts. "Provincial story" and "Final swim" are not works, they are extracts from the 1916 book Six months by islands.... If the book Six months by islands... were added to Wikisource in full, I would have no further objection to keeping these portions within it. Similarly, "Flight of fancy" is a fragment of an article published in Respublica Krim; if the article in its entirety were to be hosted, I would have no further objection.
To your other comments: I have already scan-backed all of the other works we have by Pinchuk, and removed images or added {{image missing}} as needed. I'm neutral on the idea of having the entire structure of Respublica Krim in Translation space just for these articles (though of course I would demand it in mainspace). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, well, then I am guilty of not paying full attention and thought these were just small self-contained works. Indeed, all of these are fragments of works-as-published and thus are indeed out of scope. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Pinchuk has convinced me that Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are complete works per se, despite being published within a larger work. I am still not convinced about Translation:Flight of fantasy, which apparently is comparable to a tangential anecdote being exerpted from a longer article detailing the full conversation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Виктор Пинчук: thank you for the redaction of the image.
  • R.e. Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk, that is just a clarification to make it clear that you are the author in question in case it's not obvious to others. There's no problem with it.
  • R.e. the illustrations: Wikisource is a repository of texts as published. English Wikisource doesn't accept self-published works. Thus, while the version of the works that appeared in Respublica Krim are in scope, self-published editions are not. Also, under WS:ANN, Purely decorative illustrations and images. (Known as grangerisation or extra-illustration) are specifically excluded from permissible annotations.
  • Note that Wikisource is not a publishing platform for users work, it's a platform for published works, which in this case, just happens to be by a user: yourself. If it had not been published in a paper, it would be out of scope. If you would like to host your own work somewhere online and it's not in some published format, I do not think the WMF ecosystem contains such a platform. Usually content like that is published via personal website, blogs, or sites like Medium or those mentioned at meta:Wikifiction. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, @Inductiveload: Would you say that the issues raised here have been resolved and this thread can be closed, or is there still more to be done? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Translation:Manshu

The following discussion is closed:

Out of scope of Wikisource, transwikied to Wikibooks, see b:Manshu.

Ok, I think it's time we have this conversation…

Translation:Manshu describes itself as a Wikisource translation of A 9th century Middle Chinese text regarding the geopolitics of southwest China, particularly the historic kingdom of Nanzhao. It is an important historical source for the period. This translation is based upon a digitized version of the recompiled 1774 movable type edition edited by the 武英 (Palace Museum Library).

However, looking at it more closely it appears to be much more an original analytical work than anything that could be shoehorned to fit within our definition of a mere translation.

The front page is almost entirely original work (apart from a table of contents), partly semi-encyclopedic and partly meta-discussion about the effort itself.

Looking at Chapter 1 we find some actual translation, but mostly comparisons with a professionally published previous translation (Luce) that is quoted extensively, and translator's commentary that far exceeds the actual translated text itself. It also features a lot of images that obviously do not appear in any original, but have been picked to illustrate a particular point (i.e. how Wikipedia would construct an article).

Chapter 2 and onwards are the same, except they lack the extensive quotations from the published translation (Luce), but only because the effort to compare has not reached that point yet. Around Chapter 9 the translation appears incomplete with only the Chinese original text present.

Irrespective of the rest of this work, there is a question regarding the extensive quotations from the previous professional translation (link). It is a 1961 publication with copyright notice, so there is a high probability that it is in copyright (and thus the quotations are also copyvios). I haven't looked at this issue in detail, but if this discussion ends up keeping the work in some form we will have to address that separately (and if it is not in copyright, why are we not transcribing that instead of making our own?). The sole contributor to Translation:Manshu has a somewhat haphazard approach to copyright (e.g. claiming satellite imagery from Google Maps or similar as "own work") so the issue will have to be checked thoroughly.

But all that being said, this is also a great effort and a unique work that really should exist somewhere. If it were completed I'm certain it could have been professionally published, and it would be a real shame if all the effort that's gone into it was wasted. The contributor has not been active since 2018 (and the last large progress was in 2016), so I don't think it very likely that it will now ever be completed; but if a place is found for it even the partial translation is valuable, and could conceivably be completed by others at some point in the future. If the outcome of this discussion is that it is out of scope we should make a real effort to see whether a project like WikiBooks would be interested, and, if not, rather than simply delete it we should move it to the contributor's user space (a practice I am usually vehemently opposed to but am making an exception in this particular case).

In any case, it has kept popping up on my radar for various reasons, and I have always been torn on what to do about its issues. It seems clearly outside of scope per WS:WWI, doesn't meet WS:T, violates WS:ANN, and would most likely need cleanup to meet WS:COPY. So now I'm putting the question before the community: what do we do about this? --Xover (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm only able to comment on a small portion of this, which I hope might be helpful: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First has no results for Man shu or southern barbarians as title; nor Luce, Gordon as an author name; nor do Cornell University or Southeast Asia Program or Oey or Fan, Cho seem to have a relevant renewal under their names. Southeast Asia Program as a title reveals registration of other of these data papers as copyrighted works, but no renewal of this one. This suggests the copyright was never renewed on the Luce translation (possibly this is not surprising, as these weren't exactly blockbusters...) and it is now public domain, judging by Help:Public domain#ref renewal. If accurate, this should resolve the WS:COPY concern. Good luck with the rest of this matter! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


Response by author

Hi there, I am the primary author, an admin on English Wikipedia. I would say I have spent upwards of 500 hours on this translation. During the time it is alleged that I have been inactive, I was a founding team member at a very important company you would have heard of, and provided some of the earliest COVID map coverage on Wikipedia (webm gif). Currently I run seven (7) companies and have a family, so it is fair to say I have 'other commitments'. I do still intend to complete the translation. Aside from time constraints, partly I have not been active on Wiki projects recently because I am living in China and this makes editing Wikiprojects a massive hassle due to the requirement for a VPN. Nevertheless, I noticed this deletion attempt by Xover and would like to respond objectively for the record. If we summarize the alleged issues they are as follows:

  • The translation includes commentary
    • That is simply because it is a good (ie. transparent/honest) translation.
    • Any accredited historian will agree this is a good (positive) feature.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work is incomplete
    • I am still finishing, I am just ridiculously busy and have been so for five years.
    • Incomplete and pending further effort is often simply the nature of voluntary work.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes quotations from previous translations
    • Fully cited and contextually presented, in academia, this is clearly fair use.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes satellite derived images
    • These images were constructed with great care based upon detailed context and are both low resolution and substantially original work in themselves.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The translation is done by the contributor and openly licensed instead of being an out of copyright work of someone else which has been uploaded
    • IMHO as a student of history original translation is *great* to welcome and should be encouraged.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates 'What Wikisource Includes' (WWI)
    • Wikisource includes "Works created after 1925" / "Analytical and artistic works".
    • Wikisource includes "Translations"
    • To be perfectly honest I consider this assertion a truly baseless accusation that I frankly find highly offensive.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • "Doesn't meet" WS:T
    • Unclear what this means
    • The WST page clearly states that original translations are in-scope and acceptable (there is only one prior English translation and it is bad and incorrect)
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates WS:ANN
    • I have never seen that page before in my life
    • Apparently it doesn't like parallel text
    • I would suggest strongly that parallel text provides the basis for most high caliber academic translations, it is my view that the policy page is wrong and further discussion to correct it should occur there.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Requires cleanup to meet WS:COPY
    • Unsure what this is actually alleging
    • Aside from original work there is only contextual quotations from other works in line with an academic translation
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.

Sincerely, Pratyeka (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that Xover also deleted my maps. This is a great loss. I cannot recreate them as I do not have access to the context at the time. This is truly a tragedy. I am ... highly alarmed and stressed at this turn of events and will cease contributing further to Wikipedia projects. Pratyeka (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone with more time please go through the undeletion process on my behalf. It is... truly a great tragedy. Multiple academics had thanked me for this work. Pratyeka (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: These maps are not appropriate for enWS (or Commons), because they contain copyright material: the satellite photos. There is no allowance here, as there is at enWP, for fair use or de minimis, and resolution doesn't affect it. I imagine the "correct" solution is to either locate a suitable base maps from Commons (or NASA or other PD source), draw your own, or commission them via c:Commons:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
If the presumption of copyright is incorrect (e.g. the photos are PD or freely licenced), then let me know and they can be restored and correct attribution and licence declarations made. In that case, they actually belong at Commons.
Sadly, being thanked by academics does not overrule copyright.
Even if these are copyrighted, I can also provide you with the files if you do not have access to them any more. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: I'm glad to see you're editing again. I'm not sure why you felt it relevant to mention that you have +sysop on enwp, but since you bring it up… as an admin on enwp you should be well familiar with the need to make policy-based arguments in such discussions and to familiarise oneself with the policy on the project. I have raised several policy-based concerns, and your response addresses none of them. However, to reiterate the challenges:
The text on Translation:Manshu is not a mere translation of a previously published work. It contains substantial portions of your own analysis, comparisons, and commentary: all of which is original rather than previously published content. In enwp terms, think of it as "original research": it's not a perfect analogy, but the problem is similar. This is out of scope for English Wikisource. In addition, you include extensive quotations from the other (professionally published) translation, but that translation is not public domain or compatibly licensed. Fair use content is not permitted on English Wikisource (and even on enWP only in very narrow and limited circumstances), which puts in violation of our licensing policy.
Now, as I wrote above, this is an impressive work and I am sure it is a valuable contribution to the knowledge in that area of study. It just isn't compatible with the policies on Wikisource. In other words, if it is to stay here it will have to be stripped down so that it only contains the translation, without embellishment, of the original text and all non-public domain elements removed. I imagine that's not your first choice as I get the impression it is the analytical parts of the work that interest you the most. So as an alternative, works such as this may be in scope for WikiBooks: their scope explicitly includes original works so long as it falls within their definition of "educational". As another Wikimedia sister project it is possible to import the pages between projects, even preserving revision history. If you need it we can try to facilitate contact with the Wikibooks community to get the ball rolling. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose.See comment below. This whole situation is insulting. The work is clearly a Wikisource translation of a work in the public domain, and is thus in scope, your complaints about the annotations aside. This discussion should never have been started, and much less dragged on this long. The problem with the maps is unfortunate, but the rest is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, and I would love nothing better than to see much much wider participation in discussions here and on WS:CV so that we could properly determine community consensus and within a reasonable time. That's why I so very much appreciate your efforts to participate in both venues! However, meanwhile we have to operate within the reality that exists. I am sorry if you found this insulting, but there really is no other way to address such issues. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Very regretfully voting for  Delete. This is really very unfortunate and can serve as an example why it is so important to get familiar with the project and its rules and practices before starting a major work. Had this happened, a lot of disappointment could have been avoided. Reasons of my vote:
    1) It contains quite extensive original text by the contributor, which is never accepted here. There are many reasons why not, one of them being that WS has neither capacity nor educated specialists to thoroughly review appropriateness and correctness of such texts, as all contributors focus here on simple proofreading. If we made one exception, it would be difficult to refuse others who would understand it as a precedent, which must not happen.
    2) The contributor admitted that the work contains some parts justified by fair use, which is not accepted here. Were this the only problem, I personally would incline to be quite tolerant, but from my own experience I know that the WS community is not.
    3) The translation does not seem to have been done in accordance with WS:Translations, as it was not based on a scan supported original language work present on the appropriate language wiki.
    I agree with moving the work to the user's namespace, or (if possible) with its transwikiing to Wikibooks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Adding some more reasons:
    4) The chapters contain both the original and the translated text, which is not in accordance with WS:Translation either. (This might be acceptable only if we had a pure translated version which would be accompanied with annotated version, and this annotated version could contain the original text for comparison too. But this is just a hypothetical possibility, because it would not solve the other mentioned problems anyway.)
    5) It is supposed to be a translation of a digitized 1774 edition. Unfortunately, there is no link to this digitized edition, but I found it at Google Books. It is not fully available there, but it seems to be the same edition as File:SSID-12476674 蠻書.pdf. If true, then this edition completely lacks any illustrations, while our translation contains illustrations. Some chapters are even illustrated with modern photos, like Chapter 8. Such compilations are quite strictly forbidden by WS:What Wikisource includes.
    6) The work is incomplete and abandoned, and the reason probably is not only the author waiting for the result of this discussion. Very unfortunately, the author has stopped contributing to all Wikimedia projects. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xover: Putting aside questions of copyrighted material needing removal, can the footnotes be kept in? I'm not asking this as a policy question; more of a personal question as to whether or not you think they're useful to Wikisource readers as content. Policies shmolicies; policies only exist to serve the purpose of keeping the site consistent and/or useful to its goals (and our policies are written badly anyway, as you yourself admit). And we can rewrite policies or ignore them if we find they are against usefulness.
I think the rest of the descriptive content at the tops of the chapters/front matter in the form of entire sections and paragraphs can be stripped out. But, the annotations, to me, seem to be more consistent with what you'd find in most other translated material in both online and print works, and in the form of footnotes is not as intrusive.
Personally, I think the paragraphed content looks too encyclopedic and/or personal in nature, and probably belongs on an encyclopedia or somewhere else. But if I were reading this, I'd find the footnotes useful, as you don't have to read them (if you don't want), and they do seem to elaborate on bits of the translation that might not otherwise be easily understood. In other words, if a word has multiple meanings or interpretations in an ancient text, a footnote might be useful to elaborate on that context.
I'm not into ancient Chinese literature or what have you, or even translations at all, but if I were to want to read something like this, as an uninformed reader who is unaware of our community and practices (and keep in mind, that's most of our site's traffic!), that would be my initial impression. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
(Although, I would even say the sheer number of footnotes should be severely cut down, and we should probably keep them to a minimum. And the references to "me" or "myself", etc. should be also removed as they go against the concept of neutrality.) PseudoSkull (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I'm not sure I understand your question.
I have a long(er) version of this reply (available on request, but best dealt with elsewhere), but the short version is that in this work the footnotes are out of scope because they're user-generated content. For Wikisource translations in general there is an argument to be made that strictly limited annotations (start with "word X can mean either Y or Z" and expand from there) can have value that justifies their cost, but I am not at all sure I would find that persuasive when it got down to brass tacks. The prohibition on adding user-generated content to texts is one of the few bright-line rules we have, and poking holes in it (making exceptions) quickly puts us in an untenable situation trying to manage it.
If you're asking about intrinsic value, I certainly think this translation including its footnotes have intrinsic value. I just don't think it's compatible with Wikisource, and there are lots of different options for hosting it (including free and cheap commercial web hosting, that IA will happily archive permanently). Xover (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Xover: Well, I certainly appreciate the thought you've put into this. And my lack of interest in the area of translation is the main reason I didn't vote. If you'd like to give me the full explanation, I'd appreciate something technical and verbose to read probably when I'm supposed to be working, so go ahead and email it to me if you want.
From what I can see, though, translations seem to themselves be a sort of annotation, since liberties inherently have to be taken for each word and phrase translated. This is why translations garner their own separate copyrights from the original works. So, I'm suggesting maybe we could loosen the rules for annotation in translations, but... Maybe it's not my place to get involved.
In any case, is it about time to close this discussion? It's been around for almost 3 years now, and the inevitable (and perhaps regrettable) deletion should probably just be done and gotten over with, with all apology to Pratyeka of course. Consensus, at least about deletion, seems to be clearly here. What to do with the work afterward might be the subject of another discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I am afraid I must now vote to delete this text. The text is not quite up to policy, although I don’t believe that the inconsistencies are so serious as to require deletion. A number of points raised here are ones which with I strongly disagree, and I stand by the sentiments in my original comment. I also entirely agree with my !vote and comment in the circumstances in which they were given. However, intervening circumstances have changed the basis of my !vote. Specifically, the fact that the original user who began the work on this translation has left motivates my change in !vote. I also specifically blame the user who started this deletion discussion for causing the result of the discussion, as I did in my original !vote comment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    Your antipathy, both general and specific, is noted. Xover (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikibooks whether they are interested in this work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2021&oldid=13830343"