Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2022

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Mahometanism in its Relation to Prophecy/Rand

The following discussion is closed:

Page speedied by author's request.

Copydump, and URL doesn't correspond to any of the sections in the TOC of Mahometanism in its Relation to Prophecy. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who split those pages, I have several executions.

First, I'm just moving "Rand" section at that time into sub-page, just like Preface, Chapter I, Chapter II, and Conclusion.

Second, by checking the content of the page itself, and comparing with Chapter II and page at index, I think this "Rand" sub-page continuing Chapter II and contain half of the page 58 (38 of the scan) to page 271 (251 of the scan).

The conclusion is, "Rand" page is literally containing a half of Chapter II to the end of Chapter VI, so it shouldn't deleted, yet need to split again. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I've split the page so I agree with this proposal. Delete it. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedied per a template request. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

All Pages in Category:Incomplete texts without a source

There is an entire maintenance category for texts that have no known source and are incomplete. Most of these pages were created in the mid-2000s making them over a decade old. Without a known source, it's extremely difficult to complete them. Having incomplete texts that will never get finished in their current form ultimately degrades the overall quality of enWS. Rather than making 549 separate sections, I'm proposing to delete all the pages in this category. Of course, any page that is incorrectly tagged should not be deleted. Therefore, as part of the proposal, I'm also requesting that, if successful, the administrator who undertakes the deletion should verify that these texts are truly incomplete. Languageseeker (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Nonsensical reason for deletion. Deletions are evaluated on a work-by-work basis; your nomination of all works in this category makes it impossible to respond to each proposed work, especially as you have not given a deletion rationale for any of the works, merely a policy statement or opinion on the quality of the works themselves. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea. Every one of these works will have the same rationale: This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. However, I can understand if proper procedure requires individual deletion requests. Languageseeker (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. Henry Ford radio speech I has a note that essentially says fragments can be found by searching the internet. Something like that is a strong candidate for deletion. However, Description of Greece (Jones) identifies a scan in the edit history from the Loeb Classical Library that is hosted at el.wikisource. That's a completely different situation. To lump both together under "the same rationale" does not hold up to even casual scrutiny. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Languageseeker: Your edits to those pages are defective; they reference deletion discussions which do not exist. In addition, the rationale you provide is neither tethered to the works in question nor independently sufficient. I have gone through this category myself, in the past, and have nominated some of the works individually; and those discussions went on for months. To add to EncycloPetey’s comment, many of the works listed here are U.S. laws, and as the U.S. Statutes at Large have indexes already created, there is certainly an available source for many of these works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't blanket delete items in a category, and especially as the contents of a category are dynamic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• withdrawn :This section was archived on a request by: Languageseeker (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

An act for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation

This is an unsourced, incomplete work. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The deletion rationale is still incorrect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. My bad. Thank you. Withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) :This section was archived on a request by: Languageseeker (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Armenia. Law on Copyright and Related Rights

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn and template fixed. Languageseeker (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Languageseeker (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted edition and all subpages; WD item listed for deletion.

This unsourced edition is superseded by the Arden edition and the Yale edition of this play, both of which have been fully proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support Languageseeker (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete, unfortunately someone went through the effort of doing an audio on the unknown version so that might need to be deleted as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked, and I'm not sure the audio was specifically from our copy; more likely from Gutenberg Note that the recordings are broken up by Acts, which therefore do not align with the way this particular copy is divided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Glosas Emilianenses

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope due to lack of English text. Note that discussion was split to WS:CV#Glosas Emilianenses, but closed here due to the deletion rationale.

Discussion moved to Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Glosas Emilianenses

As noted by @CalendulaAsteraceae: on the work's talk page: "This work is in Latin, with glosses in medieval Romance and Basque. As such, it should move to the Wikisource for the appropriate language—probably the multilingual Wikisource, or possibly the Spanish Wikisource if the book it's excerpted from is eligible for inclusion." PseudoSkull (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Substituted

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect and removed from use.

Duplicated with Template:Must be substituted (both have 5 transclusions). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect either one to the other. I think consensus here will agree that this is what should happen—the real question is, which one should be the main and which the redirect? PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to {{Must be substituted}}. For a template that's rarely used, the more descriptive name makes more sense, IMO. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Non-scan backed with scan-backed alternative Languageseeker (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment The audio file links should be transferred before deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Public Health Service Act

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

So incomplete that it's barely worth it. What is complete in this unsourced transcription is only a couple sentences, after I removed some unnecessary things, namely the external links section and the enormous see also section that was miles longer than the transcription itself. I don't think I'll ever see a see also section that big on any wiki again. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(that see also section appeared to have been copied from this, but still wasn't at all part of the act itself. The act is one of many that this was a list of apparently.) PseudoSkull (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Well this is definitely a piece of legislation that we should have particularly since elements of it are being applied to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. I'll see if I can find a usable version. BD2412 T 00:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the original version linked from the Wikipedia article. The PHSA runs from page 3 to page 1219 of the document. BD2412 T 00:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is also available from here in the original Statutes publication. The 60+ KB of “see also,” against a few lines of actual text, is pretty funny. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Life of Henry Clay

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Not scan-backed, with an earlier version from 1887 already scan-backed and complete, available at Life of Henry Clay (Schurz).

Additionally, the exact source of this document is unclear to me after some light searching, despite what the header says. It claims that the images and text were taken from an 1899 edition of 2 volumes, however the talk page links (which I moved from the main page as inappropriate content for within the transcription space) do not seem to contain the images as the frontispiece. I am not denying there may be an edition out there that contains these images, but I'm not finding any scans of that on an initial search, which highlights a problem with keeping something like this here without scan-backing. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So it looks like this edition Google Books . There is a 1972 reprint version on archive with a high-quality scan IA. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Undelete: The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier

The following discussion is closed:

Declined as the original text we had is not scan-backed and there is now a scan available for Proofreading.

Hello. Now that we are in 2022 could this text published in 1926 and deleted in 2007 be undeleted ? Thanks a lot. Hektor (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The edition that was deleted was part of a collection published in 1927, and so that edition is still under copyright. If you can locate an edition of the story in a source published in 1926, then you are free to create that copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In other words, ask again in another year. BD2412 T 05:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier" was first published in Liberty magazine in the 16 October 1926 issue, and as such its copyright expired at the end of 1926 + 95 = 2021. It is now, in other words, clearly in the public domain. It was republished in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes in 1927 (simultaneous UK/US publication; both in June), and the compilation was renewed in 1955 (R149513), but to the degree the compilation contained any copyrightable differences to this particular story (which I very much doubt) the renewal only covers the compilation (selection, order, etc. of the stories). The only stories from The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes that are still in copyright are "The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger" and "The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place", both first published in Liberty in 1927 (22 January and 5 March issues, respectively), and consequently will expire this year and will be in the public domain starting next year.
  That all being said, the old text we had was not scan-backed and I see no particular need to undelete it. If we want it immediately we can dig up the 16 October 1926 Liberty issue and proofread it from there, or we can wait until next year and do it as a part of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
  @Languageseeker: You've been doing some work on the original magazine publications of the Sherlock Holmes stories in connection with the MC. I don't see any relevant scans for 1926 in c:Category:Liberty (general interest magazine), but maybe you've done some work here offline? --Xover (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xover @EncycloPetey I'm waiting for Inductiveload to upload The Strand Magazine volumes for 1926 to run it through the MC. The original Liberty publication is nowhere to be seen, but The Strand Magazine version is available online. It's also possible to get The Strand scans of The Blanched Soldier from [1] Languageseeker (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I also don't support undeleting a non-scan backed text. Languageseeker (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xover @EncycloPetey Scan is up at Index:The Strand Magazine (Volume 72).djvu Languageseeker (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Clansman

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Only 1 chapter is actually done, out of 4 books, and has not been worked on, basically at all, since 2008. I suspect it was abandoned and never worked on again because it is a famous example of blatantly racist propaganda that was unfortunately common ideology at the time, which is disappointing and disgusting to say the least of it—that being said, keeping neutrality in perspective, ideally it should be scan-backed in the future, so continuing in this format wouldn't be useful anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• The scan listed on Dixon’s author page can be uploaded, the proofread chapters match-and-split, and the work left as is. It can be included in the Monthly Challenge, if no one else is interested. While I am interested in proofreading it, I am working on some other works at the moment. The work was not abandoned at all, actually; it is a “[c]urrent project[ ]” of a user whose most recent edit states an intention to “get active here again.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Granted Daniel is still active on Wikipedia, but still, he has not edited Wikisource, at all whatsoever, since twelve whole years ago. That was during an entirely different decade of Internet history, in which Wikisource's standards on editing were very different than today. If we're not talking of years but using the word decade, that's when we ought to draw the line. In no sense should one take a promise from 12 years ago on an unsourced and barely-even-worked-on-at-all transcription as any indication that it will eventually be done by this user. I would expect that he has 100% lost all interest in this site, and has probably long since forgotten that this The Clansman project even existed. Of course since he was pinged he might comment on this discussion, and I am by no means saying he shouldn't work on it again, or that he won't after he sees this. And if he is interested I encourage that he do (otherwise one of us will end up doing it probably). But all I'm saying is that the fact that someone made a promise over a decade ago should not be indicative of anything in the present tense.

Even if I were to be so generous to assume that he will work on it again, it should be started over completely anyway, with scan backing, if that is to happen. So the deletion opinion I still stand by in any case. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: Sorry, that comment was tongue-in-cheek; it was not meant to be taken seriously. The joke was that the “get active here again” comment was from 2009. My comment regarding scan-backing holds, as well; a scan should be uploaded, &c. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! Well you can just never tell that sort of thing on the Internet. Good one m8 PseudoSkull (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Unformatted, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete, not remotely standardized. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete It is available from the Austrian National Library if someone wants to create index pages for it: (external scan) MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Our Nig; or Sketches from the Life of a Free Black

The following discussion is closed:

Kept (nomination withdrawn on conversion to scan)

Incomplete, unsourced text from 2006. Languageseeker (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Falls within our scope. Neither "incomplete" not "unsourced" have ever been reasons to delete a good faith contribution. A scan is available here: https://archive.org/details/ournigorsketches00wilsrich Hesperian 02:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hesperian: If it's been unsourced and incomplete for 16 years, and our standards on transcription have completely changed since that time, what remains is not worth too much. Yes, scans are available, but the unsourced version should still be tossed. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: this text has sat there unsourced and incomplete for 16 years without delivering any value. At this point it seems reasonable to adjudge it worthless. However, I've always argued for retaining unsourced scans, because it lowers the barrier to entry. Newbies start by posting unsourced material, then learn to up their game over time. If they have to know how to navigate index pages: and page: pages and page transclusion on day one, we'll lose them. In short, I don't want us to become a site that bans unsourced scans, and I see cases like this as the thin edge of the wedge. Hesperian 00:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep absent alternate complete version or edition. That it is somewhat incomplete is unfortunate, but not a reason for deletion absent more egregious problems. The lack of source (for this edition) is not relevant to deletion discussions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Being converted to scan. Languageseeker (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Last Man (Shelley)

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to Versions page; and Wikidata items updated

Unformatted, unsourced, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep absent alternate version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

   Delete, it's unsourced and unformatted, which is in my mind worse than having nothing there. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Convert to Versions page There is a transcription project underway for the 2nd edition, and as the nomination says, the copydump is unformatted and has no source. There were two editions issued in 1826, the year of first publication, making an unsourced, unformatted copydump especially undesirable. However, we ought to list the two editions currently being transcribed (both listed on Author:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley), so rather than delete, this should be converted to a Versions page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Explanation and History of Venona Project Information

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This has no source, and is a bit unclear what it's status actually is, The uploader has not been active on Wikisource for some time.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is a scan backed redacted version of the same document: Venona: FBI Documents of Historic Interest/Belmont Memorandum 1956-02-01 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Then  Delete unsourced version as duplicate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cousin Phillis

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Two paragraphs from an entire novel. Languageseeker (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Sure is. Also hasn't been worked on since 2012. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Arizona Administrative Code

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Georgia State Constitution (1868)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied.

This completly empty text was created 9 months ago and hasn't been edited since —unsigned comment by Serprinss (talk) .

Speedied as having no meaningful content or history. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Century of American Diplomacy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

Non-scan backed, OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Work is complete. Also, please stop making nominations en masse. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. It has lines such as "Total insular territory . .'< ,i~ >V 138,399 ". Also, how many nominations do you think would be an appropriate number in which time period? Don't want to overwhelm people. Languageseeker (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: Works with OCR errors and page-breaks can still be complete. As for number, this page is still realing from your listing of “incomplete works” above. I am more opposed to rapid-fire nominations, especially when there is little connecting the works nominated. I don’t oppose nominations for works that more obviously fall below the standards. I would include in this category works that are wholly, or almost wholly, incomplete, and are of poor quality. I do not believe that there is substantial loss when such works are deleted. I do think that nominations of works which are complete, or which, while not complete, are of high quality (for the parts of the work which are completed), need to have more substantiation to justify deletion. In addition, I believe that U.S. laws, even if wholly incomplete, should not be immediately deleted, because the Statutes volumes are already available on Wikisource. For works that fall below standards, I don’t object to you posting them as you come across them, and make no objection to more quickly-paced nominations. As for works with more substance, I would appreciate more time separating the posting of nominations. However, I do not have any general workable standard for a time-scale. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Yeah most of the other Foster work we have was recently proofread. There are a number of high-quality scans on IA in case someone wants to proofread it and it is already broken into chapters so it is straightforward to transclude over chapter by chapter if someone is so inclined. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Shackleton's diaries

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Just a few non-scanbacked fragments. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support Languageseeker (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think that these diary entries are quite valuable, and as they can be found on the Internet, they should be scan-backed where possible. The Shackleton–Rowett diary is complete, and may be read here (from whence it was likely copied). As for the Endurance diary, see here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  It does not seem to be the complete diary at all, they are just a few last entries from the diary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Speech about the Munich Agreement

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope (excerpt).

Unpublished translation of randomly chosen parts of a Stalin’s speech. Were it a full and scanbacked translation, as required by Wikisource:Translations, I would move it to the Translation namespace, but it is not scan-backed and the excerpts seem to be chosen completely arbitrarily. For the original version see http://www.hrono.info/libris/stalin/14-27.php, the excerpts were taken from the text starting with the sentence "Чем объяснить такой однобокий и странный характер новой империалистической войны?" --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support Languageseeker (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, after moving to Translation: to live with the rest of the incomplete translations. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a potentially PD-translation published in 1939 by the "Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee" which is excerpted in the scans here. If that is actually covered by crown copyright than the UK copyright expired in 1989 and it would be PD on the URAA date. In addition, I am not sure on the copyright status of the original speech since Stalin died in 1954 and therefore unless it is non-copyrightable than it is copyrighted in Russia until 2025. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar (unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an unsourced version when a sourced version exists. Languageseeker (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus (unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Unsourced edition when scan-backed edition exists. Languageseeker (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I started proofreading it Index:Muhammad Diyab al-Itlidi - Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalîfahs - Alice Frere - 1873.djvu and was planning to go back to it next (I took a pause to finish cleaning up some Tolstoy). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman Thanks for the Tolstoy. He's severely underrepresented her. Do you want to keep this to save time creating subpages? Languageseeker (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That would be helpful. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn per MarkLSteadman Languageseeker (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

An Experiment in Luxury

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom; the content was added 10 years after creation.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. What part is not truthful? The text is incomplete, there is no source given, and the page was created on 26 June 2006 Languageseeker (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: Source is provided in the header. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am deleting this because the source was listed in 2006 when the page was created, but the vast majority on the content was added anonymously 10 years later. While a place of publication was given in the initial creation, it was not used to create the content, and does not appear to be the source of the content on the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Speeches

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom; disambiguation page with no targets.

This is an empty disambugation page at the moment and from my perspective redundant with Portal:Speeches for any work of the form Speeches of ... beceaus we can just stick on them on the Speeches portal. No issue about turning this into an actual version page if there are poems, stories, plays etc. entitled speeches or course. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been raised above. The question is whether there are any works entitled "Speech" or "Speeches" to disambiguate, such as an encyclopedia article. No one has yet answered that question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Searching for works with "Speech" in the title (search link) didn't turn up any pages called "Speech" or "Speeches", and none of the works in Category:Encyclopedias have an entry called "Speech" or "Speeches". A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Lytton, Edward George Earle Lytton-Bulwer, 1st Lord links to a work entitled Speeches, and Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens/Authorized Edition links to a work entitled "Speech" in The Complete Works of Mark Twain: Volume XXIV, Mark Twain's Speeches, but neither of these works exist on Wikisource. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Hangon

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom, and {{sdelete}} adjusted accordingly.

And Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, which is directly reliant on this template.

I've never seen this actually in use the entire time I've been here. Upon some research into it, it appears the template was in use and known around the community in the late 2000s. The category was never edited since 2012 and the template hasn't been edited at all since 2009. On top of that, the template had 0 page views in the past 30 days, and the category only had 1 (looks like around Dec. 12, 2021), which could easily be passed off as a view from a crawler or out of the curiosity of one surfing reader. It looks like it was a template copied from Wikipedia to me, and it looks like even Wikipedia's likely equivalent to this template was deleted by them fairly recently, and in that discussion they said their template of the same name was deprecated as of 2011.

I admit I don't know how to see if anything was added to this category recently, but I would be surprised if there were any usages of this template in the past 5 years, or even 10.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this template seems to be redundant. Contested speedy deletions could be sent here, to WS:PD, or to WS:CV for copyright-related debates. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Delete, but adjust the wording of {{sdelete}} to direct people here to discuss. Also the directions at {{sdelete}} should probably say something congruent to actual practice like "if you disagree, change this template to {{delete}} and start a discussion at WS:PD explaining why". Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Stories by Foreign Authors

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

per Help:Categorization#Excluded categories --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

{{The da Vinci Barnstar}} and {{The Original Barnstar}}

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

English Wikisource has a long-established practice of not using barnstars, and both of these are relatively recent creations with zero usages. They also have multiple moving parts to support them ({{Barnstar documentation}} and Category:Barnstar award templates), all of which adds up to a small but measurable contribution to our maintenance overhead (e.g. closing the #Template:Substituted discussion required me to faff about figuring out where the transclusions were coming from and removing them from use). Xover (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete The only place this seems ever to have been used is on User talk:Jan.Kamenicek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Heroes of Insurgency

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Also incomplete, lacking illustrations (as seen here) and not divided into chapters. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete OCR dump full of errors. Note that there is a WD item (d:Q19035833) that should be listed for deletion at Wikidata once this closes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Industrial Democracy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete It sure is, and given the presence of scans like these ones, the OCR isn't particularly helpful. The page structure isn't helpful either, since it only splits the work into parts and not chapters. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Just an OCR dump. Index:Industrial Democracy - Webb - 1902.djvu is the DjVu of one of CA's links from above which appears to have a complete pagelist. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Art of War (Giles)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. There is no consensus to delete on the basis that one of the texts is only a reprint of the other, and particularly not while the more original (older) text is incomplete.

There are two versions of this text. The The Art of War (Giles) is a 2000 transcription of the 1910 original that is missing a significant part of the original while The Art of War (Sun) is the 1910 original. Since they should both be the same text, I'm proposing to delete the 2000 secondary transcription. Languageseeker (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• The other copy is not complete, so this discussion is premature. I believe, also, that holding both may not be inappropriate, under the annotations policy, as stated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Assuming the 2000 version can't claim a new copyright on any exclusive material, I would say that this is a separate version of the work and therefore should have representation here. For the purposes of this discussion  Keep. A WS:CV discussion may have a different outcome however, possibly. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lines in Protest to the Dundee Magistrates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This secondary transcription was posted on January 13, 2022 after the WS:WWI was amended by a vote to explicitly exclude secondary transcription. Since some objection has been raised to my original speedy deletion request, I'm asking the community to weigh in on the issue and decide if new secondary transcriptions should qualify for speedy deletions or should require full deletion discussions. Languageseeker (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Delete I think if they have a source identified, then there should be a deletion discussion, but if they are just a bare secondary transcription we can speedy delete. DoublePendulumAttractor (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The Match-and-Split Layer of Index:Scenes of Clerical Life volume 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

According to the notes on Scenes of Clerical Life, the text comes from PG stating that "This edition was first published in Everyman's Library in 1910". The Index is the 1857 edition and not the 1910 Everyman's Library. Furthermore, there are at least four distinct editions of Scenes of Clerical Life with significant textual differences making it even less likely that the Everyman's Library is actually the same as the 1857 edition. Therefore, I am proposing to delete the match-and-split because it comes from a different edition of the text. Languageseeker (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: The index had multiple pages that were not the M&S text (i.e. Proofread etc.), so I left those. Otherwise done. Xover (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wit and Wisdom From West Africa

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Non-scan backed, OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Work is complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @ It's hardly complete. It's full of such choice phrases as "1 LEATV THEM A lORBOWrUL MEMORIAL" and "AflJ^gards the African tongues, too much Jabour has". Languageseeker (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: Works with OCR errors and page-breaks can still be complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete An OCR copydump that, despite attempts to clean up scannos, is an unformatted mess containing page headers intermingled with the text, and with more transcription errors than wisdom. A check at IA shows that they have only scans of terrible quality, in which the scans of pages are distorted such that any OCR would struggle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI The BL has a scanned version: http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01016840629, and the Harvard google books scan is here Google Books . Surprised there isn't a high quality scan in general, and it would be nice to have the index page set up before deleting... In general, the Burton works could use some scan-backing but they are long so having a good OCR source would definitely help. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: Index:Wit and Wisdom from West Africa (1865).djvu Xover (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Don Juan (Byron)

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer.

Non-scan backed, incomplete, with no known source when the sourced version The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero)/Poetry/Volume 6/Don Juan exists. After the delete, the versions page should be moved from Don Juan (Byron, versions) to Don Juan (Byron). Languageseeker (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The alternate version is completely incomplete, and the version hosted is complete except for the dubious seventeenth stanza. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'm sorry for not taking the time to properly check this one. Languageseeker (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo templates

The following discussion is closed:

Closing for no support in two months listing. --Neither pointless nor harmful-- seems a good summary of the comments.

Template:Macmillan and Company logo

Template:The Macmillan Company logo

Template:Duckworth logo

Template:Harper and Brothers logo

"This template inserts the X publishers logo image into a page." While these templates might be shorthand, they are redundant. There are at least hundreds of unique publisher marks that have been used on Wikisource over the years. In fact, many publishing companies, especially the popular ones, have used several if not dozens. If one wants to find the publisher mark they are looking for, they can look in the Commons category for that publisher, or even more conveniently, they can check the portal page for that publisher here on Wikisource itself, which will list them out in a <gallery>. I've found it an easy process most of the time. @Hesperian: As the creator of these templates, what is your reasoning? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't see that there is a reason for deletion. Everything we do with a template can be done without the template if one is willing to go dig up the information. The whole point of a template is to provide shorthand so that the necessary research doesn't have to be repeated every time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Okay, so then the only thing I can assume from what you said is that we need a template for every single publisher mark. Even if I were to assume the argument of "we should only do it for marks that appear a lot"...well, there are so many that this requirement applies to. Do I need to list a handful of those marks out in this forum to illustrate my point?

A good filename with the File prefix is a method we already have to identify filenames. We don't need the extra responsibility of keeping up with templates that do nothing but represent that file. We could have a million of those, and it gets confusing when you start considering there are many Macmillan logos, many Harper logos, etc. So this template's name is misleading just in that it suggests it is the only image of its kind. A small amount of research is a necessary part of the job, and you can't eliminate that by creating a template for each thing; the research would just have to be done by flipping through templates, so then ultimately what's the point?

I understand that templates are for shorthand and virtually everything in a template could be done without one, but templates also happen to be for eliminating repetition. The precedent of these templates is conducive to creating repetition which is my main concern. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? It's not an all-or-nothing choice. Look at the number of times these template are used. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflicted on this one. I can see the reasoning behind this, because it's often better to use the "best" instance of a logo that the one from that particular edition, which may not be a good scan, or has been overprinted with a library stamp, etc. And the advantage of a a template is that if an even better logo comes along later, it can be easily updated. Also, templates make it easier to set accessibility data like alt-text, which is something we (including myself) do not usually do well not that these templates do that, but they could.

On the other hand, I can see that the templates might appear to indicate that you should use them even if the logo isn't quite the same—very many printers' marks are markedly (or subtly) different over time. That is part of the work. E.g.: these are are just some of the members of commons:Category:Harper & Brothers logos, but which is the one that should be used by {{Harper and Brothers logo}}? Spoiler: it's the third one.

c1880

1892

1895

1899

c1905

1908

1922

1925

And on the gripping hand, these templates are well-hidden and if they are to be used, they should be listed and documented properly. Would it be better if there was a single consistent entry point with complete templatedata, uniform semantics and documentation rather than n different templates all with subtly different usages? Then you can have a nice, solid, well-defined map of each logo to the "best" file. For example, the following two images are apparently the "same logo", but one file is trashed and one is not so bad:

On balance, I think there's a case to be made that a templated system is a good idea, but the current implementation is rather poor.

Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Inductiveload puts the situation very well. I acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. I created these because whenever I came across a really good scan of a logo, I would go around searching for inclusions of bad scans to replace. This got old really fast, so I templated.

I'm not going to die in a ditch over this one, but I don't see that deleting these improves our site. The case for deletion seems to be "these are pointless" rather than "these are harmful". I think they are neither.

Hesperian 22:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus to keep

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep; there is a source identified on the page that could be retrieved using the WayBack Machine. The page was miscategorized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus to keep

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• keep This was a huge news scandal in 1990s, it's notability is not in question. The talk page has the link to an archived copy of the official transcript of the meeting hosted on senate.gov. Granted all I've done is a quick spot check but the transcription appears to be accurate, though granted some sections are missing. [link to original on senate.gov http://web.archive.org/web/20010204182800/http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/sireport.htm] Moabdave (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

All Over Oregon and Washington

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Now backed by a scan

This is an unsourced, incomplete work. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The deletion rationale is still incorrect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is a singularily unhelpful !vote, and apt to be ignored in assessing consensus. If you find deficiencies in the proposer's rationale then you need to actually explain what they are, rather than what I can best describe as a general observation. That the proposer has a habit of making terse and seemingly hasty nominations is an issue best addressed outside of this process. Xover (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Xover: I do not think I need say any more, given the state of the work and the course of the present discussion, on the merits of the work. However, the sentiment you have expressed is quite grave, and besides dangerous. In following with his action, which was the nomination of many works with the same, often incorrect, rationale, I replied with a short statement stating that the rationale was incorrect. There must be some burden for the user seeking deletion, to avoid this page being flooded with meritless deletion requests. As has happened in the past, deletion discussions with little comment are often closed without discussion as “delete.” To combat this, I noted that the stated rationale was false if it was, which it was in many of the cases listed (and nearly so in several others). To your statement, that my comment is “apt to be ignored in assessing consensus,” the original deletion nomination, which is patently false, should be entirely ignored for that reason. To state that a true statement, declaring a false statement false, is “singularily [sic] unhelpful,” is strongly problematic. I did not state that the deletion nomination should be ignored, because the nomination was made by a user known for “terse” or “hasty nominations,” as such a claim is not related to the subject of the nomination. It is a problem, as was brought up elsewhere, but that is a separate point. You claim also that my counterpoint was “a general observation.” I find this claim absurd. The nomination stated that the work is “unsourced” and “incomplete.” These are both, quite literally, “general observation[s]” about the work, and neither are valid grounds for deletion. My claim was not general, as I verified my claim as to every single nominated work; and it attacks the nominating rationale directly, rather than the nominating user or the method or style of nomination. I am concerned about your method of “assessing consensus,” if you would choose to ignore such comments now, how you may ignore similarly important comments as a general matter—but I do not make any claims in that regards. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea.: You are arguing that because the proposal was terse and seemingly made in undue haste it is ok for you to respond in kind. That is, it boils down to "two wrongs make a right". The problem with that is that while the proposal is terse it is still legible (I can understand what their rationale is, regardless of whether I personally think it has any merit), whereas your opposition to it requires mind-reading to comprehend beyond the fact that you're opposed. If you've looked at the text and made some judgements regarding the merits of either the proposal or the text—and so far as I can tell based on my experience, you do very much tend to do that (heck, I've seen you do massive amounts of research for these discussions)—then explain the why. "The deletion rationale is incorrect, because…" You may not have intended to attack the proposer, but without providing the rationale (reasoning, evidence, opinion; whatever is behind it) it just comes across as an obfuscated way to say "You lie!".

    And I didn't say I, personally, would ignore your vote in this case; I said it's apt to cause that in a general sense. Mainly because these are consensus discussions and not votes (not for no reason do we refer to them as !votes), so contributions that only provide a vote have less impact (not to mention less chance of convincing other participants). But also because it simply lacks the information needed to actually understand it: in this particular case, and if I were the one processing it, I would almost certainly have expended the time necessary to investigate and if necessary ask for clarifications (but note how that would have wasted time); but that can't be presumed for all admins, in all cases, when the backlog is large (as it often is), and there's no guarantee that the closing admin will be able to see or understand the same things you saw or understood when you looked into it.

    Bottom line is, no matter how frustrated you may be with waves of proposals and their real or perceived deficiencies, letting that dictate your !vote does not help your goal (or the process, or …). Xover (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. You are correct. My nominations were far too short and I did not take sufficient time to properly nominate them. I don't wish to stir up bad blood. Sorry for the mess. Languageseeker (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete if what is currently transcluded is left as not proofread during the course of this discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Since the nomination, the text appears to have been scan-backed and is roughly 50% (in)complete. Could you take another look and indicate whether your position has changed? Xover (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: Reasonable, scratched and change to  Keep. My issue is with what was not scan-backed; if it's actively being worked on in scan-backed form then deleting it is an unnecessary intervention. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep Scan backed work. MSG17 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Since your nomination, the text appears to have been scan-backed and is roughly 50% (in)complete. Could you take another look and indicate whether your position has changed? Xover (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xover Withdrawn due to scan-backing. Languageseeker (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion has been open for too long, and too many have participated in it, to actually withdraw it, so procedurally speaking I'll count that as a keep vote. I'm guessing the difference doesn't matter to you, but do please let me know if I'm wrong about that for whatever reason. Xover (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I currently read no support for deleting (and applying some reasonable inferences the state of play is more like unanimous keep). I am going to hold off closing this proposal just yet due to the (unexpectedly controversial) meta-discussion I seem to have instigated, because closing it in a way that seemingly gives me the last word would be very uncouth, but barring a sudden influx of delete-inclined contributors I think it's safe to assume the outcome here to be keep. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Forbidden Fruit

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Now backed by a scan

Non-scan backed, OCR dump. Languageseeker (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Work is complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• @TE(æ)A,ea. The work has section 4, mentions page 43 and is only a few lines long. It's also has line such as "THE Devil was jealous thereat 1. 1105 " Languageseeker (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Languageseeker: Works with OCR errors and page-breaks can still be complete. I presumed as much as Mark says below, that this is a poem excerpted from a larger work. I will reformat this poem to avoid immediate deletion, and, if the work is eventually proofread, the page can be redirected. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is from The Poem-Book of the Gael IA and at two pages (20-21) it should be possible to convert into a redirect pretty easily. I nominated this book for POTM since having translation of Irish poetry would be a nice addition. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman @TE(æ)A,ea. I created an Index for this Index:The Poem-Book of the Gael.djvu.

There already was a start of a proofread Index:The poem-book of the Gael - Hull.djvu with this poem already proofread, someone just needs to grab the drop initial and transclude it in. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a deletion rationale. migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Migrated to scan and delete withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ᨣᩮ᩸ᨶᩮᩈᩥ᩠ᨲ

The following discussion is closed:

I've moved the text to the editor's userspace and left a message of explanation. Once it's been moved to thWS, I'll delete the userspace page.

In Thai, should be moved to Thai Wikisource. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

The following discussion is closed:

There was several supports and no opposition to overturning (undeleting) the decision in WS:PD#Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Note that ongoing changes while this discussion was open have moved the content to a new naming scheme for the series of works, and one or more of the links in this discussion have been turned into redirects that may get deleted as unnecessary, but no actual content should be deleted as a result of this discussion.

This text was previously deleted as a result of WS:PD#Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but apparently, between the time of the proposal and !votes and the time of the actual deletion, Mpaa had begun scan-backing it. On the assumption that this fact would have affected the !votes in the previous discussion had it been known, I am proposing it for undeletion and will momentarily undelete it temporarily pending the outcome of this discussion.

@Languageseeker, @PseudoSkull, @MarkLSteadman: As participants in the previous discussion, please take a look at the text as it currently stands and indicate whether you think the intervening work materially affects your !vote. Xover (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only begun but almost entirely completed.  Keep. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xover The contents of this page is the same as The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria. This page should be an AuxTOC that contains links to the volumes as is the common practice on enWS. Languageseeker (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The question here is whether the wikipage linked above should be undeleted (or, rather, whether it should be re-deleted since I've already undeleted it). Unless the outcome here is (re)delete (which kinda makes the rest moot), its particular content is up to the interested contributors to figure out among themselves. Xover (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents are that we can remove the migrate tags (that's happened already) and we can discuss a proposed restructuring on the discussion page to decide on how to group the works across the volumes. Note that currently the The Wrongs of Woman contains volumes 1 and 2 while Posthumous contains 3 and 4. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker, @PseudoSkull, @MarkLSteadman:As a result of Volume 1 of this work appearing on the 'Monthly Challenge', I created a mainpage for the 4 volumes, a sub main page for Volume 1, c/w an AuxTOC, and have transcluded the work as individual chapters. I have done some preliminary work on Vols 2 to 4 and am intending to transclude them in a similar fashion. I failed to check whether there were other versions. Had I done so I would have used the full title instead of a shortened version and overwritten the existing text. Regarding the maintenance tags, I will shortly have competed the splitting of 'The Wrongs of Woman' into separate chapters. I think Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman can thus be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Or convert it into a redirect page to the alternate title (should we move that name to include Godwin to match how it is in the scans?). MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Languageseeker

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as user request / deleted as precedent deletion / some support and no objections to deletion proposal.

I'm asking for an administrator to delete my user page and lock it to prevent future editing. Since Beeswaxcandle declined my speedy delete request, I'm asking for a vote on this request. Languageseeker (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. Deleting a user page is pretty straightforward on any wiki project I've ever known—if the user wants it deleted, it isn't a problem. Talk pages are quite another matter, however. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage and pages which use it

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; template use advocated by policy, so its deletion would require a policy change

If a page has been deleted because of a copyright discussion, we don't need that page's title to show up in the search results because that is misleading. We can just protect the page, keep it deleted, and explain why in the deletion log, linking to the proper discussion (which is what the deletion log is for after all). I think they should all just be deleted. Category:Protected deleted pages is effectively only populated with 12 entries, several of which in my mind do not even begin to necessitate the template if we are to assume it is ever necessary. A page having only been deleted 1 or 2 times previous, for example, is not enough in my mind to corrupt the search results. And the protection prevents it in the first place, so what's the point?

But it makes way more sense for author pages than actual mainspace pages. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I'm of two minds about this one. One the one hand, it's not being used much of anywhere and there are valid criticisms in the deletion proposal. On the other hand, there are a small number of works that have been repeatedly created in the past, where it would have helped to have this template. The additions may have been meant well, but were contributed by people who likely knew no better. For high-profile recreations, this temple could alert the contributor why the page was deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: But if the page is protected after deletion (which is definitely possible in MediaWiki software), there is no chance a contributor would even be able to create it again. The protection log should at the very least link to previous discussion on the issue that resulted in deletion, and for high-profile cases it would help to have a detailed summary in the deletion log as well; however, since it's protected, there is no chance the page will be recreated anyway, unless someone deliberately works around it by putting the work at another slightly different page title. That slight loophole in the technology that I pointed out isn't prevented by a template much more at all than it's prevented by a deletion summary. I can see the benefits, but the benefits are outweighed in my mind by the fact that the template necessitates the work being shown in the search results, which again is too misleading for it to be justifiable in my mind. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep I looked at the pages which use this template. The policy page Wikisource:Protection policy specifically tells people to use it. Since this is part of a policy page, the policy must first be changed before we can consider deletion as an option. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Aesop's Fables pages requiring cleanup

The following discussion is closed:

Category deleted / Contents converted to versions pages

These unsourced work pages are all 1. collections of multiple translations of the same fable in one page, which is against Wikisource's style guidelines, 2. on any that I've seen, the unsourced fables are taking precedent in the search hierarchy over those that already exist in any scan-backed material at Fables (Aesop). So ideally, these would be disambiguation pages that listed translations and where to find them, and not containing the translations themselves; IMO they should just be deleted until this becomes the case. Pinging User:Beleg Tâl. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds as though, rather than deletion, these ought to be converted to redirects (where we have only one translation) and/or list of translations pages (where we have more than one translation, or at least more than one potential target because translations appear in more than one scan for which a transcription has started. I would support converting these, as such, but it will take a lot of work on the part of someone someone familiar with the fables. Simply deleting them would likely break too many links across Wikimedia, not to mention the many redirects here that point to those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Would you be interested in taking on that challenge? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Sure. Sounds like fun, actually. And there is a book I can do at the same time which will be helpful for the task. But I am not going to start anything until after the full moon on the 17th, which is this Monday. Thanks for considering me for this!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I created this category to keep track of them so that I could turn them all into either versions pages or redirects, after moving the text to the proper scan-backed editions. I havent gotten very far yet as you can see, so feel free to take a stab at them. The scan-backed editions we have so far are listed at Fables (Aesop). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

EncycloPetey and Beleg Tâl: Is there any reason that "Aesop's Fables" --> d:Q865902 can not have more than one author? It is traditional vs precise, but calling them "'Aesop's' Fables" allows the fable to be found and applying the author (as is surmised/guessed right now) at the fable (or via qualifier) provides the precision. Managing the past with the present....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If the modern consensus is that "Aesop" was actually multiple authors, that would be handled by indicating it on the data item for Aesop. If the consensus is that an individual wrot the fables, but that the collection includes works by additional authors (known or unknown), then that would be handled by indicating it on the data item for the Fables. I have not had to contend with that issue except for the Anacrontea, where the consensus is that none of it was actually written by Anacreon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

EncycloPetey: It is more like Aesop was a person who wrote many of the fables accredited to him, but not all. See w:Perry Index. What I envisioned was: "This is an Aesop Fable, it was written by Aesop. And this next is an Aesop fable, it was written by Paulus Diaconus. Etc." Making "Aesop Fables" more of a title than a nod to the single author. The wrongly accredited fables were published as so in many many publications in many many languages.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a question to raise at Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging PseudoSkull, Beleg Tâl, and EncycloPetey: So, with the exception of Portal:Aesop's Fables (which is in flux due to a template problem), the Perry indexed fables have been sorted, datafied and put through the rinse cycle with a little softener.... There is one fable left in that cat, which if I had the power to delete it, I would, as I can find no source for it and have come to detest it as stopping me from completing the task. The Caxton has been worked on recently by User:Genoskill and I went through the L'Estrange: transposing and transcluding all Perry indexed fables there. So, whatever unsourced fable there were have been reinstated as a link to a source, and a few more probably. That was fun.

Let me know if there is something I missed or could do better. And, if you have any ideas about how to get a wikidata linked Perry index to the Portal without the errors, I would be glad to know them. My questions about this to Xover have gone un- answered

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Autobiography of Mary Jemison

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per WS:WWI; selected sections of a larger work are generally not acceptable

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete This is an extract from Life of Mary Jemison, 4th edition 1856, or the 20th edition A Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison 1918. Jemison never wrote an autobiography, as far as I can tell. The Author page should also be deleted, or should be converted to a Portal if there is additional relevant information. I can find no evidence of any published works by her. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Three Men in a Boat (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Scan-backed version now exists: Three Men in a Boat (1889). PseudoSkull (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Languageseeker

The following discussion is closed:

Apart from the proposer there was no support for deleting this page. There are also no a priori policy grounds on which it could be deleted. In other words, this will have to be brought up in a different forum (typically WS:S).

I'm asking for an administrator to delete my talk page and lock it to prevent future editing. Since Beeswaxcandle declined by speedy delete request, I'm asking for a vote on this request. Languageseeker (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep — There probably isn't a rule per se (as there also isn't on Wiktionary) about the deletion of user talk pages, but I'm against it, and I think most users here will agree. A user talk page's content needs to be properly archived so that discussions there could be referenced in the future if need be. This applies to any talk page in my opinion that has any amount of meaningful discussion at all. Even discussion pages that are no longer used are labelled as obsolete on many projects, but not deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Re: the request for locking, I think the ideal solution would be to restore the removed content, archive the user talk: page, and salt it. The discussions on the page should be preserved, but the page itself need not be. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Assuming everything is archived, the problem with that is that it could result in heavy maintenance, i.e. the user's talk page is recreated by someone who thinks they can still contact the user, any amount of times, and the contents will have to be archived again with the page deleted again each time. So it's much better to just keep the talk page intact. So Languageseeker's wishes with their talk page are harder to maintain long-term in practice. We could also protect the talk page after it's deleted, but I don't think we really want to go that far for a plethora of other reasons. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Are you ok with closing this proposal as withdrawn? Xover (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xover I would still prefer to have my talk page deleted and locked. Languageseeker (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wage System

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is non-scan second hand transcription when we have a scan-backed version of the same publication available at The wage system. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete per above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Sidereal Messenger (unsourced version)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom. Not the that pages in question (unlinked in the proposal) are The Sidereal Messenger and The Sidereal Messenger of Galileo Galilei, the former of which has now been deleted and recreated as a redirect to the latter (which can of course be overwritten if the work is moved to its printed name).

I've just completed a scan-backed version of this work (and would have over-written the unsourced version if I'd realised it was there). I suggest deleting the unsourced version as it is incomplete (missing sections, illustrations, tables). Chrisguise (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin (unsourced)

This is an unsourced edition from an unknown provenance. There is a sourced alternative that has been proofread, but not marked as such. Languageseeker (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Where? None of the editions with scans at the versions page has been completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to withdraw this. Sorry. Languageseeker (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Languageseeker (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Fleuron, title page, The Discovery of a World in the Moone, 1638.jpg

This file is not used on Wikisource. It is a duplicate of File:Fleuron, title page, The Discovery of a World in the Moone, 1638.jpg on Wikimedia CommonsChrisguise (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: It's possible I'm just being dense here, but… the two files you mention are the exact same file name, and both (necessarily) are from Commons. I can't find any obvious similarly named files either. Help? Xover (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My apologies for wasting your time - I must have been having a bad day when I raised this. Chrisguise (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Page:Slaughter of the pigs for the hog reduction program - NARA - 195525.tif

Image description, not a transcription of text in the image. @Skeletonrat: nothing personal; I appreciate your interest in providing image descriptions! I'm open to being convinced image descriptions belong here—perhaps as a kind of annotation? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Speeded - this is beyond scope, since the source file contains no text. Images are housed at Commons, and it is encouraged that editors there add descriptions of the images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Amyntas, A Tale of the Woods

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now scan-backed.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. What part is not truthful? The text is incomplete, there is no source given, and the page was created on 13 June 2007. Languageseeker (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep This is now scan backed. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copydump that does not match the linked "source"; the text is unreadable.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is a link to the source on the discussion page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @EncycloPetey They don't quite seem to be the same source. The online text has features such as illegible text marked that the enWS text does not. It appears that someone "cleaned-up" the original transcription and created a new, unpublished edition of this text. Languageseeker (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Anne of Geierstein

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Introduction only, with nonstandard formatting. Suggested source is a problematic scan from the Public Library of India.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The text only has the Introduction and is missing all 36 chapters. The scan link was added in 2021 [2] and does not correspond to the same edition as stated on the header (1871 vs 1829). Languageseeker (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• The linked scan from the page is from the Public Library of India, which cobbles together editions and produced scans often with problems. The Univ. of Lib. at Toronto has scans of the original three-volume printing, and if this work is recreated, those would be appropriate scans to use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Work has a US Gov't website source.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep There is a link to the full text at the source of the document, which is a US Gov't website. This text has a trustable original source from which it can be completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Act for International Development of 1961

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Page contained none of the source text of the Act, merely information about the Act from an unidentified source.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. Might I note that the stated level of progress is 0% Languageseeker (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete This page consists of a title, header, and history of the legislation, but no text of the Act itself. This is encyclopedic content, and outside our scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Act of Union 1800

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Page contains a small, unformatted fragment of the Act and does not identify its source.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The page is not formatted, there is no talk page to give a source neither is there one in the header; it was created in 2009; and it only has article one. Which part of my statement is untruthful? Languageseeker (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: The source is referenced; besides which, it is available from this volume, from p. 359. However, I do admit that the provided source was incorrect; it is not 40 Geo. 3 c. xxxviii. but 39 & 40 Geo. 3 c. 67. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

History of Cawthorne

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Work is now scan-backed.

From the notes on the discussion pages, this is an unformatted copydump of an unproofread OCR copydump from a defunct website. Languageseeker (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. This work is complete; a complete work should not be deleted without a more compelling reason than a lack of source. The work is largely formatted, and it was not derived, as far as I can tell, from OCR exclusively. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep - Scan found at IA. MSG17 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Now uploaded and formatted as an index: Index:A History of Cawthorne.djvu MSG17 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea. I was going off the original uploaders comment's which stated that "This work was copied and pasted from http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/8771/cawthornehistory.html and contains the original transcription errors at the time it was scanned into html. As such it still contains my own comments and links to my own graphics taken without permission from the above site.

If you are serious about accuracy I would suggest that you obtain an original copy of the book and not rely upon copies reefed unceremoniously from pages that are already on the internet. Imitation is flattery but copying others transcriptions and corrections without acknowledgment should not be encouraged by Wikipedia." Languageseeker (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• • • @MSG17 Are you planning to M&S this text or start a fresh transcription? Languageseeker (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I think it's M&Sable. I wonder if History of Cawthorne should be moved to "A History of Cawthorne". MSG17 (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep As it is currently in the process of being scan backed. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; Scan is available to complete the work.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. What part is not truthful? The text is incomplete, there is no source given, and the page was created on 26 September 2009. Languageseeker (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: Source is provided in header. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Augustus. The life and times of the founder of the Roman Empire (B.C. 63-A.D. 14)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; The linked scan contains the complete work in a decent quality, and therefore can be used to back our copy.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The IA link was added in 2021 and does not necessarily reflect the source of the published text. Languageseeker (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Only three sections of the Agreement are missing and multiple sources were suggested for completing the work.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The source in this case is an incorrect link to the main WTO website. Languageseeker (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: The correct WTO Web-site has an official copy of TRIPS. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would think that this is a rather important work for us to have. It should be very easy to source. E.g., here, and here. BD2412 T 08:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Alta California Report of the Bear River Massacre

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; work has been completed and proofread from source.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old.

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. I saw this is unsourced because the ISBN 0-914462-01-3 does not correspond to any real book. Languageseeker (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: That’s 0-9414, not 0-9144, which is the book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I proofread the article in toto from the original Alta California printing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: So, is this work complete or incomplete? You say you proofread in toto, but there is an {{incomplete}} banner on the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: It is complete; I just kept the various tags, as this discussion was ongoing. Also, can you provide a hyper-link to the PLoI scan of Anne of Geierstein below, please? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Index:Babbage - Passages from the Life of a Philosopher.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied (by Jan).

This barely started transcription is a duplicate of Index:Passages from the Life of a Philosopher.djvu, which is a complete transcription of the same edition of the work. The only apparent difference is the quality of the scan, the one used for the completed work being the poorer of the two. Chrisguise (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:Shirley.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This is volume two of a three-volume set, and, to my knowledge, only this volume was uploaded. The same exact text (from a different scan) has been validated and transcluded here. Please don’t forget to delete the created pages, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. Cases of this are uncontroversial and can be speedied. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• I primarily made this a deletion request because I wanted to make sure the pages were deleted; thank you for doing so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Ciridae (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The Angel of Lonesome Hill

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, backed up with scan Mpaa (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion by Languageseeker with a brief rationale "Secondary Transcription. Out of Scope". IMO it should be discussed here first. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Scan here [3]. 44p. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Angel of Lonesome Hill (1910).djvu Mpaa (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Mystery of Madeline Le Blanc

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, backed up with scan Mpaa (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

As above, nominated for speedy deletion by Languageseeker with a brief rationale "Secondary Transcription. Out of Scope", but I am presenting it to be discussed here first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Scan here [4]. 107pp. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Mystery of Madeline Le Blanc (1900).djvu Mpaa (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Redemption of Anthony

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer, scan provided.

As above, nominated for speedy deletion by Languageseeker with a brief rationale "Secondary Transcription. Out of Scope", but I am presenting it to be discussed here first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Scan here [5]. 137pp. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Redemption of Anthony (1911).djvu Mpaa (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn due to migration to scan. Languageseeker (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:United States Reports, Volume 244.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer, scan provided.

Title page only.. The entire volume should be uploaded. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Uploaded. Mpaa (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Updated file provided ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Providence and the Guitar

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, backed up with scan Mpaa (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Secondary transcription from a Gutenberg e-book, recently added by User:Dotoilage, nominated for deletion per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Second-hand transcriptions. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved to New Arabian Nights/Providence and the Guitar for migration. Mpaa (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is a mix of non-scan backed texts from the 1927 edition (which is in copyright) and links to the Strand Magazine versions. Since the Strand Magazine versions have been proofread, I propose deleting the non-scan backed entries. Languageseeker (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Delete I don't see much value in keeping this mix of the 1927 version and the A. Conan Encyclopedia and Strand versions. Having a clear edition is much better than such a mix. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Delete I agree. Unsourced duplicates should be removed as a matter of principle. Chrisguise (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Delete. Could have been also speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G7 Author's request. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jan Kameníček It's also for the following subpages:

• The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone
• The Problem of Thor Bridge
• The Adventure of the Creeping Man
• The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire
• The Adventure of the Illustrious Client Languageseeker (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. These could have been speedied too, per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Please note that The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand Magazine) does not belong in mainspace. If such a curation of The Strand articles is needed it should go in Portal: space somewhere. The way to connect the individual stories is through {{other versions}} on the stories in the actual The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes pointing at versions pages, and the versions pages for each story listing both the version in the actual The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes and the version published in The Strand. But The Strand never published any compilation named The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes so The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand Magazine) is our invention (and thus out of scope). Xover (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Testament Pedro II Of the Brazil

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unsourced, and with no translator credited. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 09:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Helpme

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. There was consensus against deleting the template. And on a personal note, the template is definitely used, relatively frequently by enWS standards, and many experienced users patrol its attendant category (not many enough: do please watchlist Category:Users looking for help and consider helping out users using it).

This was a template clearly imported from Wikipedia way back in the 2000s, a similar case to Template:Hangon which was recently deleted at PD. In the amount of time I've been active at Wikisource, which would be a couple years at this point, I have never even seen anything of this template, much less seen it being used. I often patrol recent changes for vandalism and new users who might need help or their edits standardized, and in that time I've never seen the template in use. Yet, Template:Welcome links to this template still.

Not helping the case of {{helpme}} is that even the template itself (not even the documentation but the template) recommends the main point I have against keeping this template around, which is that we have other outlets that are better used for help. We have such fine resources as the Scriptorium help desk, talk pages of experienced users, an IRC channel, (as of relatively recently) a Discord server, and probably more outlets I'm forgetting to mention, where a user can ask for help.

Given that we have these other outlets, having a self-categorizing help template on Wikisource doesn't seem like it's very efficient in practice, at least maybe not anymore. Template:Helpme got only 2 pageviews in the past 30 days, and the category Users looking for help got 7 pageviews. That's pretty bad when you compare it to Category:Speedy deletion requests, a far more useful maintenance category, which got 314 pageviews this month. This illustrates the point that I don't think this category gets enough attention for its stated purpose; I doubt many admins have it bookmarked (maybe I should?).

Whatever the case may be, the amount of people specifically patrolling Users looking for help is clearly very scant to none, and a user would get better help by asking for it from another source that would get more attention, like the ones mentioned above. This is especially the case for more complex problems.

It's really most likely to be used by editors who recently discovered us through Wikipedia and are thus used to WP's community practices, and many of those practices really ought not be encouraged. Many things Wikipedia does are virtually incompatible with Wikisource simply because we're a smaller community, and they have a far larger active editor base than we do.

If a template is greatly discouraged virtually everywhere, it should probably just be deleted. The better outlets should be highlighted to new contributors as the right way to do it, with Template:Helpme removed from our welcome template and any other places it remains linked. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. I see it used frequently enough, and the category is mentioned through the “recent pages” header listing. I am suprised that you have never seen its use, actually. In addition, the fact that messages sent to such help-related outlets are often ignored makes it desirable to have multiple methods of communication. I believe that the deletion of the “hangon” template was appropriate, because it was never integrated into the Wikisource structure, and its purpose was better accomplished and was actually accomplished by other utilities. However, I believe that the “helpme” template is useful, and its use, though not especially frequent, shows this to be the case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Okay, I'll grant that recent pages linked would suggest that this template is still seeing some use, but is still quite commonly discouraged. And I would really rather people not use it, given the lack of patrolling of this particular template. The other solution would be to both encourage it more and patrol it more; is that what you'd rather be in favor of? And what if only 2 experienced users on the whole site patrol that category even weekly (I'd wager it's less than that), and you need help with a specific thing? Then the backlog just continues to exist. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep It's being used periodically. The category doesn't need to be on anyone's watchlist as the template feeds to Recent Changes and RC patrollers should be checking it as a part of their patrols. I certainly do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added the category to my bookmarks now that I know of its existence. If the template is kept I'll patrol it regularly. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Kept. Redacting deletion request; I might not like it, but I don't think this'll gain consensus, and it is marginally useful at least, so it's not worth the fight. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

No action: while the original contributor has acceded to the deletion of the junk pages, the proposer has withdrawn and the one other participant wanted to keep the pages regardless of quality. So we're keeping a ton of pages that contain nothing but junk OCR that is actually worse than the dynamic OCR text layer in the file. Sigh.

"Junk" status OCR- Please start again with KNOWN scan and correct sourcing detail, Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

An alternative would be to realign everything...

Source	oldid	pp (if relevant)	Destination
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/483	.	.	Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/11
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/484			Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/12
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/485			Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/13
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/2	9861036	(TOC)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/14
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/3	9861037	(pp001)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/15
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/4	9861038	(pp002)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/16
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/5		(pp003)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/17
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/6		(pp004)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/18
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/7	9861042	(pp005)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/19
Page:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_6.djvu/8	9861043	(pp006)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/20
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/9		(pp007)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/21
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/10		(pp 008)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/22
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/11		(pp 009)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/23
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/12		(pp 010)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/24
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/13		(pp 011)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/25
...	...	(Same shift occcurs upto)	...
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/470		(pp468)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/482
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/471		(pp469)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/483
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/472		(pp470)	page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/484
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/473		(pp471)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/485
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/474		(pp472)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/486
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/475		(pp473)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/487
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/476		(pp474)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/488
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/477		(pp475)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/489
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/478		(pp476)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/490
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/479		(pp477)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/491
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/480		(pp478)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/492
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/481		(pp479)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/493
Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/482		(pp480)	Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 6.djvu/494

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just run the bot over these pages using the new, higher-quality OCR device. The new OCR is passable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why would we want to hard-code raw OCR text in these pages when you can get it dynamically when needed, and with probable technical improvements to the OCR quality in the intervening time (and a choice of OCR engines and settings)? This is entirely raw OCR created in bulk (along with, IIRC, several hundred thousand other pages, none of which have been subsequently proofread). Experience indicates that a significant subset of contributors are turned off by the presence of such junk pages and will avoid working on indexes where they are present. Xover (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  The assertion "none of which have been subsequently proofread" is not true. This page, for example, has been proofread. Similarly, for an example of another scan, Index:Greece from the Coming of the Hellenes to AD. 14.djvu has been almost completely marked as proofread (and the other pages appear to have been corrected). The assertion that "several hundred thousand other pages" were created is not true. The assertion that the "other pages" all contain "entirely raw OCR" is not true. I hope I do not need to produce a complete list of every single page that has been wholly or partly corrected by me or by someone else. IIRC, the number of such pages is large. The assertion that there will be "probable technical improvements to the OCR quality in the intervening time" has not been proved. The assertion that "experience indicates that a significant subset of contributors are turned off by the presence of such ... pages and will avoid working on indexes where they are present" has not been proved. Xover is not a significant subset of contributors. The OCR of the other volumes is generally almost perfect. The creation of pages for this particular volume appears to have been a mistake. If and when others wish, I can start correcting the pages in this particular volume. If others wish to replace the existing OCR with new OCR, I will have to wait until they have done that. James500 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @James500: How about we just delete the Page: pages for this index and then you can recreate them as and when you have time and inclination to work on it? Xover (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I assume that the proofread pages (title and 472) should be kept. I assume that other pages that have corrected should be kept (including 473, 479 and the Notice). I assume that the blank pages should be kept. I have no opinion about the pages whose OCR reads like gibberish. If other editors wish to "run the bot over these pages using the new, higher-quality OCR" or wish for the pages to be "be migrated, or regenerated", I will abstain from !voting either for or against that. James500 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  You assume correctly, and I apologise for not being more precise: I was suggesting deleting only the pages of status "Not proofread" which contain "gibberish". Empty pages marked "Empty" are, strictly speaking, finished pages; and "Not proofread" pages that are in the process of being improved (which I see SF00 has started in on subsequent to the nomination; thanks for the headsup!) I generally wouldn't want to interfere with. Xover (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn The pages can be migrated , or regenerated. There is a request for page migration at WS:AN. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Constitution of Greece (1973)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope: a conflated text from multiple sources that reflects no actual published work.

Compilation of most text from one source (but not all, some parts, e.g. article 128 of the original document, were left out) and contributor's own translation of amendments from another source. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. If the compilation is greatly opposed, the new additions can be moved to an annotated sub-page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1952)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope: text is conflated from multiple sources and represents no actually published work.

A Wikisource user's own compilation of the text from Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1948) with separately published amendments. See also related discussion at User talk:195.74.82.149 and at User talk:Zezingr. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The text, while produced by a compilation, is not itself a compilation, as “Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1952)” is a real work, even though our copy is produced by combining two separate works. As PDF scans of the relevant United Nations documents are provided, it would be useful to scan-back these “compiled” constitutions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am afraid that producing new copies by combining two separate works is exactly what Wikisource should not and does not do. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and being out of scope it is even speedyable. If an actual published "Constitution of the Republic of Korea with all amendments as of 1952" should show up somewhere it would certainly be addable, but this user-compiled conflated edition is still out of scope. If anyone wants the text for a practical purpose (like a starting point for proofreading any of the source texts) they can have a copy in their user space (or it can be temporarily undeleted on demand by any admin).

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: By all evidence, your hypothetical 1952 edition exists only as an abstract legal concept and not as a tangible published text. We can host the individual components (the base text and each of the amendments), but not a user-compiled amalgam that doesn't exist outside Wikisource. Xover (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Xover: I do not doubt, although I of course do not have any evidence on hand, that a “Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1952)” was published, although in Korean only. The translations are of the original Constitution, and of the articles as they were amended in 1952. It is just that the United Nations publication on hand did not see fit to reprint the entire Constitution, when only some of its articles were amended. I had trouble finding the specific policy, but I do not think that it would be improper to host a legal document which was real, for which we have a complete translation, even if the translation was published in multiple, separated parts. I don’t think that such a “compilation” was considered when compilations were first prohibited, as, in the case of such legal texts, there is no guessing or new material on the part of the compiling user, as the modified articles are all listed in the translations. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

    Well, even if it were published in Korean (which we do not know), it is of no use for en.ws. If the UN did not see fit to reprint the entire Constitution in English (and neither anybody else did) we have nothing to share here, except the individual separate texts. You say that you want to host a real legal document, but we do not have such a document to host. It is a big difference if a work is published "in parts" or if they are two separate works (which they are: the texts were written and adopted in different years by different people, and also the translations were done by different translators, though anonymous), and nobody ever tried to publish them together in English.

    As for the policy, see WS:WWI:

    a) Its lead reads: Wikisource, as the free library that anyone can improve, exists to archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history, and to present these publications in a faithful wiki version…

    b) Section WS:What Wikisource includes#Evolving works reads: Wikisource's mission is to collect and preserve works in their published form. In light of this, works whose content is expected to constantly change over time (my note: like Constitution which is being amended), for the purpose of keeping the work updated (…) are excluded from Wikisource's scope. A few examples include:

    1. …
    2. Compilations where there are many sources of a particular text (…)

    --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Going Down The Road Feelin' Bad

The following discussion is closed:

Content migrated to w:Going Down the Road Feeling Bad and deleted here as out of scope.

Resembles a Wikipedia article more than a Wikisource document, as it was also noted by a reader at its talk page. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please make sure to copy all the detail from that page onto w:Talk:Going_Down_the_Road_Feeling_Bad -- there's no reason to make it visible only on admins, even if it does seem kinda inappropriate for Wikisource as it stands. JesseW (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Delete and transfer the current contents to Wikipedia. — What a coincidence! I am the reader who posted on the talk page a year and a half ago. Time has only increased my confidence in this conclusion. Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Author:Reza Torkzadeh

The following discussion is closed:

In almost two months, no evidence has been given by the creator of this author page that any works by this author are freely licensed. Deleted.

A modern author, whose three books mentioned on this author page are claimed to be "released by him into the public domain worldwide". I don't see any evidence, upon some Google research, that they are freely licensed at all, much less in the public domain. All of these recent edits related to this lawyer (on Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikiquote, and Wikisource at least) also seem to be promotional in nature, as they're targeted and specific to this lawyer. @Andilockwood: Please note that all works that are contributed to Wikisource must follow Wikisource:Copyright policy, and author pages should usually not be made for authors with no works that are freely licensed. The books would be acceptable if they really are in the public domain, though, because any book that went through a peer review process will be, and presumably the published books of a lawyer would qualify under that standard. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Andilockwood: Are you the lawyer Reza Torkzadeh? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Andilockwood (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are two free e-books available and one that just became available and is already a bestseller on Amazon. The latest book is not free and I am not sure if it will be for awhile. https://www.amazon.com/Reza-Torkzadeh/e/B08FCQ2NBJ/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1. The newest book is: https://rezat.com/2022/01/02/book-announcement-the-lawyer-as-ceo/

The free books are available by contacting the author through: https://rezat.com/ or downloading straight from https://www.torklaw.com/resources/accidents-happen-book/

So is the new release not able to be referenced? Just the two free books?

Thank you. Andilockwood (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at this LinkedIn post and the related Amazon.com listing, the book seems to have been “released” as in “sold commercially,” not “released” into the public domain (this is for The Lawyer As CEO, which just came out about a week ago). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is true. So should I only reference the two free books then? Apologies. Andilockwood (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Andilockwood: This seems to be a gratis versus libre confusion. Mr. Torkzadeh’s Web-site refers those interested in reading Accidents Happen to https://accidentshappenbook.com/. This Web-site gives a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, but this is likely false. However, copyright exists automatically, so without an explicit dedication of the book into the public domain, it will remain copyrighted. The book is available for free on the Internet, and may be received for free on demand; these are both gratis freedoms. However, the book appears to not have been released into the public domain, which is the required libre freedom (required, as in it is required to post the books here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: PseudoSkull (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The City of Masks

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced by newly scan-backed and proofread version by Mpaa.

As above, nominated for speedy deletion by Languageseeker with a brief rationale "Secondary Transcription. Out of Scope", but I am presenting it to be discussed here first. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Available at IA so we can Match and Split [6]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Match&Split makes the transcription no less second-hand, it just moves the second-hand transcription to Page: namespace and retranscludes it. A second-hand transcription needs to be actually proofread against that scan. Match&Split can be a good start for that, especially for scans with no OCR layer, but usually is a worse starting point than the raw OCR. Unless the formatting is very complex I have pretty much stopped using Match&Split as a starting point: for the same quality end result, it is in practice much easier to start from OCR. Xover (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't look super closely at the quality of the transcription or the OCR, just mentioned that as a possibility if the transcription is of high-quality but merely missing the scans and able to be done in chunks. Proofreading from the scan is of course also possible. and can be easier. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Added at Index:The City of Masks (1918).djvu. Mpaa (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: What's your basis for calling this a second-hand transcription? It lists no source (Gutenberg or otherwise) that I can see. Xover (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Ping? Xover (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Transcluded. Mpaa (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mpaa: That is great, thanks! I have noticed that the text was added to the individual pages and tagged as proofread by Mpaabot, so may I just ask whether they were really proofread against the scans or whether the bot just took particular chunks of text from the previous copypaste and distributed them among the pages? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek it was really proofread, starting from raw OCR, not the previous text. I do it offline and then upload a set of pages at a time. Sometimes I forget to switch account in my pywikibot config file. Mpaa (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced version of a work for which we have multiple scan-backed editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Languageseeker (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Index:Newton's Principia - the mathematical principles of natural philosophy.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a duplicate of the work already fully transcribed at Index:Newton's Principia (1846).djvu Chrisguise (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity/FullText

The following discussion is closed:

already deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the transclusion of the entire work of 'A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity' in one page, but the same index page is also transcluded into individual chapters as per the published work's table of contents. This page should therefore be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reichenau Glosses

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per nom - fails WS:WWI and is also copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is not based on any published source (but I'm not an expert in the field so I could be mistaken). It looks to be copied and pasted from a website that is simply talking about the Reichenau Glosses. I was able to find good scans of the original Latin manuscripts but I couldn't find any published books in the public domain that give the English translation. --Arbitan (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Clair de Lune

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per nom; redirected to translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In the original French. frWS already has it with scans. --Arbitan (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the mainspace in Category:Project disclaimers

The following discussion is closed:

Movement completed TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Moving to project namespace, but we're going to discuss below how to do that. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this might be a hot take since these have been around a long time, but I don't think the mainspace is the appropriate place to have these disclaimers.

In December 2015, User:Library Guy moved the page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer (now a mainspace redirect, which I also disagree with) to Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Project Disclaimer with the comment "shouldn't be in main namespace". They are not works at all, nor are they actual sections of the original encyclopedias themselves, so I don't believe they belong in the mainspace.

At the very least, the mainspace project disclaimers should be moved to appropriate sections of the project namespace, without redirects being left behind. However, I think these overly specific disclaimers are probably products of another time, when Wikisource was younger and it was being used more so than to-day as an aid and supplement to Wikipedia's efforts. We also have Wikisource:General disclaimer which (at least in a broader way) covers most of the things said in these pages. I would be fine with just to delete them.

However, I'll leave the interpretation to consensus below. Should the entries be moved to other namespaces, or deleted entirely? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Also pinging @Bob Burkhardt: in case the Library Guy account won't be used a while. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thanks for pinging the other account. Maybe something like {{AuxTOC}} can be used to wrap the disclosures. I imagine the information is available elsewhere, but I think it is good idea to make the disclaimer information more immediately available for the encyclopedia projects. I've never checked the alternative disclaimers cited. They seem too obscure to me. The contents listings for the encyclopedias are also not part of the source. Something should probably be done there. Maybe just {{AuxTOC}} could work somehow. The disclaimers could be moved back to the main namespace with a wrapper of some sort since it seems tough to wrap a redirect. Seems fair to keep around the redirect though since the destination makes things clear. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bob Burkhardt: You don't think moving them to another namespace is a good idea, at least, as you've done at EB1911? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think putting the disclaimer in the project namespace is an effective solution, but you were talking about deleting the redirect, and the wrapper solution, which I have become aware of more lately, would avoid the redirect. I like the current solution better than the wrapper for the disclaimer. The wrapper solution ({{AuxTOC}}) would work better for the tables of contents. It is widely used. I will also mention the ACAB disclaimer has some things that I think are really very necessary for that work. Probably the encyclopedia disclaimers should at least refer to the General discliamer. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. These project disclaimers were added a long time ago, and are a part of the project’s set-up. While, strictly speaking, they are not neccessary, I think that, at this point, it would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them. Certainly, they should not be made now; but I do not think they should be deleted. Any move (across namespaces) would necessitate a cross-namespace redirect, owing to the age of the original name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: "It would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them." – For what reason do you say that? Age alone isn't a reason to keep—there are lots of old relics that we've deleted at WS:PD. Assuming that we delink all references to it in the mainspace (which is what I'm advocating for by the way), what harm would this do to the project itself, reading- or editing-wise? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: The “old relics” which have been deleted were entire works—although they were usually not quite so entire; this is not the case here. I oppose removing the references, as the continuity of use of them (my meaning in age here, my apologies for the confusion) would be so disrupted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: "The old relics were entire works; this is not the case here." Right, they aren't works at all, nor parts of works, in any sense. The mainspace is for works, not entire user-generated pages dedicated to explaining some bits of information about how a work ought to be used, especially when all of those notices are already fundamentally covered by WS:General disclaimer. Furthermore, the initial question I had has still not been answered. That is, why, specifically, would the removal of these disclaimers in the mainspace be so destructive to the encyclopedia projects? You even admit that "strictly speaking, they are not necessary", so if something isn't necessary, why would deleting it be so detrimental? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: They are not as a rule necessary, but these in particular have been made necessary as an exception because of their long use. No, the notices are not covered by the general disclaimer; that is why they are project-specific, and deleting them would entail recourse to the general (and thus not specifically useful) disclaimer, while losing the information of specific relevance to the articles at hand. They generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules regarding “verifiability,” “notability,” and such, I believe; such being the reason for their initial creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Wikipedians copying and referencing material that happens to be in the public domain is nothing new as you say. The entire sum of human media before 1923, and now before 1926, is a pretty wide scope of works after all, which, theoretically, we should have transcribed in its totality at Wikisource. I've seen entire plot summary sections of Wikipedia articles having been copied verbatim from public domain film magazines, for example (as of now, film magazine coverage at Wikisource is incredibly slim, however theoretically we should have them all). There are a ton of nonfiction works, encyclopedias included but also dictionaries, atlases, certain magazines, textbooks, newspapers, masters' theses, and the list goes on. Any number of these things are copied and/or used at Wikipedia all the time. Should we make mainspace disclaimers specific to these, too? How about I put a page like that in The Masses (periodical), to make sure that Wikipedians who might use it know that The Masses purposefully has a socialist slant, and that articles shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia because it's not NPOV? The encyclopedia disclaimers set a bad precedent that way, and I'm a bit worried something like that might be tried one day because of it.

And anyway, if "they generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules", that seems like a bad thing to me. Why is that our responsibility? What is done with the information in the encyclopedias at Wikipedia should by no means be our specific responsibility. We're a very different project from them, and Wikipedians can go to pages like Wikisource:For Wikipedians to get an idea of that.

Furthermore, I disagree that these disclaimer pages are useful even. Let's look at Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)/Project Disclaimer as an example. It says:

Inaccuracies: The articles of the 1921 edition of Collier's New Encyclopedia were based upon the information available to the editors and contributors at the time of their original publication in the early 20th century. Changing circumstances and more recent research may have rendered this information obsolete or revealed it to be inaccurate, especially in the areas of science, law, and ethnography. Readers should bear this in mind when using the information.

There is an entire section dedicated to this very thing covered by WS:GD, which says for example (while not with the exact wording):

[...] we cannot guarantee (in any way whatsoever) the validity of the documents found here. In particular, medical or legal texts on Wikisource may be incorrect or out of date. We suggest contacting a qualified professional for such information.

The next section:

Transcription errors: These articles are transcribed from the originals by volunteers, sometimes directly and sometimes by correcting a preliminary OCR conversion. While we strive for perfect accuracy, there may be transcription errors in the articles.

What WS:GD says about the same thing (although the wording isn't very specific so it's easy to misconstrue):

[...] material found here may not be reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the particular areas of expertise necessary to ensure the accuracy of the texts.

So we can take out those bits because they aren't necessary for an entire separate page. What we're left with is the very first paragraph, which states:

Title usage: Use of the titles Collier's New Encyclopedia or Collier's Encyclopedia is strictly to acknowledge titles used to refer to the edition of 1921 which has gone into the public domain in the United States due to the expiration of its copyright there. Any reference to this material should explicitly note the original date of publication.

Trademark law is not mentioned in the general disclaimer. However, at this point all we have is a paragraph, which is enough for just being in the notes section on the header of the encyclopedia work.

However, even this trademark law bit could be mentioned in the general disclaimer, but isn't for some reason. Really, any number of works hosted at Wikisource are probably still protected by trademark in some jurisdictions, and we really shouldn't leave a disclaimer about it on every work that applies to. We should probably mention, in the general disclaimer, that the use of the titles of some works, or the identities of the characters in them, may violate trademark laws in some jurisdictions which is unrelated to copyright.

I'd like to end the post by saying that I think much the material in these project disclaimers could be either included or made more specific in the WS:General disclaimer. I don't like how vague the general disclaimer currently is on many issues, so it certainly could be improved. However, the issues with the general disclaimer does not necessitate the existence of a specific project disclaimer page, in the mainspace of all places, for every single encyclopedia we have that I know of. I think the improvement of our general disclaimer should be discussed by the way (probably separately to this discussion). PseudoSkull (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: Many encyclopedias (e.g., EB, EA) are still covered by trademark law, but most (if not effectively all) books are not. My response to your (rhetorical?) question about The Masses is the following: No, it should not have a disclaimer, because no new disclaimers should be made. The maintenance (read: non-deletion) of these project disclaimers harks back to when Wikipedia copied at large from the old encyclopedias, and they noted them back to Wikisource. The disclaimers were added to the projects at the time to facilitate this, and thus, to maintain this ad-hoc “backwards compatibility,” they should be kept. I disagree with your interpretation above: the Collier’s disclaimer is more specific than the general disclaimer, and thus is useful. (This is the case with other project disclaimers, as well.) I also believe that the general disclaimer is perfectly functional in its current state: being a general disclaimer, it doesn’t need excruciating detail. I agree regarding the general disclaimer discussion; for another time, perhaps. (As for the old film magazines, they are quite interesting, but with so many images, it is a daunting prospect.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There have apparently been incidents regarding the use of the Sherlock Holmes character in newer works, as policed by the Doyle estate. However I'll digress on everything else, for the sake of further community input on this issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, but Sherlock Holmes is not title, but character; for titles, there are but few trademarks, though for characters, there are many more. (I am reminded of “Herlock Sholmes,” though from whence I know not.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the issues around Sherlock Holmes are around copyright because some works are in and some works are not, with the claim that derivative works are derivative of those works still in copyright, the trademark in terms of print [was abandonded]. Tarzan on the other hand has had court cases around the character and is a live trademark. Winnie-the-Pooh and Steamboat Willie will be other interesting cases of this. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: It'd be a shame if Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright proper in the UK. In the US, the original being public domain would allow for derivative works of that original interpretation to therefore be allowed, not counting in the possible exception of a trademark still being in effect. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: The claim of the Doyle Estate was that while Sherlock Holmes as a character is in the PD as represented in the PD works, Sherlock Holmes as a character is not in the PD as represented in the still copyrighted works. Specifically, they talk about Holmes showing emotion, respect for women etc. as a development in the later works and still copyrighted. This particular issue will go mostly away, thankfully, come January when the next batch of stories enter the PD, but the main legal question is what counts as "original interpretation" of the character and what is still copyrighted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support moving these to WS namespace. Neutral regarding actually deleting them (at least within the scope of the current discussion) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• delete Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support moving to WS project space and then either linking from main or transcluding to main in some sort of default collapsed wrapper. I prefer linking as trascluding is similar to transcluding page transcriptions but either way the data would remain easily accessible from main while still moving it technically out of main. —Uzume (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete, expand the general disclaimer slightly if need be, and link that instead (if a link to a disclaimer is still desired). Initially, I was going to vote "delete any generic disclaimers and replace them with a link to the general disclaimer", but I've checked the Category:Project disclaimers and it seems they're all on encyclopedias, all basically generic, and all basically the same. Dingolover6969 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so this vote has been in effect for nearly a year (has it really been that long???), and the discussion has led to 1 vote to fully keep (and that vote even seemed to sympathize with the movers when analyzed closely), 3 votes to move to the project namespace, and 4 votes to fully delete. It seems the general consensus is that having these disclaimers in their current state is not a good thing, but that the decision of what to do with this content is split effectively in half between the "deleters" and "movers". As the person closing this vote, due to the circumstances, I am going to close the vote and move all items to the project namespace, with redirects. I even personally think (though I'd prefer full deletion) that this is a reasonable enough solution, and gets these out of the mainspace.

But here's the thing—a way to move the items has not been so much talked about. I have looked through Category:Project disclaimers, and I have noticed that several encyclopedias in that category do not have WikiProjects for them, where most of the project disclaimers that are already in the project namespace as it is are in WikiProject subpages. Some examples are that there is no WikiProject Domestic Encyclopædia, no WikiProject American Medical Biographies, etc. This presents a bit of a problem.

So, I propose that we create a new Wikisource:Project disclaimers page, to explain the situation behind the encyclopedia disclaimers and such, and then move the disclaimers themselves into subpages of Wikisource:Project disclaimers. I will explicitly write on the page that new project disclaimers are not to be created in the future, but that this is an archive of older ones. Does this sound like a good enough way to move these pages? @Bob Burkhardt, @Library Guy, @Uzume, @Beleg Tâl, @TE(æ)A,ea.: PseudoSkull (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: That sounds good to me, although methinks, I would just use Project:Disclaimer (where a description of what Wikisource project disclaimers are and why, etc.) as the base page. —Uzume (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Project:Disclaimer is too easily misconstrued with things like Project:General disclaimer. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: How we doing on this? Xover (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: Done. Thanks for reminding me on this. I have created Wikisource:Project disclaimers, and moved every disclaimer to a subpage of that page. I also deleted the Category:Project disclaimers category itself because there's no need to have a category that is only represented by subpages of the same page; there are other straightforward ways those can be sorted. There were even some erroneous entries in the category due to transclusion of disclaimers on main WikiProject pages. I'll work on standardizing the headers in the Project disclaimers subpages soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Edwin Drood - Unsourced version.

The following discussion is closed:

Pages kept for history TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

These are unsourced, and we already have a scan backed version linked using standard chapter naming conventions from the root page.

• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter I
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter II
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter III
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter IV
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter IX
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter V
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter VI
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter VII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter VIII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter X
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XI
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XIII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XIV
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XIX
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XV
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XVI
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XVII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XVIII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XX
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XXI
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XXII
• The Mystery of Edwin Drood/Chapter XXIII

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• As the originals of the chapters in this work, they should be converted into redirection pages to the now-current chapters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, preserving history. Mpaa (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The American in Holland

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A scan is available here IA if someone wants to match and split the current text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Ingram)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• If you look at the discussion page, the source is identified and linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @EncycloPetey The discussion pages lists at least 5 different sources of which one is still under copyright. The question is which one of these five is the source? Languageseeker (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That is noted and explained in the Notes on the main page of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @EncycloPetey So the 1912 text mentioned in header is actually a 2003 transcription of the 1912 work that has a copyright of 2003 and is for personal use only. Does that matter? Languageseeker (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • So you agree that this has a source, even though the deletion rationale you gave was that it is "unsourced"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • @EncycloPetey Yes, I was wrong about the unsourced part. Mea Culpa. I went too fast on these. Despite this, it's still only a small fragment of a work that is over 400 pages long. Languageseeker (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Not a full work, but non-scan backed excerpt that was abandoned ages ago. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Myths and Tales from the San Carlos Apache

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as it "does not meet the standards of WS:WWI: It is a second-hand transcription; it lacks key content in the portions that have been included; and it is a partial work. Most significantly, it is a scholarly work which has had all the footnotes stripped from it."

This is an unsourced, incomplete work that is over a decade old. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The source is a defunct website. There is absolutely no way to assess where the text came from or to continue the work without finding a scan. Languageseeker (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: The Web-site is archived, and the archive contains the relevant text. Even if that were not the case, the singular priting is available here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete The text is incomplete and the original source no longer exists. The alternative source linked in the above discussion shows a document that differs markedly from what we currently have. If someone sets up an Index page and begins transcription, they can do so at this title, but the current content does not meet the standards of WS:WWI: It is a second-hand transcription; it lacks key content in the portions that have been included; and it is a partial work. Most significantly, it is a scholarly work which has had all the footnotes stripped from it. Academic citations are a central component of any scholarly work. Even if the rest of the text were pulled from the Archive of the web site, it is still a second-hand transcription, and lacks key content of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe to the Ocean

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. There was no support expressed for the proposal (though the participants only attacked the proposal's rationale, rather than present individual arguments for the text).

This is an unsourced, incomplete work. Languageseeker (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion rationale is not truthful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is not an “incomplete” work, per se. It is an excerpt from “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,” although one that has historically been considered a separate work, as published under the title of “Address to the Ocean.” My !vote stands as to the stated rationale. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not see anything in the 1818 publication referencing that name: (external scan), need to find an example when it was published under that name independently, the first I found is (external scan) ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of the Sexual Impulse

The following discussion is closed:

Despite being an excerpt consisting of only the preface(s) and first chapter of a ~600 page work (which is itself merely one volume of a 7-volume magnum opus), there was no support expressed for the proposal. One participant dismissed the proposal's rationale, and one claimed the work was complete, so the (lack of) consensus is weak and the text may thus constructively be re-proposed for deletion in the future.

Unformatted, copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Work is complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The work is unformated from a PGDP text file. It is missing it's footnotes and has numerous instances of italics marked as "_sexual impulse_." Languageseeker (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Languageseeker: The underscores can be replaced easily; I do not see how this problem justifies deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @TE(æ)A,ea. If it were just the italics, I could see how that could be fixed by a bot, but the references would need to be added manually. They're more or less mixed into the text. IMHO, it would take quite a bit of work to finish this text and it seems better to be done on a scan than this. Languageseeker (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have reformatted the work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundant license layout templates

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; use {{license}}

• {{CC-Layout}}
• {{Copyrighted-Layout}}
• {{PD-Layout}}

Unused and superseded by {{license}}. (See also the discussion from 2007.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:WebArchive

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, redundant

Unused, currently broken, template using a MediaWiki extension that is deprecated and will not be supported going forward. Xover (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this has never worked because the extension in question has never been deployed on WMF wikis that I can tell (and now will explicitly never be). --Xover (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a good catch and well researched, I support deletion. -Pete (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What Is to Be Done? (Lenin, unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

incomplete work, unsourced, not progress

This is partial version from the Marxist Internet Archive. A complete scan-backed copy is available here. Note that there are sub-pages and wikidata to sort out as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete as redundant to a scan-backed version. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• The new copy hasn’t been proofread yet, so wait until that is done, at least. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ABS-CBN Shutdown Message (May 5, 2020)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; out of scope

Entirely in Filipino and no license; transwiki if otherwise in scope, then delete. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This text is almost assuredly copyrighted, and even if it isn’t, the work is quite short and available in a number of other places on the Internet. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Entomologia Systematica emendata et Aucta

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; partial non-English language work

To me this work looks incomplete, and has no ability to be complete. Not certain that it isn't just excerpts. Unsourced, and maybe not even an English-language work — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It is excerpts from a multivolume work in Scientific Latin as a taxonomy of insects. While possible to be completed from scans at BDHL and others, it ain't English.  Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. The BHL has scans of all five volumes available here; the work is in Latin. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Index:King Alfred's Old English version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, turned into modern English.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This has been declined for a speedy delete, but I fail to see how this is not a duplicate of King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies Turned Into Modern English. Languageseeker (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: The two title pages list 1902 and 1904 as the date, respectively, so they are clearly not identical. Both are scan-backed and fully proofread (though the proofreading does leave a bit to be desired, it seems: Page:King Alfred's Old English version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies - Hargrove - 1902.djvu/61). Xover (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xover I think there is some confusion because the 1902 scan actually contains actually contains two separate works: Yale Studies in English XIII (1902) and Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). The proposed deletion is for Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). So I'm asking how does the Yale Studies in English XXII (1904) differ from Yale Studies in English XXII (1904). My personal sense is that the fact that the 1902 book is bound with the 1904 work has thrown people off the scent. Languageseeker (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Subtemplates of {{user lang subcat}}

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

• {{user lang subcat/1}}
• {{user lang subcat/2}}
• {{user lang subcat/3}}
• {{user lang subcat/4}}
• {{user lang subcat/N}}

I've made significant edits to {{user lang subcat}}, and its subtemplates are now just invocations of the main template. I've removed all uses of the subtemplates, and I think it would be good to delete them so as to avoid unnecessary maintenance. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1880)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This work is not backed by a scanned source, the text contains numerous OCR artefacts, and there are clear instances where text is missing. These defects cannot be rectified because there is no indication of the original source (there is no front matter). There is a scan backed version of the work at Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1920), so this work should be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. I added links to 1880 scans from the British Library on the author page if someone wants to create the index files to start a new proofreading effort from scratch. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep and replace with scans per the links added by MarkLSteadman. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators

The following discussion is closed:

kept; replicates other wikis identifying admins typically available for help, appropriately categorised

I came across this while browsing the Category:Wikipedia content category, but it just seems to be a list of administrators on another project, rather than content? Is this actually useful at all here, given that having Wikipedia admin access doesn't confer any extra access rights here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment This category is automatically added by {{User Wikipedia administrator}}, so deleting the category would mean nothing unless the template were also altered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Keep — Having Wikipedia access rights can be useful here in cases where something would need to be done at Wikipedia in relation to a problem at Wikisource, so being able to browse this category is useful in that way. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unused toc templates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

A cluster of now-unused toc templates (several of whom have been broken a long time):

• {{Cl-act-TOC-h0}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-h1}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-h2}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-h3}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-s1}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-s1/2}}
• {{Cl-act-TOC-s2}}
• {{CTOC-title}}
• {{CTOC-content}}
• {{CTOC-content-nl}}
• {{CTOC-title-nl}}
• {{End}}

These old obsolete templates tend to get found randomly by new users and then start getting cut&paste used again and again. Xover (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

:Note that {{End}} is used in {{Nixon-DD}} and related. Mpaa (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The above does not seem correct, I don't remeber how I reached that conclusion.Mpaa (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete -- thanks for working on cleaning these up. JesseW (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Index:Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 (UKPGA Eliz2-8-9-29).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an incomplete computer printout for which the original publication has been proofread and transcluded at Index:Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 (UKPGA Eliz2-8-9-29 qp).pdf Languageseeker (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Public domain guide

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom. But note that the content itself is probably useful as guidance somewhere in Wikisource: or Help:.

Pigsonthewing made this a template and it was only transcluded at Category:License templates. (I have since substituted it and reverted.) I'm not seeing any reason why this needs to exist separately: why can't it just be text at the category page? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No need to have it if it is needed only for this single purpose, but I would like to hear what Pigsonthewing thinks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (The Strand Magazine)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom, with a grace period (soft redirect) for any external linkers.

I'm putting this up for deletion because I don't think it makes sense to attempt to recreate the published collections for Sherlock Holmes because the books don't all include the same stories and the magazine had its own logic. For example, the original (The) Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1891 - 1893) ran for 26 stories in The Strand, but only 12 in the US collection. The Adventure of the Cardboard box appears in some editions of the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, but not others. I've already created Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand) to collect the individual stories published in the UK Strand. Languageseeker (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete This display in this form belongs in Author: ns, either on the page, or a subpage if preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep We have many compliations of previously published stories - some people will be looking for the books, not the individual stories. The fact that there are different versions is reason to have different pages for each. Probably it should be renamed as (George Newnes) the actual publisher. -- Beardo (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Agree with the rationale provided. It would probably be good to update the disambugation page to also include the UK edition [[7]] which is part of The Strand Library and removing this would reduce confusion between the Strand Library and "Strand Magazine" editions MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete per Languageseeker. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to the portal. This page has existed since 2009, there is no way to know what external sites or documents may have linked to it. This is one of the unusual cases where a cross-namespace redirect would be valuable. -Pete (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand Magazine)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Same logic as for The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Already added to Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand). Languageseeker (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It was my understanding that all editions of Casebook have the same stories, just slight variations in the title of the book. So your "logic" does not apply. -- Beardo (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete This is simply a constructed listing, and that can be done on the page in Author: ns.

We have allowed the construction of continued works that were serialised cross multiple volumes. This has been done, for example, with PSM articles. So I have no issue with the a work existing where it makes sense to have it as a long transclusion of all the parts, rather than simply a listing of the parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beardo I think my point is more that this is an artificial attempt to recreate a printed collection from its individual parts. Doyle did not print these as separate parts of The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. Rather, they were separate stories that were then collected into The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. Languageseeker (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker - then it wasn't the same logic.

•  Keep We have many compliations of previously published stories - some people will be looking for the books, not the individual stories. Also this is part of a structure of links which work. Probably it should be renamed as (John Murray) the actual publisher, or UK. —unsigned comment by Beardo (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2022.

  Compilations from different sources are excluded from WS by WS:What Wikisource includes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Also prevent confusion with the published book editions (which also have additional content) which we will hopefully have quickly come January when they finally enter PD. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete per Languageseeker. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete - or move to an auxiliary namespace (author or portal) as non-primary material if not covered by Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ligature Latin ff lowercase and redirects

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This template has been long deprecated and all the use cases have previously been removed. Time that we removed the template due it being deprecated. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per description of template, “legacy” uses indeed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese laws that soft redirect to Wikibooks

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

These include:

• Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals
• Act Governing the Total Number of Personnel Headcounts of Central Government Agencies
• Agricultural Production and Certification Act
• Central Regulation Standard Act
• Coast Guard Act
• Copyright Act (Republic of China)
• Criminal Code of the Republic of China
• Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China
• Red Cross Society Act of the Republic of China

WB has a user-generated annotated version of these laws I guess? But I think we should be transcribing these laws verbatim at Wikisource without annotations, so it's probably not appropriate to be redirecting there in this case.

@廣九直通車: Are you interested in Taiwanese law? These acts seem right up your alley. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, they aren't really Chinese laws, but rather Taiwanese ones (which is still officially known as the "Republic of China"). Nevertheless, as I see these enactments aren't really annotated but rather as consolidated versions copied from the Taiwanese MOJ database, they should be instead moved to here.

@Jusjih:, who imported these enactments to English Wikibooks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Chess History and Reminiscences

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Barely formatted Gutenberg copypaste. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's a scan on Google Books --Arbitan (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete - doesn't add anything except a mainspace mess. Index:Chess History and Reminiscences - Bird - 1893.pdf exists now for scan-backing. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it be easier to do a match and split? It looks like the new OCR text might be more of a pain than the Gutenberg text, just based on glancing at a few of the pages. --Arbitan (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicaraguan Biographies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Non-scanbacked version which contains a lot of additions not present in the original text. See also Talk:Nicaraguan Biographies. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that it would be easy enough to match-and-split this text against the HathiTrust scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think it would be a good idea to match and split the text with non-original additions against original scans. Starting from OCR would be better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete Languageseeker (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Unusedfiles

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer in light of objection based on the risk of false negatives.

Continuation of Files_for_speedy_deletion.
I suggest we bot-delete pages listed in Special:UnusedFiles, created by HesperianBot for {{raw page scan}}. Mpaa (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Bot deletion is a bad idea for these files, as many are linked without use, and a number have not been replaced correctly (the actual file just being hidden). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have sampled tens of them and all had replacements. The only issue I observed is that in some cases, the whole Index was moved, so a file might result unused as {{raw image}} now will use the new index name. There are some precautions/checks that might be put in place to minimize the risk of deleting something still useful.

  IMO, it is a cost/benefit trade-off. If someone wants to pass them one by one, they are welcome. Mpaa (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  • And I was the person dealing with them, and have worked on more since that discussion (with Xover deleting the files). There are enough off-cases that it would be difficult to avoid them with a general bot-deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn, apparently too hard to reduce the backlog in a safe mode, other than manually. Mpaa (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Letters to friends

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Abandoned non-scanbacked work. The given source is in fact different to our version, using e.g. diffent numbering/ordering system. See also User talk:Akoge Y#Letters to friends/7.2. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Languageseeker (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Possibly we could convert this into a portal listing the different number and ordering schemes in a table or something if someone is so inclined. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Zebra Mussel Act filibuster

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. While an excerpt of a minutes, the text is a properly separable section and published as such in the Hansard.

An excerpt from the May 6, 1991 35th Parliament, 1st Session meeting of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, added on 30 August by WanukeX. The text is presumably PD (I haven't checked the details), and though not scan-backed a link to the source is provided on the talk page. However, it is an excerpt—presumably picked because the contributor found this bit of the minutes funny (I would tend to agree)—and is thus out of scope. I am reluctant to speedy any good-faith contribution by a registered user, so I am posting it here instead. Anybody up for proofreading the whole thing so we can keep it? It's around 40 pages of boring minutes, but the funny bit is, well, funny (and probably has historical significance of some kind too) and would be worth having. Xover (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• It is “Introduction of Bill,” a section of the same, available as a properly separable part here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Good enough for me.  Keep :) Xover (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bible (Updated King James Version)

The following discussion is closed:

already deleted

This is a copy-paste from a Geocities web site (via the WayBack Machine). It's an anonymous "original" work based on the KJV, and which was only ever published on the web. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is also subject of a copyright deletion request; I ask that this discussion be held off until that discussion is closed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

God Save the Queen (lyrics)

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

Unsourced compilation of the UK version and Canadian additions, redundant to sourced versions at God Save the King. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Delete, could have sworn I'd dealt with that one already (shrug) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect. No value to the content beyond what “King” has, but the history is still valuable and the page is from 2004. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Portrait of a Lady (Project Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom

This is a PG dump from an unknown edition. There is a scan-backed edition currently available at The Portrait of a Lady (London: Macmillan & Co., 1881). Languageseeker (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a scan-backed copy of the first English edition. We just deleted a PG dump of an unknown edition that follows the New York Text. I guess we need to clarify policy around whether we delete a work if we have a scan-backed edition of a different text. Hesperian 23:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The Horror at Martin's Beach

The following discussion is closed:

Converted into redirect to the scan-backed original publication. Both main alternate titles—The Horror at Martin's Beach and The Invisible Monster—now redirect to Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 4/The Invisible Monster, and a note has been placed there briefly outlining the history.

This text lists no source and has been without a license since it was added by an IP in 2005. I have just proofread Weird Tales/Volume 2/Issue 4/The Invisible Monster, which is the first published version of "The Horror at Martin's Beach". The variant named "The Horror at Martin's Beach" wasn't published, that I've found, until 1950 in a H. P. Lovecraft collection, making the licensing of this version tricky at best. I therefore propose that we turn The Horror at Martin's Beach into a versions page listing only the Weird Tales version (i.e. we functionally delete the text, but preserve it in the revision history); and if a text of the "The Horror at Martin's Beach" version with source and compatible licensing turns up later it can be added there.

For those curious, this short story was ghost written by H. P. Lovecraft but originally published attributed to Sonia H. Greene (in Weird Tales vol. 2, iss. 4) under the title "The Invisible Monster". It is now best known as "The Horror at Martin's Beach" and is usually attributed to Lovecraft directly. What the differences between the editions is I am not aware. Xover (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I generally agree with this, given that this title is really just an alternate title. If created, there should definitely be a note on the versions page mentioning the change. Xover: To which collection do you refer? It might be free from copyright, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: The first one listed on w:The Horror at Martin's Beach. I did not perform an exhaustive search, but that was the earliest one I did find. Xover (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Xover: Looking at ISFDB (which has six(!) variant titles), the first republication was in 1949 but the first publication under the name “The Horror at Martin’s Beach” was in The Horror in the Museum and Other Revisions (1989 ed.), even though that work was first published in 1970. In any case, Something About Cats is copyrighted, and other editions are too new. Thus, I don’t think that a versions page is necessary. Both titles should redirect to the Weird Tales holding, and the header there should note the variant titles, ghostwriting, etc. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Kidnapped - Stevenson (1895)

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by proposer due to the text being scan-backed now, and no clear community consensus in the discussion.

Unsourced reprint of the scan-backed text Kidnapped - Stevenson (1887). Languageseeker (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just redirect the pages of the old version to the chapters of the new version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They're not printed from the plates, so it's not quite correct to just redirect. Languageseeker (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's unsourced with an existing scan-backed version so  Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Keep It is not unsourced. Create an Index page from the scan and set it up to be migrated. Mpaa (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Just who are you !voting should do this work? Xover (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

??? Mpaa (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just who is it you are !voting should "Create an Index page from the scan and set it up to be migrated."? Xover (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just my suggested course of action. Whoever is interested can pick it or drop it. Same as "Just redirect the pages ..." above or "rather migrate" below. Mpaa (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the "rather migrate" below (and spammed across every discussion here) is about as useful. The "just redirect" is an effective delete vote, and within the bounds of what falls under the necessary work of handling deletion discussions. But finding and checking a scan, uploading it, creating an index, match&splitting, proofreading all ~375 pages, and then re-transcluding is a "somewhat" bigger ask. Unless you're actually offering to this yourself, you're effectively voting that someone else should do all this work. Xover (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You are making your own reality. My vote was clear and I added it would be better migrate the page. As far as "who will do what", it will be who will feel like, as it is always been. Do not lecture me about what I am willing to do or not. Mpaa (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

And while you are giving such lessons, ask yourself why you deleted this: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=11120068 and look at the history of the page. Mpaa (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhm. Because it was proposed for deletion and all participating in the discussion were in favour of its deletion? As the link to the discussion that was included in the deletion log indicated? If you believe it was deleted in error then feel free to open an undeletion discussion. If you think I messed up (always a possibility) then I'd appreciate a headsup so I can fix whatever the mistake was. Xover (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can't see it by yourself, too bad. Mpaa (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You're really going to make me guess? *sigh* But, ok, provided I've guessed correctly… I've opened an undeletion discussion for it down in #Undelete Posthumous Works of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and temporarily undeleted it pending the outcome, and pinged the participants of the previous discussion. I'd give good odds the outcome will be keep, as it usually is when anyone even expresses an interest in working on a text that's been proposed for deletion, not to mention when they've actually started working on it. Much as it would have been had you noted the fact you were working on it in the original discussion at any point during the 5+ weeks it was open. And as it also would have been had you dropped a note about the issue on my talk page a week and a half ago when it was deleted, so I could have reopened the discussion and polled the participants as we usually do in these situations. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a delete outcome for a text that someone is actually working on proofreading. Xover (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Keep non scan backed is not a valid rationale, rather migrate. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn as Xover is migrating this to the scan. Languageseeker (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. As the community's !votes were all over the place, I figured scan-backing it was better than closing it as the always-undesireable "no consensus". Oh well. At least I've now read one more Stevenson that I hadn't previously, so not entirely a waste. --Xover (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII. to the Death of George II.

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

An excerpt of a three volume work. We can have the work when someone finds, uploads, and corrects it. At this time, this snippet should be culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Wage-Labor and Capital (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an unsourced version which seems to match the Lothrop translation that is scan backed here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete As above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Island Nights' Entertainments

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This is an incomplete, partial transcription from an unknown source that lacks scans and differs from the original published version where a complete, scan-backed version exists at Island nights' entertainments. Languageseeker (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Underdogs

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Not only is this a copydumped Gutenberg text with no corresponding original published edition, but the information about this translation is insufficient to confirm that it is in fact PD (Enrique Munguía Jr. died in 1940 and the date and country of publication are unspecified). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Deronda

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to scan-backed version.

Languageseeker originally speedied this, where I converted it into a {{delete}} template. The comment they left was: "scan back version complete at Daniel Deronda (First Edition). Per the notes, this does not correspond to any printed edition."

I agree with the nomination, so  Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete In case Daniel_Deronda is deleted in favor of Daniel_Deronda_(First_Edition), all the subpages https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Daniel_Deronda/Volume* should also be deleted so they're not becoming orphant. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment There is audio attached to this one, eg. file:deronda_08_eliot.ogg so I think that this needs a little ore exploration and soe decision making around whether losing the audio is an open part of the conversation. As it is a complete and long term addition, I would want to be sure that we are acting in all the right reasons and only if there is ERO value to us hosting the work.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Languageseeker, PseudoSkull, MarkLSteadman, R. J. Mathar: Does the presence of a link to a LibriVox audio performance on some of the subpages change your position on this text? I'll note that LibriVox does not actually specify which edition of the text they have used for their performance (their date for a work is usually its first publication irrespective of what edition they are reading from), and to the degree one can guess it is most likely to be the Project Gutenberg text (and is almost certainly not our text). I question whether the links are appropriate on this text, and they should certainly not be moved to our scan-backed text. --Xover (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Xover Not at all. Who knows what version of the text librevox read. For me, it just adds more confusion. Languageseeker (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • One reason to scan back these editions is that we can then spend the effort to add LibriVox recordings and significant wikidata metadata without worrying about having to delete it like we will need to do here. Still  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if the audio recording was on a scan-backed work. And it's easy to add those links. So no, not really. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the librivox website indicates that this Gutenberg text was the source for the reading. PG is the source for a lot of librivox texts, with IA as the main alternative. They have a thing against enWS because in the early days we had so little that was scan-backed. Although I read for them from our texts, I still have to provide the IA link for the proof-listener to follow. I have no opinion on the merits of this nomination. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you certain that link actually reflects the text they produced the performance from? I believe I have seen LibrVox editions where they link multiple different editions of the source work: that is, that they use these links as "here's some miscellaneous places you can find a text edition of this work." If it is the case that they use it strictly as a cite for the text they used then that at least gives better provenance, even it will usually be Gutenberg (that has its own provenance problems). Xover (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In the early days of LV there might have been some problems like that, but each work when it's being set up as a project for reading must have a single source linked with the statement "please read only from this text!", which should get around the problems with multiple editions that we're all well aware of. This applies whether it is a solo or a group project. So, I'm pretty certain that that link is the text that the reader used. It is a 2007 release, so the provenance of the PG text is another whole question. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good. That makes a lot of things much easier for LibriVox audio then. Now if only we could get LibriVox info into Wikidata so that we didn't have to manage these links locally... Xover (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semitic Languages (Eichhorn)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

This seems to be a transcription of a German text, plus an English computer translation. (The first couple sentences of the translation are "Is it not improper Semitic languages ​​for Oriental to say a Semitic dialect instead of an oriental? because Hebrew and canaanitische language was really only one language; the latter may be called the Chamische you rather because Canaan was a son of Ham.") We can transwiki the German text, but de.ws is pretty restrictive and probably wouldn't accept it. The translation is of minimal value, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Prosfilaes, Languageseeker: I have replaced the existing translation with a better one. Does this look good? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

billinghurst: Did you actually look at it or are you just deleting things en masse? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Yes I read it. The link on the work at Google Books is a German language text, so I still don't see a sourced English language work. Are you saying that you translated it? If that is the case, then we can undelete and move it to Translation: ns if it meets the criteria at WS:Translations — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hamlet (unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to multiple scan-backed texts.

Unsourced text added here in 2003, in a single paste, at which time it looked like this. The immediate source, based on the note, was Wikibooks, whose copy ended here: b:Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark and Hamlet - Dramatis Personae. That is, it was probably copied from some random web page (probably not even Gutenberg), and then reformatted a couple of times via Wikibooks before ending up here. It's had some tidying of formatting and been split into subpages since, but none of that changes the dubious provenance of the text.

Meanwhile, we have the First Folio edition (proofread, and partly validated) and a non-proofread (crappy OCR, but still) Q1 edition, with scans. Multiple transcription projects (scans+indexes) for Q2 and several scholarly editions. Including the 1917 Yale edition (part of the The Yale Shakespeare).

In other words… I think it's time for this unsourced version to go. Xover (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete As above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nomination. Thanks to all those involved in proofreading the scans for this and the other works of Shakespeare to work to bring higher quality transcriptions to these works. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hamlet (Shakespeare) to keep history. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The American (unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

A PG dump from an unknown source where a sourced version exists at The American (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907). Languageseeker (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Per The American: The sourced version is the New York Text. This PG dump was retained because it is the first American edition text. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is not as simple as "a sourced version exists". Hesperian 23:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

In general my inclination would be that if they are being kept around because they are close to some specific edition we should indicate that in the Notes / discussion of the item as well as seriously consider match-and-splitting them since presumably we are now confident of the fidelity to what is contained in the scans. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman @Hesperian I think that the problem with these ones is that we don't quite know which edition they used. This is a PG text from 1994. There is really no way to know if they used the original printing or a reprint. It's not really match-and-splittable nor can we know if it is actually corresponds to the American edition text. It's just guesswork. Languageseeker (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The biggest problem with these is that Gutenberg doesn't even specify what text they started from, and tend to silently correct spelling errors and make other "corrections". For example, while the cover and "1877" date included at Gutenberg may reflect the edition they started from, it may also be frankesteined from a completely different edition (we just don't know). The only way to actually know is to proofread the entire thing from the actual scan. At which point, why bother with the Gutenberg text at all? Xover (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete So long as we have at least one good scan-backed edition of a work, retaining unsourced texts, secondary transcriptions, incomplete texts, non-standard texts, or texts with (non-trivial) quality or formatting issues—even of a different edition—is counter to our goals. Scan-backing or the presence of a plausible assertion of an unambiguous original source (that is, a scan, or even a paper book; not some random transcription of one from a website somewhere) changes the calculus: there may be a case for removing these from mainspace (not Index:/Page:), but that will be a whole different calculus. For example, something like 9009, where there is a plausible assertion that the text was proofread from an actual and specific published edition, even if it is not actually scan-backed using PRP, would not, for me, be a candidate for deletion unless there was some other factor in play (copyvio, very poor quality, incomplete, etc.). Xover (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

On reflection I am inclined to agree with this. If this is community consensus, it should be captured in policy. Hesperian 00:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Confidence (James; Project Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

A PG dump from an unknown source where a sourced version exists at Confidence (London: Macmillan & Co., 1921). Languageseeker (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Confidence (James): The sourced version is the 31-chapter English text. This PG dump was retained because it is the 30-chapter American edition text. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is not as simple as "a sourced version exists". Hesperian 23:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per my comment in the discussion of The American (unsourced edition) above. Xover (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Reverberator (unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

A PG dump from an unknown source where a sourced version exists at The Reverberator (1 volume, American issue, London and New York, Macmillan & Co., 1888). Languageseeker (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Per The Reverberator: The sourced version is the first American edition text. This PG dump was retained because it is the "New York Text". I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is not as simple as "a sourced version exists". Hesperian 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per my comment in the discussion of The American (unsourced edition) above. Xover (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What Maisie Knew (Unsourced edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

A PG dump from an unknown source where a sourced version exists at What Maisie Knew (Chicago & New York: Herbert S. Stone & Co., 1897). Languageseeker (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Per What Maisie Knew: The sourced version is the first American edition text. This PG dump was retained because it is the "New York Text". I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is not as simple as "a sourced version exists". Hesperian 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per my comment in the discussion of The American (unsourced edition) above. Xover (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete and I don't like the fact that "unsourced" is capitalized in the title either, so if we're gonna keep it we should move it to a more standardized title. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Ambassadors (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

A PG dump from an unknown source where a sourced version exists at The Ambassadors (London: Methuen & Co., 1903). Languageseeker (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Per The Ambassadors: The sourced version is the first English edition text. This PG dump was retained because it is the "New York Text" (more or less). I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but it is not as simple as "a sourced version exists". Hesperian 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per my comment in the discussion of The American (unsourced edition) above. Xover (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ma'aruf the Cobbler and His Wife Fatimah

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump.

Unsourced copydump (which also lacks author, date, etc. and a license tag), untouched for 13 years. Xover (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is from Burton's Thousand Nights, that whole work is quite the mess. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, that is quite a mess. Xover (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete As above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nominator. Languageseeker (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The History of Music

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted old incomplete work with no clear edition information.

An old, very incomplete work (abandoned), that has no clear edition information, not backed by scan and does not have proper subpage names. The work itself is not out of scope, just the rendition that was started here. I would also note that this is going to be title that needs disambiguation as other authors have written works with the same/similar names. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is this, which has been match-and-split. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete @TE(æ)A,ea. It was not match-and-split. The text was imported from PGDP by myself. Languageseeker (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pinocchio (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to scan-backed version.

An unsourced translation that is presumed to be by Carol Della Chiesa missing all the images where two sourced, scan-backed translations exist. Languageseeker (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete but I do think that version should get scan-backed. Seems interesting and just (at least definitively) went PD this year. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Dunwich Horror/full

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

It is consensus that if there are separate pages for each section, we should also do away with these "full" versions too, right? Pretty redundant IMO. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Per nom. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Author:ArchWiki Contributors

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as cleanup after move, on author request PseudoSkull (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the Arch Wiki is edited by multiple users, this author page should be a portal. I have made the page Portal:Arch Linux Wiki. Therefore, Author:ArchWiki Contributors should be deleted. Matr1x-101 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Arch Linux Trademark Policy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope. The wikipage from which this text was copied is not a specific published edition, but a constantly evolving wikipage (albeit on with som editing restrictions and a slow rate of change), and it has no responsible publisher (there's no legal entity publishing it upon whose authority we could lean). It is thus excluded by policy from hosting on Wikisource.

Added by new editor Matr1x-101. The sole source of this text that I can make out is a projectspace page on another MediaWiki wiki called ArchWiki. According to our inclusion policy:

Wikisource's mission is to collect and preserve works in their published form. In light of this, works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope.

This basically excludes any wiki page from ever being hosted separately at Wikisource, because we don't want to devolve into becoming a Wikipedia clone or a Wikia Fandom clone, which is what precedent something like that would set. If it exists solely on another wiki, keep it on that wiki, or else we'll have to keep up to date with their edit histories with our own. That's not a good use of resources or time.

If this document existed in published book or paper form prior to its publication on ArchWiki though (which I highly doubt), my opinion on it might change.

I'm not saying a wiki like ArchWiki and its contents shouldn't be archived somewhere, like on the Internet Archive for example, but Wikisource just really isn't the place for that. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. The Trademark Policy (not necessarily the content of the Wiki) is not a “work[] whose content is expected to constantly change over time”—just like the Compendium and free licenses, they are updated from time to time, but I don’t think that such variations make the Policy a work which “constantly change[s] over time.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so it may not have been constantly updated, but it still just seems wrong to host a duplicate of what is on a wiki page, given that it could be updated, even in a minor way, at any given point by anyone who is allowed to, which would effectively invalidate the content that was previously there. Maybe there isn't direct precedent (yet) to exclude contents sourced from wiki pages, but maybe there should be. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: The only ways that we could effectively host content sourced directly from wiki pages are all very messy. One is if we had a bot that kept watch of those pages, and updated our page along with theirs. Another method would be to note the specific revision that our version was taken from, and (theoretically) make new "versions" every time there's an update. I don't think any of that is a good idea, especially when you consider that cloning content from Wiki #1 to Wiki #2 on a regular basis is pretty redundant in and of itself. If we make an exception for ArchWiki on the grounds that it isn't updated often, that gives precedent to potentially include hundreds or thousands of other similar wikis that have similar amounts of relevance to the world, so we'd have to come up with similarly unDRY and messy maintenance procedures for all those wikis. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• @PseudoSkull, @TE(æ)A,ea.: Keep I agree that any other articles from the ArchWiki should not be mirrored except this one. This is because it

a) Is in a namespace ("DeveloperWiki") that only admins can edit

b) Hasn't had major edits since 2008

c) All recent edits have only been minor (eg categorisation) and even then, the most recent minor edit was in April 2021

Matr1x-101 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete I don't see why we need to mirror other site. Out of scope. Languageseeker (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Please see my comment above. I think this is an exception as no major edits have been made since 2008, and it is in a namespace that only admins can edit. The most recent edits have been flagging the page for moving, categorisation, using a https link instead of http, etc. Matr1x-101 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Portal:Arch Linux Wiki

The above trademark policy is the only page currently being listed at this portal. Furthermore, I don't think any more pages should be transcribed from the wiki, for the reasons stated above, so this portal should also be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Languageseeker (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Civil War in France (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant to scan-backed edition.

This is a non scan backed unknown edition of Karl Marx's work with an unknown translation of Engels's introduction. Scan backed versions of the 1870 and 1871 editions without Engels's introduction as well as an american edition with notes and a full translation of Engels's introduction are now available. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Languageseeker (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward/full

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Like #The Dunwich Horror/full above, redundant to individual chapter pages. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Feels like the sdelete policy should be amended to include these. Languageseeker (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A Slip Under the Microscope

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn after changes

Non-scan backed version from an unknown edition where a complete, scan-backed version text exists. Languageseeker (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Languageseeker: I converted this to use {{versions}} because there are three scan-backed versions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. Thanks! Withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

History of the Growth of the Steam Engine.

The following discussion is closed:

All kept. There appear to be no clear case for deleting either of these, neither in arguments here nor in policy. If either of these scans have problems we can bring them up for deletion individually.

Index:A history of the growth of the steam-engine (IA cu31924031176716).pdf and Index:A history of the growth of the steam-engine (IA cu31924031176716).pdf Index:A history of the growth of the steam-engine (IA cu31924031167632).pdf, (Also Index:A history of the growth of the steam-engine (IA cu31924015355682).pdf but different edition I think.)

These appear to be duplicate editions. Which one to retain ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The index pages linked are the exact same page, as far as I can tell. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

:blush: Updated... Must have not been my day :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Comment The remaining copies are different editions of the same work, though none of them have been started, so not out of scope, though directing users to just one edition has advantages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sadak and Kalasrade (Ridley)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Incomplete work, unsourced, abandoned, and no clear evidence of proof-reading. Untouched since 2010. The work has a link to a scan of a parent worth that apparently contains this work. The work itself is not out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• In The Tales of the Genii (the linked source), it is Tale IX (p. 145), with part 2 (p. 155) and part 3 (p. 174), with plate facing page 186 and ending at p. 192. The text is in two columns. Both volumes are available on Google Books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Non-scan backed version from an unknown edition where a complete, scan-backed version text exits. Languageseeker (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Dunwich Horror

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced with redirect to scan-backed version.

Non-scan backed version from an unknown edition where a complete, scan-backed version text exists. Languageseeker (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just redirect it, as the name is generic. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea. The text and it's chapters would still need to be deleted. Languageseeker (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Tempest, To which is added…

The following discussion is closed:

Resolved by speedy.

Originally, this was the page for Index:Tempest.pdf, but I realized that it should have been "To which are added..." instead of "To which is added...". I have fixed this by creating the page The Tempest, To which are added…, and have removed all text from the old page. Hence my request for deletion. My apologies for the mistake. Packer1028 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Packer1028, you can tag this for speedy deletion as M1, process deletion—see Wikisource:Deletion policy. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae Done. Thanks for your help! Packer1028 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Mistakes happen, no apologies needed :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-60-1923

The following discussion is closed:

Speedily deleted as unneeded redirect (M2) to unused and deleted target.

I would tag it for speedy deletion as a redirect to a deleted page, but it's protected. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

General Rules of the International Working Men's Association

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This unformatted edition seems to be taken from the official version published in 1871, which is now scan backed. It has additions from the 1864 edition, and while I haven't been able to find copies of the 1867 publication or copies of The Beehive, the 1871 version corrections are reflected here. I suggest deleting this version and turning it into a redirect to the 1871 version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

PD-old-years-US/1996 sub-templates

The following discussion is closed:

deleted by Jan.Kamenicek

These templates are no longer needed now that their calling templates use Lua:

• {{PD-old-25-US}}
• {{PD-old-30-US}}
• {{PD-old-50-US}}
• {{PD-old-60-US}}
• {{PD-old-70-US}}
• {{PD-old-75-US}}
• {{PD-old-80-US}}
• {{PD-old-95-US}}
• {{PD-old-99-US}}
• {{PD-old-50-1996}}
• {{PD-old-60-1996}}
• {{PD-old-70-1996}}
• {{PD-old-75-1996}}
• {{PD-old-80-1996}}
• {{PD-old-96-1996}}
• {{PD-old-100-1996}}
• Template:PD-old/ADY/doc

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

They are definitely deprecated, and essentially they always were as they should not have been directly used. Once they are proven to be empty they can be removed. The only case that I can see that they would be retained is if we can demonstrate a long-term usage where we have historical versions of pages that would look grossly broken when viewed from a page history. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The templates are not in use, and the discussions that link to them are pretty clear even without clicking through to the templates. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

So far as I know, these were never used directly, but were implementation details of the end-user accessible templates. I.e. they should have been sub-pages of one of the real templates that used them. As such I'd say these are technically speediable once their transclusion count is zero (which I haven't checked, but presume to be so). Xover (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! I've tagged all of these templates for speedy deletion, except that {{PD-old-60-US}} is protected so I just put a note in Template:PD-old/ADY/doc. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Essays of Elia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

This work is incomplete, and has been since 2011, and is not backed-up by scans. Only three subparts to the work are present. It is not out of scope and able to be rescued with scans and effort. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bible (Mechon Mamre)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

There's a whole big to-do about this on the talk page, various community discussion archives, and even off-site. But… the long and short of it is, this is ultimately based on a 1917 publication that was transcribed by someone that deliberately introduced inaccuracies in the transcription in order to be able to claim copyright in it. The result is an incomplete and deliberately adulterated text that cannot be completed. Once the problem was discovered, "The Open Siddur Project" acquired original (unadulterated) scans from the source and completed a transcription off-site and imported it here. But instead of overwriting the adulterated text at Bible (Mechon Mamre) it was imported at Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) (complete, scan-backed, about half proofread, partially validated). I therefore propose that we delete this adulterated and incomplete text and then recreate the page as a redirect to Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917). Xover (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Index:Digesta Justyniańskie.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope.

Non english work? This appears to be Latin... Was this uploaded to be translated locally? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• This isn’t an original edition in Latin, but a copy of some secondary source; it should be deleted for that reason at least. The text itself is Ulpian’s Institutes, part of the Code of Justinian (I think). English translation exist, so there’s no outstanding need for a Wikisource translation anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete because of it being a digital edition from a secondary source. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Module:No globals

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom. @legoktm: FYI.

Deprecated and now unused module. legoktm (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete As above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete and its talk page — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:English case infobox

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Template cut&paste-imported from enWP in 2008 (and not maintained since), that has very few legitimate uses on enWS (it's inherently an annotation), and is entirely unused now I've removed the small number of incorrect uses of it (~10). But so long as it sits there users will find it an start copying it patterned on Wikipedia, and if it were to be used for a legitimate purpose it would need maintenance first (and on an ongoing basis), so I propose we delete it. If an actual need for this should show up at some point we can probably find better ways to handle it. Xover (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Firstly, this sort of annotation would belong on a talk page, rather than the works page. If we were to have these, I would prefer to see them there, and populated from WD data. In short it is never really going to happen as the amount of cases that we have are negligible to non-existent. — billinghurst sDrewth

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Aerial photographs of California

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

Does not currently contain any aerial photographs of California, and I'm not aware of any such photographs it should contain. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Module:Side box and friends

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per nom.

• Module:Side box
• Template:Side box
• Template:Font mbox
• Template:Junicode mbox

The first two are cut&paste imports from enwp by Theknightwho, used only to support the two latter, that were in turn only used to add...

...to every page in The Statutes of the Realm (whose Index styles are a problem in themselves, but I don't have the time to dig into it just now).

The font box use is inappropriate, conflicts with dynamic layouts, and probably useless anyway (nobody is going to install this font for this work, and we're not allowed to use arbitrary webfonts outside those provided specifically by the WMF for privacy reasons). Which means we have no current need for this suite of templates/modules, and they add to the maintenance burden (I noticed this issue because these templates ere blocking another maintenance task). If a legitimate use for the module appears we can import it properly (using Special:Import) instead. Xover (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Delete agreed and  Comment @Xover what are the privacy concerns WRT webfonts? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: WebFonts trigger a network request to a third-party web site (such as Google Fonts) that is not covered by the WMF Privacy Policy, and leaking information about your user agent (which can be enough to identify you individually, including location and real-world identity). We even have a case where an anonymising proxy running on Toolforge to facilitate using Google Fonts was shut down by WMF Legal because it still leaked the User-Agent header (i.e. "using Google Chrome on Windows 11 version xxx.yyy") even if everything else was stripped away and not logged. Xover (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting this, but we need some way of noting that the work is designed for use with that font. Unfortunately, this was a last resort, due to the fact that there is no proper Unicode support for certain characters in Statutes of the Realm at the moment. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A Critical Dictionary of English Literature

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Only one entry is present, and no source is given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

•  Keep (and improve): The entry is proofread and properly formatted, and linked to/from the relevant author page. The scans are available at the IA, and this is a genuine entry. It would naturally be better to import the scans, but even if that were not to happen, it's allowed to have single articles from a collective work^†, and it's allowed for things to not be scan-backed. It certainly would be beneficial to improve the top level page.
  †If this were only one chapter from a novel, or some other portion of a work that doesn't stand alone, I'd say delete. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  OK, so this is a bit of a mess. CDEL has multiple editions, each of three volumes, plus a "supplement" published after Allibone's death. I have managed to scrape up what I hope is a set of decent scans from the IA which aren't Google scans and aren't marked "missing pages" at the IA (not including the supplement): commons:Category:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature. Anyone have any ideas on which three we like best? Latest possible? All are pre-1923. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep at minimum until this discussion is concluded, as it is a prominent example in that discussion. Furthermore,  Keep for the long run per Inductiveload. I'm willing to do some of the work to get everything sorted. -Pete (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete Whilst I will agree that the work is in scope, this sole article reproduced as typed text sitting in the wilderness is not in scope. Looking forward to someone working on getting volumes of scans and coordinating the work. In the meanwhile delete, this title page and the singular article without prejudice to a proper presentation. Suggest moving the text of the single biography to the author's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Delete Per nom and Billinghurst. And as per usual little has been done to improve its state in the 2.5 years since it was proposed for deletion. --Xover (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• There are now scans at Index:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature - Volume 1 (1871).pdf, Index:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature - Volume 2 (1871).pdf and Index:A Critical Dictionary of English Literature - Volume 3 (1871).pdf. James500 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Empty year categories

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus.

• Category:13th century BCE works
• Category:1250s BCE works
• Category:1250 BCE works
• Category:18th century BCE works
• Category:1770s BCE works
• Category:1700s BCE works

These are all empty year-based categories, which could never contain valid works anyway. Speedies all challenged without ground. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Challenged without ground??? They are long standing pages, and we don't typically delete legitimate categories, especially long-standing, that was said on why.  Keep There is little value in deleting them as they can and often will be regularly recreated as they are redlinks on templates in those pages. We should be redesigning the templates and the concepts of the pages prior to jumping into deletion discussions. They are doing no harm, and they are within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• There shouldn’t be categories which are empty anyway, but these categories especially are out of scope: the Law of Æthelberht, the earliest in-scope text for an English Wikisource, is from the seventh century A.D. I plan on going through the rest of these obviously incorrect categories and correcting dates and marking works for copyright violations as I go along, so this deletion proposal also extends to those categories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Keep While the work you quote is most likely the oldest extant work in English, it is not the oldest work we host—given that we host works in translation. Code of Hammurabi, for example, is from the 1750 BCE period and I expect that at some point we will end up with other works from that time, which will belong in the categories referred to in the nomination. Thus they are not out of scope here. Please don't waste your time by adding additional year/decade/century categories to the above nomination. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Beeswaxcandle: These categories used to have that “Code,” but I removed them; that is why they are now empty. I removed those pages from these categories because the “year” parameter in the “header” template relates to publication date, and as an English Wikisource hosts only English works, and because of our focus on editions (as opposed to PG, for example), the “year” refers to the year of the publication of the edition in question—which would, of course, refer only to the translation, not a nebulous date of creation, which would make referring to editions impossible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Well then you mucked up. There should be a dab page between translations that should be catted to the actual year of the original work. — LlywelynII 13:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FT2/Pirates working page

The following discussion is closed:

blanked, see The Pirates of Penzance

Seemingly abandoned Userspace draft transcription, Original transcriber hasn't been active on English Wikisource for over a decade. If retained, is there a scanned copy of the edition to do a Match and Split against?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment if it is not problematic (has clear grounds for deletion), leave it alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Redundant, work is at The Pirates of Penzance. No reason to delete, so blanked. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Avon Fantasy Reader/Issue 11/Uncommon Castaway

The following discussion is closed:

redacted, and source file updated to remove copyright pages

According to the Galactic Central, it was first published in 1945 in Argosy which had its copyright renewed [8]. Also the transcluded pages: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and redirect: Uncommon Castaway. There are no other stories in that issue that have not been renewed unless the one already redacted. --Nonexyst ^d 10:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nonexyst: I'm having trouble parsing your meaning in the last sentence. Was it supposed to be There are no other stories in that issue that have not been renewed unless except the one already redacted.? That is, you are saying that only this one story ("Uncommon Castaway") needs to be redacted?

Provided I have that right we have a second problem in that the relevant pages also have to be removed from the PDF at Commons and placeholder pages inserted in their place. I don't have sane tools to manipulate PDF files so I can't do it (in a pinch I could maybe convert the whole thing to DjVu and manipulate it in that format).

Btw, just for future reference, copyright issues go to WS:CV rather than WS:PD. Not a big deal but that's where the copyright wonks hang out, and those are the archives that will be searched in the future when an issue crops up about this. Xover (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: Yes, I mean that Uncommon Castaway is the only story that has to be redacted. I think I will be able to handle the PDF myself with pdftk or something like this.--Nonexyst ^d 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment This has sat for six months without the copyright material being redacted from the PDF. If that material isn't redacted, we'll need to delete the entire scan to comply with copyright law. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey: I have redacted the copyright text from those pages and uploaded a new file with said redactions. The old version of the file will need to be deleted on Commons, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea.: The text layer was not redacted. Someone trying to create the page will still get the copyrighted text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst: Are you are to take care of the deletion / undelete the redacted upload process at Commons, or do I need to try to explain the situation formally over there? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Source file at Commons has had the older versions of the file deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now that a scan was created and fully transcribed in place of the previous compilation made from disparate sources.

This text has been compiled from several sources, and such compilations are excluded from Wikisource scope by WS:What Wikisource includes. Deleting the text will create space for addition of some original publication.-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don’t what the “compilation” was supposed to mean, as all three sources have the same, full text of the treaty (so far as I can see). It is not as if the “Treaty of Versailles” is a compilation of three separate works; it is one work, which has been published as a whole. Scan-backing may be performed against the copy in the United States Treaty Series/Volume 2. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The sources do not have identical texts. E.g. the given source https://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html does not have preamble and protocol, which are taken from another source. The source http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1920/1.html does not have the table with signatures which has been taken from elsewhere. Our text is a compilation, as it was also noted at its talk page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete Agree with the deletion rationale. Languageseeker (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete The text currently hosted here is clearly a compilation from three separate sources and therefore corresponding to none of them; and two of the sources are secondary transcriptions from no known original. The current wikipage(s) at Treaty of Versailles should be deleted and, once the edition of the treaty published in USSL has been proofread, replaced with a redirect to that. Once multiple editions of the treaty have been proofread, the wikipage can be turned into a versions page.
  The treaty was published in the Australian Treaty Series (1920 No. 1), as well as the United Kingdom Treaty Series (004/1919 / Cmd. 153) and United States Treaty Series (Vol. 2 p.43); and probably in the United States Statutes at Large, although I couldn't find that version just now. All of these or either of them would be acceptable here, but separately and in context (for example, in UKTS Versailles was published along with a treaty between the UK and France guaranteeing protection to the latter in the event of German aggression).
  I think it's probably necessary here to clearly distinguish between the Treaty of Versailles as a legal construct, and the various editions of the text of the Treaty of Versailles. The legal construct should ideally have an identical interpretation irrespective of text source, and can in fact deviate from the plain meaning of the text if legal interpretation says it means something else. This interpretation can change over time, and can temporarily or permanently become divergent. But in essence, this "true treaty" exists as a meta-entity in the heads of legal scholars and so forth. The text on the other hand, exists in multiple editions and variants, that are, presumably, identical in terms of the legal construct, but can differ markedly and drastically in bibliographic and historiographic terms. Mostly not in terms of the text of the treaty itself, but perhaps in formatting and layout (unless it's a facsimile) and certainly in context (what addenda and prolegomena it is published with; or perhaps even annotation and commentary inserted into the text itself). The legal construct of the treaty on enWS only corresponds with a versions page (or possibly even a Portal); but it is specific published editions of the text of the treaty that are in scope for us to host. --Xover (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Xover: The United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, because of the League of Nations; the US–Germany Peace Treaty (which was published in the Statutes) mentions that treaty and incorporates some of its provisions, but the text of the Treaty of Versailles is not to be found in U.S.Stat. I think one consideration which needs to be had here is the number of internal (and external from Wikipedia) links to this copy of the Treaty of Versailles. That is one of the main reasons I proposed keeping and backing to an existing scan: so that all of the links can stay operational. Your thoughts? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Good point. I agree it'd be best if we could have a (policy-compliant) text of the treaty here, but I don't have the capacity to fast-track a proofread just now. If somebody else wants to volunteer I'm sure nobody would object to leaving the old one up for a while.

  When replacing it we need to delete the old page and recreate it just to keep Wikidata correct (it detects deletes automatically; but if we just replace the content the Wikidata will be wrong). But that's just a technical issue. --Xover (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I've loaded a scan to Commons, and added a {{migrate to}} template. Can people who know this subject check that everything is OK, and perhaps begin transcription, if the scan is acceptable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep There is now a scan-backing Index that has been fully transcribed. I am now tidying up the work and transcluding from the scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:The four horsemen of the Apocalypse = (Los cuatro jinetes de Apocalipsis) (IA cu31924014386738).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Speedied as Redundant

Original pdf file renamed (discussion copied from Index talk:The four horsemen of the Apocalypse = (Los cuatro jinetes de Apocalipsis) (IA cu31924014386738).pdf)

This index cannot be used as is, the original file has been moved in Commons.A djvu file is also available in Commons. See Index:The four horsemen of the Apocalypse - (Los cuatro jinetes de Apocalipsis) (IA cu31924014386738).djvu. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't this index be deleted then ? -- Beardo (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedied as redundant to Index:The four horsemen of the Apocalypse - (Los cuatro jinetes de Apocalipsis) (IA cu31924014386738).djvu.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the associated Talk page was also to be deleted, which now has been done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)