Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.
Proposed deletions
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Copyright discussions. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.


Please place your request in a level 2 header at the bottom of this page.

Help:Wikilivres and Template:WikilivresEdit

I was an admin on Wikilivres and I'm very sorry that it's gone. But it is gone. It's been offline since the middle of August 2019. That's six months now. It's obviously not coming back. Keeping a load of dead links to it on Wikisource is only going to make Wikisource look bad. I think Help:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres should be deleted and all links to the defunct site should be removed. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Note There is a related discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikilivres is gone. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As I mentioned in the other discussion, my initial take is that removal of Wikilivres links cannot be reliably automated, so if we delete this template we will also have to manually go through all transclusions and manually remove them. There's around a thousand of them so a bit of work, but entirely doable. --Xover (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, also, this affects {{wikilivres page}} too. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, I propose Template:Wikilivres page for deletion too. Unfortunately, that means that all the pages on which it appears will have to be deleted as well. I understand that most of the links to Wikilivres will have to be removed by hand. I will try to help by removing as many as I can. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    We should be really careful with deleting pages with Template:Wikilivres page, because some of them may have meanwhile slipped into PD and so should be restored instead. For example The Poems of Sappho were deleted here as a copyvio and moved to Wikilivres in 2013, but now it should be in public domain, as the work was published in 1924 (see Author:Edwin Marion Cox). There can be many cases like this and other may follow in the near future too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's more complicated than that. I've checked, and our Poems of Sappho was an extract from that book, and nowhere near the complete text. It extracted the Greek text and English translations of a few poems without the text of the book that Cox wrote, leaving us with less than 2% of the actual book. So, for that work, it would be better to start from scratch with a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I agree with Poems of Sappho. However, we should be cautious before we delete all the mentioned pages and no mass delete without checking should be performed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: Just to be clear: there is no proposal here to delete any actual works. All that's proposed is to delete the (now dead) links to works on Wikilivres. The reason I caution against automation above is because the templates and links are used in very variable ways on Author: pages etc., so automated removal would be likely to leave such pages with various forms of breakage.
    Regarding undeletion: we certainly have the technical means to undelete any page we've previously deleted, and pages that were deleted only due to a now-expired copyright should be undeleted. Sadly we have no good system to track these and rely entirely on users requesting undeletion at the right --Xover (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)time.
  •   Keep for Help:Wikilivres, as an archived page tagged with the {{historical}} notice.   Delete for Template:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres page, but we should check every use of the latter for cases like Poems of Sappho and localize or delete as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


  1. at some point I will need to be undertaking maintenance to special:interwiki for both wikilivres and bibliowiki links. If we know that there is a complete collection at "WayBack machine" or close to, then we can maybe update the interwikis if it is a universal static replacement. If the stem of the urls have variance, then that will not be possible, and we will have to do a removal.
  2. If we need to kill the links interwiki links in {{header}} and {{author}}, then that just becomes a simple task of killing those visible link components s in the respective header templates, and not fussing about removing until someone is maintaining those pages. We can put tracking categories in place.
  3. If we need to kill templates in the body of works, we can just neuter the templates, and then run a bot through to remove.
  4. Don't forget to check for "bibliowiki" components as that used to be a name in the mix.
  5. We can probably look to redirect all templated links to Help:Wikilivres and add some additional information about the site's demise.
  6. Generate a list of deleted works, with the dates that they can be resurrected, and keep that list on Help:Wikilivres and tick of those as we recover them, or determine not to do so.

billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep If nothing else, mark historical. There is no value in deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Wayback Machine has not archived all pages.--Jusjih (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Jusjih. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiples of works about GranvilleEdit

The Works of the British Poets/Volume 17/Selected Poems of George Granville/Life of GranvilleEdit

We have a single piece of text that is not scan supported that is sitting on its own with little hope of having anything attached to it. The work would be in scope if we have the volume of the text, however, is not so on its own. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't need to be nominating these if they were scan-backed per WS:WWI and they had been added per our instruction. I am noting this in the nominating process. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I !vote that these be scan backed rather than deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Do you have any suggestion about how one might go about this? I've searched for this, and several of the volumes listed below, on the Internet Archive 9using their internal search tools) as well as on the web, and through my local public library. I've put a fair amount of time into it, but I've come up with nothing. I imagine any reader would have a similar experience, and would encounter similar questions ("which volume is this from? what library has it?" etc. etc.) Do you have reason to believe that scans exist for this, or any of the works listed below? Do you see some process by which a wiki volunteer could acquire those scans and upload them? And if not, what's the meaning of your vote? What should be done between now and whatever time in the future somebody finds scans? -Pete (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The scans appear to be available at Hathi. It looks like there are 15 volumes not available at the IA, including (natch) volume. I have made a list here: Talk:The Works of the British Poets. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
Thanks Inductiveload. My question for Beleg Tâl remains: what course of action do they recommend? I don't understand what this particular conditional vote is recommending, in practice. (If I could upload the work, I would, but Hathi requires a login that I don't have.) -Pete (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I am still inclined to keep what we have pending someone acquiring a scan or scanning a physical copy of the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I think we are voting about the work in its current state, not about a hypothetical state which might come to existence but also might not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George GranvilleEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another orphan page from a work where the work is not set up for others to work on it to complete. Of little value as it is. In scope if the remainder of the work was available, but an excerpt at this time. work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. The vote can be changed if scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne/The Life of G. Granville, L. LansdowneEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another snippet of a work, unsupported by scans. work Not going to be found by users, or be able to be proofread in current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Keep if scan backed; this article appears to be valuable information about Granville even if the rest of the volume has not yet been added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Needs to be scan backed and also the title page needs to be founded so that other contributors could find it and continue with the work easily. Non-scan-backed works can imo be tollerated only if they are fully transcribed and do not need attention of other contributors. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

General Dictionary/Lansdowne, George Granville, LordEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that is an excerpt of a work in its current form. Single biography as a subpage, from a larger compilation that is not grounded within the work. These works need to be scan-backed to be within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Biographia Dramatica/Granville, George, Lord LansdownEdit

Another work that is a single item as a subpage from a larger compiled work. No scan to support the text, no parent page exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Do we know which edition this is from? There was more than one edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I am also having difficulty figuring out what volume it's from. The Internet Archive has a number of volumes, but as far as I can tell (from a cursory search) none of them include this text. -Pete (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Update: See below (or the work's talk page) for a scan link. According to EncycloPetey, quality is insufficient to warrant upload here. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We still don't know which edition the current text is supposed to be from. There are scans of two different editions on IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors/Volume 4/George Granville, Lord LansdownEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another page that is sole page of a compiled work of multiple volumes. Not scan supported, and sits isolated as a subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a larger piece of illustrated text and so it would be a pity if it were not brought up to our standards, i.e. scan-backed and the work’s title page founded. So I am pinging TE(æ)A,ea as the contributor who added the chapter to notify them about this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) On more ping: TE(æ)A,ea., as I mistyped the user name before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Found a good scan, and have now migrated the transcribed words and image. Please take another look. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. LansdowneEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work that has a single component added without being scan-supported. No root page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  •   Keep; I have now uploaded the scan, and transitioned the transcription to the index pages. -Pete (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, GeorgeEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept now transcluded and within scope

Another work, same condition as above. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

General Biographical Dictionary/Volume 16/Granville, GeorgeEdit

Another work, same condition as other nominations. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response of TE(æ)A,ea. to nominationsEdit

I oppose all of Billinghurst’s nominations. The works I have collectively transcribed are (generally) from well-known biographical dictionaries of the 19th century, with some earlier entries. They are all “attached,” I may add, to George Granville’s author page, and are not thus orphaned. There are, I may suspect, many other non-scan-backed pages which are not sufficiently transcribed, (whether wanting in completion or accuracy,) and these works are, within themselves, complete. These (biographical) articles have the same standing as any article of the Dictionary of National Biography, all of which are root pages in the main namespace; I have merely placed them as sub-pages so as to identify their location. I agree with Jan Kameníček, in that these works should be fully brought on to the English Wikisource; however, I am working on abandoned indexes at the moment, and do not want to start working on such a large-scale project as any of these works would be without the support of some other members of the community. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

And that is explained that the works would be within scope if they were scan-supported. They are not nominated due to their content, it is that they are isolated works which cannot be proofread, without ability to be built to complete the work, as such the works are worse than abandoned, they cannot be continued, and that is the point of why we wrote the rule as it is. They do not have the same standing as DNB for these reasons. Incomplete works that are abandoned and not scan-supported are truly problematic and we have been trying to fix this problem, not add to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The works are already proofread, and could be easily validated. The abandoned works that I am currently proofreading are left in a worse situation, as, unlike the works I have added, there is minimal relative indication of their existence, and are thus inferior to the works as they existed in their original form, (on Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust.) Your comment on the Dictionary of National Biography entries misses my point—those articles existed before the whole matter was scan-backed. As I have said, I created the articles as sub-pages so as to facilitate identification—this also allows for a more ready integration into a hypothetical scan-backed edition of any given work. Your comment on “fix[ing] this problem” is indicative of a problematic trend which causes abandoned indexes—just as the History of Delaware County, a work with little value to the project (due to its non-completion), languors in the main namespace, and, after the deletion process is completed, and the work is left with a scan, has the same value as the original, as it is still incomplete. I would glad to work with any other interested editors in completing a scan-backed version of any of the above works, but I will not work on it alone, and I would not like the work(s) to suffer in the index namespace in the same manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC).
  • The pages sit in isolation, there is no hierarchy to them beyond they sit as unconnected subpages of non-existent works at this wiki. We had a very early history of things just being dumped in place and not progressing, moribund and abandoned, not proofread, just OCR scraped and pasted, or sometimes some evidence of proofreading though no indication of any particular edition of a work. We are still tidying up these works. This is exactly why we put in place the statements about scans, why we look to have the rigor about the work we present, why we have standards to follow. The value of transcription progressing in the Page: namespace is that work can happen, and it can take as long as it needs to take to have a product worth displaying.

    To your commentary about the DNB, I know full well its history, I was there. We didn't have scans so we couldn't do it differently, and when we did gets scans, we worked to get those scans in place and to resolve the issue. And it was truly shit, and disorganised back at that time, and it was painful fixing. I don't want to have to go back to that time just because you have a supposed better idea.

    It is not our place to propagate random biographical excerpts without the ability or the wish to put in the remainder of the work or to align with the components of our consensus scope. We are not a site for clippings from this book or that book being randomly contributed, and that cannot easily be proofread or validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

    • You once again do not understand my point. The works which I have created were created as sub-pages only so as to facilitate hypothetical interconnection with a complete edition of the work and to help with identifying the original publication of the work. My reference to the Dictionary of National Biography was not to claim that not having a scan is a preferable situation, as you have presumed, but to reference the method by which the text is represented. The works I have created have already been proofread, and could be easily validated. They are not in “isolation,” as I have already said in my first response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
      Your point about DNB is not valid: there was no other option, AND there was an active project working upon it, AND at the earliest opportunity it became scan-backed. Re your claim about easy validation, I am sorry thought that is a false claim, and it has been demonstrated here for years that it rarely happens. This is why we stopped that approach, and why we say to use scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I find it difficult to know what to make of this situation; while I have read the text above, I find myself lacking basic information that would inform my vote. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you answer, in a few sentences, these questions?

  • What is the background of the pages - what process did you (and/or others) follow to bring them here?
  • When you say they have already been proofread, what are you referring to? What were they proofread against? (Maybe this is already addressed in your answer to the first question.)
  • When you say they could easily be validated, what process would I follow in order to validate them? How could I compare them to the original, published work? (I'm happy to pitch in a bit if you can give me some guidance.)
  • What is the ideal path forward for these works, in your view? What are the key things that need to happen, and how would these works look if those things happen? -Pete (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I thank you for asking these questions; I believe that they will help to alleviate some generally held confusion. Having some interest in George Granville, and noticing the references of his Dictionary of National Biography article, I proceeded to create more entries on Granville from biographical dictionaries. I worked alone in proofreading these pages. I have proofread them against on-line scans of the work, which I thought not proper to include on a sub-page; I am not wholly experienced with the specifics of metadata referencing on Wikisource. They could be validating by a comparison of the text as I have presented it against the scans by which I originally created the pages. The works could exist in two states, in my view, one which Billinghurst does not believe is viable; this was the main issue we have been discussing. I have created these pages integrated with George Granville’s author page, and with other biographical entries on Granville; I believe that these entries are complete, with the exception of the one major article I have not yet proofread, in their interconnection. The works, (i. e., the works containing the above-mentioned articles,) could also be brought to the English Wikisource as scan indexes; however, I oppose this action taken without real backing, as that could leave numerous abandoned indexes—those with only minimal work done. I hope that this response answers your questions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
Thanks for the answer, it's very helpful. I'm still a bit confused on the third question, though. Would this involve coordinating with you, as an individual, to transfer the scans? If so, I think I would lean toward delete. If the scans can be made publicly available on Commons, then they are useful not only to potential validators, but to diligent readers who may want to verify the accuracy themselves. In my view it's an important distinguishing feature of Wikisource that we make this process easy for all readers (i.e., providing scan-backed transcriptions).
I would not oppose bringing the entire indices to Wikisource, even absent a specific plan for further transcription. Simply having them set up here eases the burden on future transcribers who may wish to complete the works. However, if for some reason you really do feel it's important not to do so, another approach would be to create DJVU or PDF files only of the sections you have transcribed (i.e., the Granville sections) and upload those instead. Either of these actions (uploading the full index for each work, or uploading a subset to back the pages you have transcribed) would be sufficient for me to support keeping them. -Pete (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The only coördination that would require my involvement would be the identification of the scans. All of the above articles I have proofread against on-line scans accessed from either the Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust. I shall now look for the scans of the above works; I will include them in a further response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
      • I have moved the list below; I would like to mention that it contains hyper-links only to those volumes which contain the articles on Granville, and not of the entirety of the work, with the exception of the General Biographical Dictionary on HathiTrust. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
        • @TE(æ)A,ea.: This, above, is the crucial piece of information this discussion has been lacking. I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of bolding it, as I'd imagine others in this discussion (who may not be following this sub-thread) are likely very interested in it as well. With this information, I believe you have unlocked the possibility of a path forward in which nobody objects to keeping these works. This will still take a little work; I'm willing to do some of it. I have just now added the relevant source to the talk page of each of the works currently nominated. I will upload the The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain file, and match-and-split your contribution, to create an example of how the rest of them could be handled. If there's anything unfamiliar about what I propose, or what I do, please feel free to ask. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
We have Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries to coordinate the type of works identified. It discusses the processes that can be utilised for these sorts of works. It is why we run a bot through and apply text layers of biographical works (which we don't typically do otherwise) and put search templates onto those pages exactly to make it workable with items identifiable. See Index:The Catholic encyclopedia and its makers.djvu, Index:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 1.djvu, Index:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu +++ Some people come in and do one article and leave, whereas some do one article and stay to finish the work, or do other works.

It is expected and accepted that some works will only have one or two pages transcribed and transcluded due to personal interest. Index: pages that are not active is expected, and the community has agreed that sitting there in workspace is okay. These works are available however, and it is the community's preferred way to progress in the Index:/Page: namespaces, so please disavow yourself of the notion that it is wrong, it is completely right, not just biographical works, but all works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an important discussion.

Firstly, I'd like to thank all those who give the infrastructural support. I have hardly got involved in the index page side of things in a decade here. But that does not mean I think it trivial.

Secondly, as I move around what are now better integrated Wikimedia sites (WP, Commons, Wikisource), I'm struck by how much there is to do, how much Wikidata is prompting work (at least from me), and how easy it is to get "distracted".

So, I think there is a tension between the systematic and the more sporadic approaches. Focus is very good: systematically completing works, especially neglected reference works, gives Wikisource a USP. The expression of the tension involved I see above doesn't surprise me.

I actually found this discussion because I was looking for the New Biographical Dictionary (Rose) online, for a reference. The sort of enterprise being debated is very interesting to me. We live here with the wiki principle "you can edit" but also the verifiability principle "others should be able to check your work"; and proofing being what it is, there will be some who come down on the side of saying the latter should be in practice, not just in theory.

I hope we can come to a reasonable accommodation on such a fundamental point, which has been around since ProofReadPage came here. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets/George Granville upload:   Done scan-backed:   Done
  • A General Dictionary, volume 6 (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland, volume 4 upload:   Done scan-backed:   Done
  • The Poetical Works of the Right Hon. George Granville, Lord Lansdowne (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors (transcription project) upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
  • Biographia Dramatica, volume 1, part 1 (external scan) This is a truly terrible scan with blotched pages and washed-out text throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • General Biographical Dictionary, volume 16 (external scan)
  • The Works of the British Poets, Volume 17 (external scan)
  • A New General Biographical Dictionary/Granville, George upload:  Done scan-backed:  Done
    • I have created the index pages for all of the above works with scans; however, the other volumes of Walpole’s Catalogue have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
      • Looks great, thanks! I completed another upload, now noted above. -Pete (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        • I have finished the General Dictionary volume; the scan quality, due to the formatting, is questionable; additionally, the other volumes have not been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
          • For what it's worth, I'm aware that there are other volumes, but as in so many cases here...just because there is more possible good work to do, doesn't mean I will do it :) My goal is to bring this deletion discussion to an amicable resolution. I'm putting in work to get these works to what I believe is the "bare minimum" that will get most Wikisource users to agree that they should be kept. You, or anyone else, may build on that work at any time; I may do so myself in the future. But for now, my commitment is only to getting these works up to the point where they are substantially scan-backed, with complete volumes uploaded and index pages set up, which could support future work others may want to do. -Pete (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
            • I would be more than happy to find scans, help set them up, and even do some transcription with this work, but I still do not have an answer to my question from above: Which edition? There is more than one edition of the Biographia Dramatica that has been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
              • @EncycloPetey: The scan you found too blurry appears to have been published in 1812. Does that not answer your question? And -- thanks for the offer of assistance, more hands would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                • No, my question is From which edition was the original bit that we're trying to save taken from? (or does it matter?) And corollary to that: Is one of the editions to be preferred? Perhaps the later edition expanded the number of entries, or corrected errors? Or perhaps the later edition replaced earlier content with different content, or introduced errors? This is a work I'm not familiar with, so advice on choosing an edition would be helpful. It would be a shame to waste effort setting up a multi-volume work like this only to find after the fact that the other edition was the better choice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                  • My understanding is that TE(æ)A,ea. posted the links of the scans from which they originally transcribed, so unless I've misunderstood, the 1812 edition is the one that was used. I have no idea what edition would be preferable, though. Maybe T can shed further light on that question. -Pete (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
                    • Here are some decent scans for the work: Vol. 1, Part 1 (external scan); Vol. 1, Part 2 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan); Vol. 3 (external scan). There is also a 1782 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)), but I believe that it is inferior. As The Companion to the Play-House, there is the 1764 edition, 2 vols. (Vol. 1 (external scan); Vol. 2 (external scan)); it is also given as The Play-House Dictionary. I believe that each subsequent edition is an improved emendation; as such, the 1812 edition would be the most preferable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
                    • Having recently seen this, Halliwell’s Old English Plays declares the 1812 edition the “last and best.” It also gives the three additions as sequential improvements, as I had believed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
                      • @EncycloPetey: Any further thoughts on this? I've done all the ones I'm able to, except this one -- I've paused because you seemed interested in working on it. Is there any info just holding you back, or just competing projects? -Pete (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall votes for the above-linked worksEdit

  • For any works where the scans have been uploaded and properly linked, such as The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland/Volume 4/G. Granville, L. Lansdowne, I vote   Keep. For any others, I am declining to vote for the moment, in the hopes that more Wikisource users will pitch in to bring the scans here, now that the information is readily available. Ideally, like Beleg Tâl above, I would like to see them all brought here and properly linked, but I'm still not certain what process will make that happen. TE(æ)A,ea., are you able to help with this process? If so, I think that would be enough to change my vote to "keep" for all the pages. -Pete (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • If scans of the quality you have presented can be brought forth for all other works, I can help standardise formatting on the index pages; however, I believe that some works may not have scans of such quality. If such works can be identified, I can help bring them here; your assistance, as well, Pete, would be much appreciated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC).
        Comment The scan listed above for Biographia Dramatica is truly awful. It is unusable for our purposes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      I think it was a windfall that there was a better scan for that one work at IA. In general I think the scans you linked to are sufficient, and I'd be happy to do the work of uploading them to Commons (which essentially involves downloading the PDF, converting to DJVU, removing the Google cover page, and then uploading). If you're willing to take over after that, I'd be happy to deal with the files. While the Biographia Dramatica scan is certainly lower quality than the others, in my view it's not unusable; but I'm happy to leave that one for last, and/or skip it entirely if that's how others assess it. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      With a scan that bad the OCR will be garbage. There a paragraphs I can hardly read myself. Better to locate a good scan than attempt to work with that scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks very much for the work. I vote   Keep for all scan-backed works. The works which have not been scan backed yet can get more time and should not be deleted at this moment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment We're rapidly approaching a year on this discussion, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Can someone who is engaged with the works please summarise where we stand and what are the remaining issues? --Xover (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: The general opinion is that the works will be entirely within scope if they are proofread from a scan of the volume of the work from which they originate. This has already occurred for a number of the above works, which have been marked with {{closed}}. The works which have not yet been proofread from a scan are:
    • Upon the upload of the volumes relevant to these articles, and the proofreading therefrom of the same, the discussion should be unanimously closed as keep. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC).


Superfluous to Template:Teletype (WS:CSD G. 4). Not in heavy use, created quite recently, and more than a decade after the other template. Speedy deletion contested. It should be deprecated in favour of that template, and deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Keep It's not superfluous, as {{Teletype}} is just a span of monospace font and {{kbd}} is semantically meaningful for keyboard inputs. @TE(æ)A,ea.: why are you saying these are the same as they are not? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Replace both. I personally do not see any difference among them. When I tried them in Firefox, they both gave absolutely the same results. When I tried them in Chrome, they both did not do anything. This imo means that they are both bad if they do not work in all browsers and so they both should probably be replaced by one template that would work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: works in both browsers for me, check The Gospel of Wealthbillinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tried them both in my sandbox and still I cannot see any difference in comparison with plain text in Chrome :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: in your file, for me in both Chrome and Firefox the lines 2 and 3 look the same, and different to line 1. Working as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I see the lines 2 and 3 different from line 1 only in FF, in Chrome they are all three the same :-/ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Even if they render the same, they don't do the same thing: one has semantic value and the other doesn't. See also {{code}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A semantic difference is not sufficient for two templates where there is no visible difference; if they “render the same,” they therefore “do the same thing.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
1.) they may not render the same (e.g. CSS exists) and 2.) there are data models on a page that make semantics useful (e.g. just making text big and bold is not the same thing as having a heading that can be parsed by a search engine). Why are you opposed to proper semantics on the web? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not “opposed to proper semantics;” I merely oppose the duplication of a perfectly functional template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Then how do you propose using proper semantics with one template? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: Not sure what you mean by semantic difference. When I apply the template to a piece of text, it (quite logically) does not seem to influence its meaning (semantics), only the shape of letters, so my understanding of the term "semantics" is probably different from what you mean. So I went through the documentation of the template and unfortunately it did not explain me what makes the template useful from the semantics point of view either. Imo it should be compulsory to explain all important features of every template in its documentation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics are meaning applied to data and style is just how it looks. If two things look the same but have a different underlying structure, that is a meaningful difference. Agreed that the documentation is insufficient. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics always refers to meaning, but in certain contexts the reference has implied specificity.
In the context of a "Manual of Style" for a publisher, for example, it is implicit that the meaning we are discussing lies in distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word). These uses are all typically formatted the same, but have different meanings; and which is intended is usually inferred from context. It is our facility for language combined with our experience with these conventions that let us pick up on the relatively subtle hint that the meaning of the word "émigré" has been modified slightly in the particular instance.
However, in the context of electronic information, in general, and in web design (of which a wiki is a sub-sub-specialty) especially, when we discuss semantics it is implicit that what we're really discussing is the aspect semantic signalling (how does the information—in this case textual, but could be sound or images or …—indicate or label meaning?) and semantic extraction (how does the computer extract the meaning from the information). Computers, and software, are bone stupid in general. A computer program faced with interpreting … distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word) is only going to be able to observe that the rendered text is in italic type, and that the HTML source used the <em>émigré</em> markup, whose semantics (defined in the HTML standard) is "emphasis". All our subtle semantic hints from the "Manual of Style" example are gone.
In this particular thread we are discussing the difference in meaning, as distinct from presentation, of the different templates in a technical sense (humans infer the meaning from visual rendering and context; it's computers that need specific labelling). {{kbd}} uses <kbd>…</kbd> HTML tags under the hood, which have the defined meaning "Text entered on a keyboard" and with its example of usage a software manual needing to show an example of user input. {{teletype}} just uses a <span>…</span> with some styling to make it show in a monospaced font, so it has no semantics to a computer. There is a <tt>…</tt> element (tt=teletype here), but it has no inherent semantics: its meaning was specifically "format this the same text was formatted on a teletype display". That is, like <b>…</b> and <i>…</i> it describes how this should look rather than what this means.
"Semantic markup" is important in order to let computers treat information intelligently. For example, with correct semantic markup a computer can automatically extract a citation, or an address, or a phone number from a web page. The infoboxes used on biographical articles on Wikipedia use semantic markup that lets a search engine (like Google) show a precis of the information (occupation, date of birth and death, a portrait, etc.). Voice browsers and other accessibility aides (not just for those with a visual impairment; people with cognitive and motor impairments also benefit from these technologies) can do things like skip reading the navigation menus at the top of a web page (they are peripheral content, not the main content of the page), skip to the next section, select or copy text, or call a phone number (the contact number for the business owning the web site in question, say). Purely physical markup—of the kind that was typical in the 1990s—was hopeless for accessibility tools and there was a real risk that web technology, with all its potential for giving people with disabilities equal access to information and services, would shut out the very people that could most benefit from it. The push for semantic over physical markup (which these days is actually mandated by law in several jurisdictions!) stems from these concerns.
However, all that being said, computers have actually gotten a lot smarter since the 1990s, and are able to infer a lot more from context without explicit semantic markup. Voice browsers and other accessibility tools have learned to cope with and compensate for poor markup and other web issues. When you view the mobile version of Wikipedia, you are shown a stripped down version of the information in the lead of the article: MediaWiki (the Mobile Frontend) understands the Wikipedia conventions and strips out hatnotes, maintenance templates, the IPA pronunciation guides in parenthesis after the article title, the infobox, disambiguastion notices, etc. Some of this is marked up semantically (the infobox), but other parts are simply that MediaWiki understands Wikipedia's conventions and style manual. Articles start with a bolded word or phrase, followed optionally by a phrase in parenthesis containing vital years and pronunciation guides, and we know we can omit the parenthesised phrase the same way a human usually skips over it when reading.
At the same time, almost all the formatting we do with templates here on Wikisource is visual (aka. "physical") formatting. We don't label text as a heading, we label it as being centered ({{c}}), extra large ({{x-larger}}), and with extra inter-letter spacing ({{sp}}. This is impenetrable semantics to a computer, but perfectly clear to humans. It is also a consequence of the kind of project we are: since Wikisource reproduces old books, a physical and visual medium, we can't escape mostly physical or visual formatting. A lot of the semantics of our source works are also inconsistent, contradictory, and unclear; so we couldn't produce pure semantics if we wanted to.
In other (briefer) words, what we're discussing here isn't a simplistic right—wrong issue. It's about nuances such as whether we need to make the relevant semantic distinction, in a limited set of circumstances (only in project-space, and even then very rarely), and whether that need and its benefits outweigh the maintenance cost (small, but non-zero) and user confusion and cognitive load ("Which template should I use for this again?"), and risk of misuse (it might easily be used inappropriately in mainspace for example). The argument Billinghurst (iirc) made was that the costs of having the template outweigh the benefits, and especially because we can use the <kbd>…</kbd> HTML element directly in the few cases where we do need it. However, the opposite argument is equally valid: the cost of having the template is small; using raw HTML tags has a cost too; and having the template gives us a richer vocabulary to express meaning that is consistent with how we usually do things (just templates rather than raw HTML). --Xover (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for the detailed explanation very much, now I understand the point better. If I got it right, the Teletype template makes text look like from a typewriter, while the Kbd template makes it look the same way+carries the meaning of a text written on a keyboard. In such a case I would suggest to delete Teletype and keep Kbd, as Kbd seems to have some extra value to Teletype, while Teletype does not have any extra value to Kbd. Am I right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: That would be a valid and reasonable position to take, yes. {{teletype}} doesn't actually use it, but the <tt>…</tt> element is actually even deprecated in the latest HTML standard, which is an argument to delete {{teletype}} on its own. My problem is more that I don't see a clear use case for either variant that seems worth having two more templates sitting around. *shrug* --Xover (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I think teletype has it's occasional place when a scan has typewritten sections (e.g. Page:19521104 No187 1.jpg) or when original uses monospaced font (e.g. a software manual referring to a variable name, I don't mean we should use it for all typewritten documents). That said, teletype is a poor name and a holdover from the TT tag; I think moving it to "monospace" would be more correct and drop the "teletype"/"tt" aliases, keeping "mono" if wanted. Say what we mean: the text is formatted with font-family:monospace;, with no further semantic content. Teletype/monospace, unlike kdb, can be useful in the content spaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Sensible. I would support that. I wouldn't even object to keeping {{teletype}} as an alias (redirects are cheap), if anybody wanted that, provided everything else is clearly updated to be "monospace". --Xover (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The templates should produce “typewriter” text (e. g., this page). On any given browser, the two templates should produce an identical result; and, as Template:Teletype is older and more widely used than Template:Kbd, I believe that the latter template should be deleted in favour of the former template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: "two templates should produce an identical result" no, they shouldn't. Where are you getting this information about how browsers are supposed to style particular HTML elements? Did you also see {{Code}}? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am thinking convert to a redirect if it matches similar template names at other sites. We don't need numerous templates that just do the same thing, it confuses the punters. Convert it to a redirect as we are unlikely to have KBD for a large multiparagraph div. No need to replace it. I am happy to hear how and why the long-existing template does not meet needs. If the semantics are truly needed, they just use the tags, no requirement to template them, and little to no difference to code. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would you be applying KBD semantics to reproduced works? I hate this argument about semantics when you cannot justify a use. Then when you can just use the tags for the semantics you desire you talk about it should be in a template. This needs to be looked at holistically, and a new template that simply represents a look that is no different to another look is problematic. Please tell us how it is better, how it helps the site, and why the alternatives presented are not suitable? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
A source certainly could ask someone to perform keyboard entry--e.g. source documents for software. Even if it's not used in Main: it's very easy to imagine it being used in Wikisource: or Project: namespaces. But I think the case that it's not helpful to replace semantically meaningful differences with the same thing is pretty obvious to me: they mean different things. This is also true of typography: we wouldn't replace an endash in a source with a hyphen just because it's easier to input. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  Neutral it is not the same as {{tt}}, the semantic difference is real. That said, there are very few places it can be used to any effect, under 10 cases in all our documentation by a quick look. It's not useful in the content spaces, which have a limit on semantic content imposed by the source material.
If we keep it, I'd recommend giving the tag some CSS (a box outline is conventional) to evoke "Keyness". It's pretty pointless if it just looks like the code tag. And also say that it's only intended for the auxiliary namespaces. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think that's a poor example. The I tag doesn't have a template (actually {{italic}} does exist) because Wikicode provides the double apostrophe syntax. Which actually produces an EM tag, which is technically wrong in our content space, where we really do often mean "font-style:italic;", not just "emphasised, whatever that means, that's a problem for the browser and CSS". We just studiously ignore that uncomfortable fact because it's incredibly convenient to have the double apostrophes and we don't need EM for anything else.
  • The advantage of a template over a tag in this case (and I'm certainly not an anti-HTML crusader) is the template can invoke TemplateStyles (or just online CSS) and the tag would need an entry in the global CSS to get non default styling. As I said, this template doesn't feel useful unless it has a distinct style. But that can be done easily.
  • An argument based on the templates being the same is, IMO, ill-founded. The real question is, is it actually useful? Plenty of templates critical at other wikis aren't needed here. And certainly, I don't see it having any practical use outside of internal documentation. Maybe a software manual, but even then we follow t source formatting and I really can't see what KBD would bring to that table, since it would need to have its style overridden for the work in question. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep There are good reasons to want to highlight something as a key command, and now that the style looks different to {{tt}} and {{code}} I think this template is fine. I agree that it should probably only be used in project namespaces. —Sam Wilson 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning toward delete  Delete—I am not convinced we have any non-negligible need for this particular template, and I am currently prioritising cleaning up and pruning templates (and their associated confusion and maintenance cost) over enriching our expressive power. Willing to entertain the notion that the need for and benefit of it is greater than I currently see, but the keep arguments so far have not supported that. --Xover (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    A regular, and forever, task over the years as we have the next great idea about a need for a template that already exists. We should have a good reason for a template to exist, not just "because it can". Keep it as simple s reasonably practical has always been our goal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Landing on   Delete because in addition to the arguments above the template is also currently unused outside the template's own documentation. If we ever have an actual need to semantically indicate keyboard input we can revisit it at that time. --Xover (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1Edit

Two pages of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Upload the scan for this volume, transfer the corrected mainspace text (it is not OCR) to the page namespace, transclude and keep. Then proofread the rest of the scan and transclude that as well. James500 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    Are you offering to do this? That comes off as the imperative, which is inappropriate here. Please don't create pages in mainspace at this level of completion, especially when you leave them for a year. Nobody is under any obligation to finish any work for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I do not know how to upload the scan from Google Books. Someone would need to upload it and create the index page for me. After that, I could proofread the individual pages myself. James500 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think that your comment is incivil and unconstructive. James500 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Prosfilaes: if you do not actually intend to complete these works, as is evidenced by the fact that you have uploaded only a small number of pages, wholly without formatting, of a single volume of a larger work, you certainly have no right to demand others to complete the work for you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    My !vote was not imperative. I have not demanded anything. I have every intention of completing these works if someone will upload the scan. I stoped creating the type of pages you are nominating for deletion a long time ago. And I am getting deeply sick of being subjected to off topic personal attacks that twist my words, purport to read my mind and assume bad faith on the basis of what is, frankly, non-evidence.
    Even if you are not willing to upload the scan, it is reasonable to assume that some other editor, who is not trying to make a point, will be willing to upload the scan. James500 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    I am not here to make a point—you are, it seems, “twist[ing] my words.” If you are actually unable to upload the scans which you have given, and you do not wish to use the automatic upload tools available for that purpose, you may have requested for an administrator, or some other editor, to upload the scans in your stead. When you say “[u]pload the scan” after the deletion discussion has begun, and only now indicate an interest in completing these works, I assumed that you make this request to prevent the pages which you had created from being deleted. I find your response above, (“incivil and unconstructive,”) to be a far more hasty assumption of bad faith, on the grounds of less evidence. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
    Your assumption was a mistake. I indicated an interest in completing these works the moment I created the pages. The creation of the pages was a request for upload of the scans. Unfortunately, that request was apparently either not noticed or not understood. The words "incivil and unconstructive" are not an accusation of bad faith. James500 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    You wrote "upload the scan"; that is in the w:imperative mood. The creation of the pages was not a request for the upload of the scans; the appropriate way to do that is to request that the scans be uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    "Upload the scan" is not in the imperative mood. It is a !vote, not a command. If what you say is correct, then "keep" and "delete" would be in the imperative mood. If you do not like "upload the scan", how would you like me to phrase my !votes? The created pages had links to external scans. Adding a link to an external scan is a request for upload. There is no other reason to add such a link. What else could it mean? James500 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Adding a scan link is unlikely to be noticed by anyone, and if noticed it is almost certain to be interpreted as "Here is a convenience for some future contributor should anyone ever wish to work on this" rather than "Please help me upload this scan". Particularly in the main namespace, where, as a general rule, we do not have scan links (those should generally go on author pages). If you need assistance with some task or aspect of work on the project, the best way to request it is to ask on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.
    As for !votes in proposed deletion discussions, it will often be easiest for others to understand your meaning if you start with one of the usual !vote templates—{{vk}} and {{vd}}—as an overall position, and then elaborate or nuance your position in prose afterwards. It also happens to give admins an easy way to quickly judge overall community sentiment on a given discussion. --Xover (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    What Xover just said. It's not a request (or at least it will not be understood as a request), it's a helpful hint to future contributors and/or yourself. Uploading scans is fiddly and time-consuming, especially if you make the index page too, so it's reasonable that some people just drop a link if they don't plan to actively work on something. Also you should probably be using {{ext scan link}}, rather than raw links in square brackets, as at least it means one can find such links via Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Ext_scan_link and/or bot queries. It has semantic content: this is a link, it is external and it is a scan file. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: For reasons that I do not understand, I have found that Template:Ext scan link does not work for links to Google Books. For example {{Ext scan link|}} produces ([{{{1}}} external scan]).
    As for this work, unless someone uploads the scan for me or answers at least the following two questions, there is nothing I can do. (1) Which URL do I use to upload the scan? I suspect that might upload the web page instead of the file. (2) Do I upload the scan here or on the Commons? James500 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: There's an equals in the URL, so you have to write {{ext scan link|1=}} (the rest of the link is junk). The use of 1= is specifically documented in that template's documentation.
    For the scan, you have to upload the PDF from Google books. Find the red button that say "Ebook - Free", on the top left. Hover over it and there's a PDF link. Click that and save the PDF. The link starts Ideally, remove the first page, but I don't know if Commons still cares about that.
    Upload to Commons if it is out of copyright in both the country of origin and the US. Upload here if out of copyright only in the US, and not in the country of origin. This is a US work from before 1925, so it goes to Commons. Once it is uploaded to one of those, create the Index page here (use the same file name, but replace File: with Index:).
    The statement of "there is nothing I can do" is also misguided IMO. This is the Internet, it is made of information. For example the first hit from "how do I download books from Google Books.". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The only link that I could find is . Is that the correct URL? James500 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's asking you to enter the CAPTCHA security code to prevent automated downloads. As the instructions say: "To continue with your download, please type the characters you see below:". Enter the letters you see in the box. Then you can get the PDF. As I said, the link begins with Then you will be taken to the PDF. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Inductiveload: The file is at commons:File:The American Jurist and Law Magazine, Volume 1, 1829.pdf. My device does not have any tools with which to remove pages from pdf files. And I do not know how to do that on Commons. Shall I just create the index page? James500 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Yes, if it's an issue, it can be replaced by a blank page easily enough when needed, so as not to disrupt the pages already in place. There is a category at Commons commons:Category:Book scans with Google Books cover sheets (to remove) you can use to mark the files if you want, but I think most people don't even bother. I also created a category commons:Category:The American Jurist and Law Magazine that will allow to to see all these volumes in a single location. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    @James500: Nice job on the index and page list - page lists can be fiddly, but it looks good. I created {{American Jurist and Law Magazine volumes}} for you to put in the volumes field of the Index. You may need to adjust the file names according to how you upload them, and you can add later volumes too. I also bumped the index status to "top be proofread", since the page list is complete and the pages appear present and correct (which honestly is quite surprising from a Google scan!) and the OCR layer appears to be functional. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • James500: I have noticed the following pages, as well; you may wish to work on these.
  • My objections to the above are the same as my objections to the other pages, and they should be deleted in kind. As for the other pages, I believe that they should be deleted, because an insufficient amount of work has been done, and they remain as they were without the scan, woefully incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

James500 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

    • @User:Inductiveload: Do I use PD-old-assumed for all the above periodicals published in the UK over 120 years ago? Should I use PD-old-70 or a similar template on any of them? What about the Canadian periodical? James500 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @James500: I think PD-old-assumed will cover the non-US cases. Any jurisdictions with pma lengths other than 70 can use the "duration" parameter. You can use the PD-old-70 if you know the last author died over 70 years ago. Because these magazines have multiple authors and some parts are not under a name, the assumed template is likely to be the easier method. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @User:Inductiveload: Some periodicals are very old. If a periodical was published (for example) two hundred years ago, would it be permissible under commons' policy to infer from the date alone that the author must have died more than seventy years ago? If this method can be used, what is the latest date of publication for which it can be used? James500 (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @James500: Commons accepts 120 years since publication as a reasonable cutoff for assuming copyright has expired in the absence of specific indication to the contrary. The number is a compromise; it's possible such works may still be copyright somewhere, but almost all will not be. See c:Template:PD-old-assumed. Note in particular that that template should not be used if at all possible: this particular case probably qualifies (many authors, some not identified, not all with easily obtainable death dates, massive amount of research to determine specific terms, etc.) but you should never prefer this template to more specific ones if more specific ones are at all feasible to use. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Xover: That is not what I mean. Can I assume that it is completely impossible for a person to live for 123 years or more and apply PD-old-70 on that basis? James500 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@James500: If the date of death of an author is not known, despite having made reasonable efforts to discover it, then PD-old-assumed is appropriate. If date of death is not known then PD-old-70 can sometimes be used, but as a general rule of thumb that template should be used when the date of death is known, at least approximately. Is the issue here that you have a work published less than 120 years ago, but where you suspect the author / authors died more than 70 years ago? --Xover (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Xover: The oldest periodical listed here is from 1829 or 1830. That is 190 years. For the author to have died less than 70 years ago, he would have to have lived much longer than w:Jeanne Calment or been three years old when he wrote it. Can c:Template:PD-old-70 be placed on that one by reason of its date alone? James500 (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@James500: I would assume that would be accepted in practice; but I don't quite understand why you would want to since this would be an obvious case for PD-old-presumed. --Xover (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Xover: I do not understand. c:Template:PD-old-presumed is a redlink. James500 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@James500: But c:Template:PD-old-assumed exists. :) --Xover (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the disagreements that arise on Wikisource could be avoided if we had a bit more of a clearly-articulated shared expectation of the minimum requirements for a page. Wikipedia more or less has this, with the definition of a "stub" and the "notability" standards. On Wikisource, it seems one has to sort of feel one's way around, and wade through numerous conversations among old-timers, before one even begins to develop a theory of what the standards are. I feel it's important to address this gap, and I'd propose our energies would be better spent doing so than on debating specific deletions. -Pete (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Comment We had this conversation years ago and reached a decision ==> Main namespace is for prepared, proofread works. If you have a listing of {{small scan link}} or {{ext scan link}} then you should be curated in the author or portal namespace or wikisource:wikiprojects. We can build, construct and curate what is around and organise to put these constructs onto something appropriate. As we have proofread and transcluded works then they appear as neat and complete works that the readers want to see and can use. I pointed out all this to the contributor early on their spree to create these pages, and put in place the scans. These constructs work fine when moved to Portal: namespace, and I suggest that is what happens with this remaining list. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A Critical Dictionary of English LiteratureEdit

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. Inductiveloadtalk/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. Inductiveloadtalk/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)

Contested speedy deletionsEdit

Thank you for bringing these here, although I would have preferred you actually attended to my explanations and reconsidered your mistaken effort to break long-standing links. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As discussion on these seems to have ceased, @Xover: could you close them? JesseW (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The lack of discussion of some of these pages is due to a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@JesseW: I'm a little too backlogged to get into the complicated cases just now (trying to clear out the simpler ones first); and especially the ones where, as James500 says, there is a possibility discussion is just stalled due to the usual summer slump or similar. There are a lot of complicated proposed deletion threads open just now so it will take some time to untangle them. If anybody wants to make life easier for the admins trying to process these they can try to summarise the issue and its current status / consensus resolution, and double check that participants in the thread agree. At least for myself, trying to understand these long complicated discussions to figure out what, if anything, was agreed is the most time-consuming part of it. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You obstructed the proofreading by demanding a mass upload at the Scriptorium. James500 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've closed the four redirects (A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, The life of Mohammed) as those appeared uncontroversial (keep). The rest are not so clear-cut, and on several of them James500 has expressed an interest; and they have above indicated that the lack of further comments is due to external constraints rather than lack of further input. On several of them I would also prefer to see more community input before closing. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is that editors are being ground down by unlimited demands and walls of text. I literally cannot !vote at all in many of these nominations, let alone address the walls of text. How am I supposed to perform the mass upload that certain people have demanded, and address walls of text both here and elsewhere, and perform demands for massive proofreading and transclusion, all at the same time, in a miniscule amount of time within an unreasonably short strict deadline that is no time at all? The problem is that a perfect storm has been created. The sheer number and scale of the demands, and the refusal to allow time to carry out those demands, and the walls of text advancing every conceivable (poor) argument for the demands, has itself become an obstacle to carrying out those demands and creates a sort of catch-22 situation where the demands can never be met within the miniscule amount of time permitted. James500 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500: 2+ weeks later and I am just now getting to this comment; and the thread has been open for a month. In other words, while I understand that having pages you care about proposed for deletion can be stressful, I don't think there is much actual cause for stress here. Even were we inclined to do so, we do not have the admin capacity to close out and delete complicated cases like this quickly. Nobody actually expects you to bring all these works fully up to standards and complete while the discussion is happening, so while striving to do so is laudable, I would suggest you rather prioritise the discussions. If you feel you need more time for something, say so so that we know that is the case. We have historically left discussions open for months when needed.
    That all being said, I am having real trouble figuring out what it is you are proposing to do, and why you are rushing so to save these pages. Are you seriously planning to completely proofread all these works in the near future? That sounds like an improbably large task for a single contributor no matter how dedicated and skilled. Why is it that you cannot proofread them one at a time in the Index:/Page: namespace, and then transclude each as they get towards a more or less ready (finished) state? In the Index: and Page: namespace there is absolutely no rush and you can work at whatever order, interval, and pace suits you, and it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will propose anything for deletion (short of copyright violations). Even if the result of these current discussions are all to delete, nothing would actually be deleted in the Index: and Page: namespaces, and nothing would prevent recreating the deleted pages (if that is the most appropriate page title) once the work is actually proofread and ready for transclusion. And if something is deleted, it is always possible to request that it be undeleted: nothing is permanently lost. Is it possible that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved here?
    In short, I think you may be doing a little too much stressing and too little explaining what your plans, aims, and goals are. If we understood that better we might be able to advice better on how to achieve your goals, or at the very minimum be clear about what the points are on which we disagree. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To begin with, there is proofread text in the mainspace that needs to be migrated to the page namespace. I do not support the delete and then undelete and then re-delete approach because, to begin with, it increases the amount of effort needed to perform the transfer. I am also in real danger of losing track of what needs to be uploaded and migrated if discussions are archived. James500 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) The proposal to delete bibliographic information (such as external scan links) is even more problematic. If put into effect it would make uploading scans virtually impossible. James500 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @James500: Discussions here aren't archived until they are actually closed (the archive bot archives threads two weeks after the date in the {{section resolved}} template, which we add manually), and we normally do not formally close these threads if there is either ongoing discussions or if there is someone who needs more time to complete work related to it. If for some reason we felt a thread had to be closed in spite of there being such tasks remaining, I am sure we could temporarily move the page to a subpage in your userspace instead of deleting it right away. For example (picking a page at random) we could move Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide to User:James500/Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide until you had completed extracting what you needed from it. In situations like that you can pretty much always just say "I need more time in order to …" and we'll hold off. And as a safety-valve, if something is deleted (for whatever reason) before you'd finished we'll always be happy to temporarily undelete (unless there's copyright violation or other "hard" delete reason involved) so you can get what you need.
    Regarding bibliographic information and scan links, we're not really talking about "deleting" that; it's just that that kind of data belong on either Author: pages or Portal: pages. Any activity to remove such from wikipages in mainspace would implicitly include copying that information to an Author: or Portal: page. There may be individual exceptions for various reasons, but as a main rule of thumb this is information that we generally want to preserve. It's just a matter of where and how. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A chambermaid's diaryEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • As we are no longer using CSD to consider deleting this, M2 is irrelevant., Regarding deleting it, it has been a valid way to link to this work for over six years, plenty of time for random external sites to have linked to it. Deleting it merely breaks such links for no purpose. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    The criteria for speedy deletion are still criteria for deletion. This page, and the other redirection pages listed here, are improper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    Fair enough on the applicability of CSDs -- but M2 does not apply to these, as they are are neither new, nor have been tagged for two months. And "improper" is not an argument. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep (weak/neutral in terms of do I actually want to keep the redirect, firmer in terms of process). There's not much real harm in these redirects. This one is pretty old, so it's not impossible there are incoming links. JesseW is right that these are not speedy candidates, unless they've been soft redirects for at least two months. If you really want to delete them, that's how to do it. While I don't think we should encourage proliferation of such redirects, I'm also not overly keen to start aggressively culling the older top-level ones. Recent ones, no problem, and indeed CSD-M2 has a carve-out for such cases.
    Also let's centralise discussion of redirects on this item rather than copy-pasting to all below items? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/727-749Edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The work is scan-backed, and organised by a different system than that which was used formerly (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

I attempted to figure out the new system, and failed. Please link (here) to the new location, and I'll see if a sensible soft-redirect is feasible. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The system is being set up through alternate sub-pages of the base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • It looks like only the pages for the first two sections have been created -- so unless I've missed something (most likely!) deleting this now would simply make existing data inaccessible until the new pages are created. That seems like a bad thing. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep (for now) The content is not scan-backed yet. Not a single hymn has been proofread in that scan. I don't think G4 applies until the scan version is at least at a equal state of completion as the work it replaces. A soft-redirect to the new location of the equivalent item in the scan would be appropriate when scan-backed content is ready. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no content on this page—the hymns which are given on that page are actually taken from here, here, and here, via {{:Jesu, my God and King}} and the like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
      • That would have been useful to have been mentioned in the proposal, no? I still question the utility of storming in an deleting the old subpages before any content has been moved to the scans. I maintain that a soft redirect to the new content, when it exists, would be a way forward and will allow the issue to resolve naturally after a few months. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Until the equivalent hymns are ready in the scan-backed version, at which point these are speediable as redundant. Soft redirects are just pointless bureaucracy at that point. But I agree that putting them up for deletion before the new pages are proofread is inappropriate: hence why I didn't delete them while processing the CSD queue, and waiting would have avoided this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's close this as keep, since it is clear that they should not have been nominated when they were. JesseW (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • This page, and that following, are redundant to this page, and can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC).

A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/888-896Edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same objection. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am going to take it for granted that unless someone specifically notes any factor that is unique to this page, all the same arguments (and hence outcome) as the one above will apply. (so no need to comment further in this section) --Xover (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Auction Prices of BooksEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
moved to Portal:Auction Prices of Books as a curated construct

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

There is visible content on the page, providing a start to someone who wants to transcribe this work. What purpose is served in making that harder? JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The content on this page, (and on the other pages marked in a similar fashion below,) is available on the relevant Author: page, and it is generally held that pages with no content should not be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
    • Er, as James500 said, the links to the external scans do not seem to appear on the author page. Please be more careful to verify the facts before making such claims in the future. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content on this page is not available on the author page. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we need some clarity on policy here. This is a work that's somewhat "encyclopaedic", in that it is made up of thousands of lists of books by individual authors. So I imagine it could have some of the lists transcribed and some not and be like that for a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero actual content. It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical. Do we want:
    1. Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
    2. Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.
  • Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical (probably not here). Dumping scan-less works is not particularly helpful. It's fair to not wish to transcribe the entire work, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.
  • I'm not specifically talking about this work, mind, so the question stands even if this particular work sprouts a set of Indexes in the near future.
  • We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no content", and, furthermore, every single periodical can fall into this situation, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here.
  • If it's a periodical, I think a top-level list of as many volumes as you can figure out, ideally with dates and scan links is helpful. But creating empty volume subpages doesn't seem particular constructive. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The scan for volume 1 is at commons:File:Livingston, Auction Prices of Books, 1905, Volume 1.djvu. James500 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway GuideEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • While the current content is pretty minimal, there is significant history present, for which there is no value in hiding from future researchers. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Page has content, and does not meet "G1". Very notable publication, with an ongoing transcription project, and inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep Moved to a Portal per comments by an experienced user elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish historyEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
work not out of scope, though text on pages insubstantial for current retention

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • I don't see the value in deleting this, as it provides a link to the source to facilitate transcription, but it's trivial to re-create once more of the underlying work is transcribed, so ... go ahead. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete. There isn't enough content here and there's not sign of activity to suggest it'll improve much soon. A {{small scan link}} on the author page (it already exists) and/or Portals is conventional to indicate that an Index exists and proofreading can be undertaken. Obviously no objection to recreation with more content. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Inductiveload. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Close as delete because it's trivial to re-create when needed, and no-one has expressed support for keeping it. JesseW (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Text for proofreading at Index:Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish history.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Classical Heritage of the Middle AgesEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
deleted, actioned at later proposal

No content (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Same as Chronicles, above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transclusion now in progress. James500 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Inductiveload on Chronicles of the Picts above. That it is scan-backed does not obviate the fact it is an excerpt as it stands. If someone wants to work on it they can do so outside mainspace: then it is soon enough to transclude once actually getting a finished work is a plausible possibility. Keep in mind you can transclude to a sandbox in your user space if you want to check how it looks or similar. --Xover (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts. James500 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Recommend closing by moving it to User:James500/The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages where it can rest, harmlessly, until a full chapter is finished, at which point it can be moved back. There's no need for a deadline here. JesseW (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Portal:John BurgoyneEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
deleted via dated soft redirect and other resolution

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirection page (as it was placed within the incorrect namespace) (G. 1). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Just use the dated soft redirect process, as User:Billinghurst already had. There's no need to take up the time of this page on it. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete and if Billinghurst hadn't already slapped a soft redirect on it, I would have speedied the ordinary redirect directly. There's no real reason to keep this redirect around, so taking this detour is just pointless delay in this case. --Xover (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep We never know whether some external sites link to a page or not, and so redirects should always be kept after a page is moved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Jan. Redirects exist for a purpose, and it is unhelpful to readers to break them in this manner. G1 most certainly does not apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mutual Aid a Factor of EvolutionEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2007 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nollekens and his TimesEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2009 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


This page (and the two others given below) give the contents of the main work (War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces); as the contents were moved wholly to that page, these pages are redundant (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • OK, then redirect them. Deleting is wholly unnecessary. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete No reason for having this as a redirect; and the excerpt that's there is entirely redundant with the redirect target. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Parodies and SongsEdit

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete This is a section of the redirect target, not a standalone work. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Section of proposed redirect target, not standalone work. Improbable (and undesirable) redirect. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The life of MohammedEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

Redirection page from alternate capitalisation (M. 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Existed since 2008 -- redirects are cheap; please don't break the web. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep redirects, redirects are cheap. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


Previously declined for speedy deletion; rationale for nom was solely images, with no text; several books entirely empty; no source indicated; untouched for five years since creation.. It is clearly inappropriate as it stands but there may be other outcomes than deletion, so dropping it here for the community to decide. (dropping it here rather hastily so it isn't forgotten, so I may have something more sensible to say about it when I have time to look at it properly) --Xover (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick look makes me think maybe this could be a page (or just a category) at Commons.
As for a version we could have: maybe - it's 1991 reprint of a 1932 book that appears not to have been renewed for copyright (from an extremely cursory glance). Is that OK for copyright? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
With or without copyright notice the 1932 publication would have had to be renewed in 1959–1961, of which I can find no trace. The 1991 republication also appears to contain no or almost no new copyrightable material. So from a copyright perspective it would seem to be ok. But this is also a black and white scan of what appear to be colour maps and legends (~80 pages worth), and with some pages cut off and crooked. So we should definitely look for a better scan of this work. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't see any other obvious PD English editions available with really good images. The Stevenson translation mostly reproduces maps from Codex Ebnerianus (not the Biblical one, the other one), which is a manuscript now at the NY Public Library. There might be a proper high-res scan of that entire manuscript and we could use those? Even the very best scan of Stevenson would still be a scan of a copy. Annoyingly, I can't immediately see a source of good scans of the Codex Ebnerianus. Or find an English translation that uses maps that Commons actually has. They have quite a few though: commons:Category:Editions of Ptolemy's Geography. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates in Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templatesEdit

All of the templates in this category are pre-specified forms of {{DNB footer initials}}; preferably, the templates should be formed into one general template, in the same manner as {{Nornabr}}. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

  •   Keep It gains nothing. They are what they. Sleeping dogs! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


As best I can tell, this is an arbitrary collection of writings by Edgar Allan Poe, pasted from random and undocumented sources. It is likely that some or all of these also exist somewhere in the actual works linked on the author page, but identifying them is a challenge given how poorly they are identified here. I propose that we just delete this as a user (not previously published) selection of excerpts. --Xover (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Noticing the edit history, it seems that it always been that. Here’s what I can find:
    • The first (unlabeled) section is “Letter to B—,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 501–503. The portion provided here appears to be incomplete.
    • The section labelled “ALNWICK CASTLE, AND OTHER POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Drake—Halleck,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 326–336.
    • The section labelled “BRYANT'S POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Bryant,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–49.
    • The section labelled “EXORDIUM” is taken from a “Review of New Books,” printed in Graham’s Magazine, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 68–69.
    • The section labelled “THE AMERICAN DRAMA” is taken from “The American Drama,” printed in The American Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 117–131.
  • The sections should be moved to the pages, and Criticism redirected to Author:Edgar Allan Poe. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC).
  Keep and improve by splitting and scan-backing where possible. A good candidate for referral to a hypothetical scan-backing WikiProject IMO.
In terms of what this is, it appears to be some kind of ebook collection from the year 2000:
Also, Criticism is the title of actual books like this one by WC Brownell and PP Howe, so the mainspace page may eventually be a disambiguation. No objections to a redirect for now, but there should be a comment that that's a courtesy until such time that actual works with that title come along. If this collection fails WS:WWI, at that time it won't have an entry on the page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Indeed, it would be very nice to migrate these to scans, and if there was a WikiProject of volunteers we could ping to do that when needed. In fact, I would love nothing better! But to put this in "How sharper than a serpent's tooth" terms: meanwhile, back in the real world, I don't see anybody volunteering to do that job. And it's a big job, because tracking down scans of all these issues of periodicals is a lot of work, iff they are available at all; and periodicals are often a mess to set up indices for because you have to research the periodical itself so that further additions of issues from that periodical can slot in nicely; and because the text we have (mediated through at least two intermediary steps) is guaranteed to be subtly different from the original, making proofreading from scratch potentially easier than migrating and correcting them. I have several thousand pages worth of such "migrate to scan" tasks to do for other people's works (nevermind my own proofreading projects that I would like to get to at some point) so I'm not adding any more to my backlog unless it's something I really want to retain, and certainly not anything that's complicated by hard to come by scans and complex periodical structure. --Xover (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, Xover, a scan could be created exclusively for scan-backing these sections. In this example, all of the periodicals I referenced were found on Google Books, and I could gather hyper-links, if necessary. Proceeding in that manner seems more likely to induce more universal scan-backing of works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC).
  •   Delete Unsource. Delete it or move it to a subpage of the author. In its current form it is just silly and of no value to anyone. Rather than split it, the works could just as easily and appropriately be proper reproduced works with sources. Where is the quality control in this presentation? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oliver TwistEdit

I suggest to delete this unsourced version of Oliver Twist and replace it by a page with links to Oliver Twist, Vol. 1, Oliver Twist, Vol. 2 and Oliver Twist, Vol. 3 --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The standard method of dealing with these pages is to proofread the new edition over the old edition, and delete ({{sdelete}}) the old version once finished, like The Republic. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is exactly what I have proposed. We have a proofread edition of three parts of Oliver Twists (see the links I provided above). I suggest to delete the old unsourced version by a page linking to the three proofread parts. These parts should then be moved to its subpages. However, such a case is not mentioned among the speedy deletion criteria and so I am proposing the deletion here. Somebody might want to search for the source of the old version and keep both versions (now I see that there are some differences in the number of chapters). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    I thought those were Index: references. Certainly, I support this move. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Standard approach when you don't know it's the same edition is to move the unsourced version to XX (unsourced); and then create a versions page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    I have changed “Unsourced” to “unsourced,” Beeswaxcandle, as I believe that is the common usage; I have also seen (unsourced edition). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC).
    Do we need to have unsourced editions? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    What is wrong with unsourced editions? Can you come up with a better argument? We have the means to manage. If we see something that is an exact duplicate then we have removed them, though for something like this multi-edition work, there is not really the point. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    What's the value of unsourced editions? We can't verify that the text reflects a previously published edition, much less how accurately. We can't verify that it hasn't been altered, nor even that it is complete. And any value derived from having multiple editions of the same work depend on actually knowing with precision which edition it is from, and being able to compare the differences between them. Likewise we can't link it to wikidata because we don't know what edition it is.
    When there is no other sourced edition here there is an argument to be made for the value of having access to the text at all; but even that goes out the window when an actual sourced edition is available. For those reasons (and for various other more secondary reasons) I have arrived at the opinion that we should start to require scan backing for all new texts added, and actively work to replace existing unsourced texts with scan-backed versions. There are some common-sense exceptions for born-digital texts and such, but otherwise the only caveats are relative priority and amount of effort expended. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with Xover. Why would we recommend someone read the unsourced version instead of the sourced version? If there's a real reason, it sounds like there might be a copyrightable difference in the unsourced version, which is problematic, and in those (fairly rare) cases, we should find scans with the modernized spelling or whatever makes the unsourced version distinct. In other cases, there's no value in having the unsourced version at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    Who says recommend them? They are labelled and clearly are what they are. There is no value in adding further, but what is the value in deleting? I have no issue in pushing harder on requiring harder on source-backed works, where it is reasonable to do so. I just don't see value in deleting old, complete works. We are not stuck for space; they can be clearly identified for what they are. They identify a history of what was, and at what time, and a person's edits. There is no need for a purity and a cleansing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    The value in deleting is that Oliver Twist goes straight to the book, instead of a disambiguation page, and that no one looking for Oliver Twist has to wonder which edition to read or what the differences are between the two. They're labelled, but that label is not really clear if you're just looking to read something and don't have an understanding of the Wikisource process. Disambiguation pages may be a necessary cost, but not in this situation. Also, they're potentially problematic in a copyright sense; not a huge risk, but it's possible that editorial changes like abridgment or bowlerdization make it a new copyrighted work. I don't really see the counter balancing advantage to keeping it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe we should delete this, and replace it with a disambiguation page listing out the versions of Oliver Twist. There are also copies of Oliver Twist in the PD that are collected into one single book rather than split into volumes. The original version, which was split into volumes, should take priority over any potential others. On another note, we really really should split the chapters of each volume in our current transclusions into subpages; having each volume on one page is really excessive. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fantasia originalEdit

This work is (technically, I know) not in English, and I propose that it be migrated to Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • What language is it in? I would not consider this to be separate from the English language, as it is simply music, but if it is in a language, it should be moved to that specific language version of Wikisource. I oppose this, and would rather have the foreign text translated, and the work moved to the Translation namespace. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It is completely instrumental, it is not in any language (English or otherwise), which is why I said it should be moved the the Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      •   Delete It's in three languages: Italian, Catalan, and Music. So, from that perspective alone it belongs on Multilingual. It is unsourced, unlicensed, and uncategorised. There is no indication of instrumentation (I assume guitar). In addition, the Lilypond code obviously has errors in it (based on bars 59, 62 being cut off). However, finding those errors in the wall of uncommented, unbarred, badly laid out code would be too difficult to pursue. I would also note that IMSLP hosts two editions of this piece, including one modern reproduction. There is no need for us to host a poor derivative copy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
        • That is false: the error is in the rendering, not the code. “Music” is not a language, and, for the purposes of music, Italian is also not being used. There are some notes which are not written in the Italian; those could be translated from the original, but I do not believe such action to be necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
          • I agree with this, music notation and the fact that some music notation consists of Italian words is largely irrelevant; this is more like a book that consists of pictures only with no text (which I would also suggest to move to Multilingual). It would be good to fix it up against a scan though once it is moved. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

United States Headquarters AgreementEdit

The United States Headquarters Agreement is not formatted correctly. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)

These are two different works, though the critical text is (theoretically, at least!) the same:
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
retain as different editions/versions, hat note the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

United States Headquarters Agreement for the United NationsEdit

The United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations is not formatted correctly. It also includes the acts of the US Congress that should not be a part of the article. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, these are different works that contain the same text with different "contexts":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If Inductiveload is saying that they are different editions, then retain, and ensure that we suitably disambiguate with a {{versions}} page, and hat note each with {{other version}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

special:prefixindex/Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/Edit

These pages were all individually extracted from the work, and put at the root level. They were all marked as being from the work.

As they are they are extracts rather than standalone works. I suggest that someone gets the "Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government" or we delete the pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • A scan is available here; it appears complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC).


These additions by Leutha just seem to be ToC for a journal of some sort. There is no content, and even if there was content I suspect that it would be in Russian language. If something is being built, I would suggest that it be moved to the Portal: namespace, but I am not certain what is there that is within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • It appears that this user has added at least one section of this work, Essays in Organisation Science; I presume that this is an original translation, but I am not sure. If this is the only work which is added from Proletarskaya Kul'tura, I propose that all of the organisational structure be moved to a portal, and the main page be kept for a reference to this work, and any other individual works this user would like to add, or has already added; in addition, these works should be moved so as to be sub-pages of the main page. If the user intends to add more—perhaps all from one issue, or some number from several issues—than it would be appropriate to maintain the navigational structure without a portal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
      Comment I am comfortable with there being a parent page in the portal namespace, though I don't think that we should be having that many. There does not seem to be the need for a page in the main namespace as these will be non-English works, so anything that we do with them would be in the Translation: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Xover for informing me of this discussion. Please see Proletarskaya Kul'tura No.1, July 1918 where the writers who are out of copyright have a green background. I don't know if anyone has previously developed any conventions on this, as I find a lot of the supporting material on Wikisource quite opaque.I am not sure about Vladimir Bogushevsky, who was murdered in one of the purges, and thus the copyright situation is a bit different. Alexander Pomorsky and Maria Smith-Falkner are amongst the few contributors whose workers are still in copyright. We are probably talking about currently 2/3 to 3/4 are out of copyright, a proportion which increases year by year. Note that the transliterated title is used, some kind of in-between status, neither Russian nor English. Where there are extant translations I have been adding footnotes as on Proletarskaya Kul'tura No.15-16, April–July, 1920 as regards the John Bowlt translation. Incidentally, this translation is missing from the extensive Bogdanov and His Work by John Biggart, Georgii Gloveli and Avraham Yassour (1998). Following the 6th International Scientific and Practical Conference-Biennale "Systems Analysis in Economics" (December 2020), at which there was an important discussion of Bogdanov and Proletarskaya Kul'tura, it seems likely that we will find more volunteers particularly as there will be a conference dedicated to Bogdanov next year in Moscow. I agree that this material should be moved into translation space, and will be happy to start work on that. As regards the 120 year limit, that's not so far away, bearing in mind that Pomorsky's work will remain in copyright until 2047, barring a reduction in copyright time limits (we live in hope!).Leutha (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leutha: It would be helpful if you could describe briefly what Proletarskaya Kul'tura is, and what it is you are planning to do here. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


This page (and the two others given below) give the contents of the main work (War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces); as the contents were moved wholly to that page, these pages are redundant (G. 4). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • OK, then redirect them. Deleting is wholly unnecessary. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete No reason for having this as a redirect; and the excerpt that's there is entirely redundant with the redirect target. --Xover (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    replace with substituted {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Parodies and SongsEdit

See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete This is a section of the redirect target, not a standalone work. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


See above; same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  • Yes, see above. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Section of proposed redirect target, not standalone work. Improbable (and undesirable) redirect. --Xover (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Change into a redirect. The page has existed since 2009 and so some external sites may link here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Soft redirects to translated works, 220 redirects and template:translation redirectEdit

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

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

Template:Year by categoryEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

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

  •   Delete Kill it with fire! --Xover (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Catalog raisonnéEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

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

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

  •   Delete Nuke under the "zero-content mainspace pages" policy. :) --Xover (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Kronstadt RebellionEdit

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

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

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

A Text-book of Sex EducationEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

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

  • Delete: I may mention also that this copy is incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Famine or Not FamineEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In the Midst of the StarvingEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bible and IslamEdit

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

  • Oppose. The first chapter sways my vote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four GospelsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

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

  •   Delete, will be easier to proofread from scratch than to try and fix this OCR —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Golden Bowl (mixed source edition)Edit

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

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

Hesperian 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  •   Delete for the mixed-source edition. How hard would it be to add the 1904 and 1905 editions? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have preferred to have transcribed one of those first editions rather than the 1909 NYE, but at the time there wasn't a nice clean scan of either. Hesperian 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Cowardly Lion of Oz.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

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

  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


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

Template:Wikipediaref x 3Edit

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


Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

{{wikipedia excerpt|Hamlet}}

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

— Excerpted from Hamlet on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.

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

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