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.

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).

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 Lua error: Missing = before parameter:
    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)

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)
  • @Inductiveload: You seem to have a grasp of what these works are. Could you move the editions of the same work to suitably disambiguated pages, create a versions page (or pages, if relevant), add {{other versions}}/{{similar}} hatnotes to link them together, and tag them all with {{migrate to}}? I think this and the below section are about two editions of a UN—US treaty and a distinct agreement relating to implementation of that treaty, but I quickly lose track of what's what here. --Xover (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (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)

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)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Response by authorEdit

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

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

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

I just noticed that Xover also deleted my maps. This is a great loss. I cannot recreate them as I do not have access to the context at the time. This is truly a tragedy. I am ... highly alarmed and stressed at this turn of events and will cease contributing further to Wikipedia projects. Pratyeka (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Could someone with more time please go through the undeletion process on my behalf. It is... truly a great tragedy. Multiple academics had thanked me for this work. Pratyeka (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: These maps are not appropriate for enWS (or Commons), because they contain copyright material: the satellite photos. There is no allowance here, as there is at enWP, for fair use or de minimis, and resolution doesn't affect it. I imagine the "correct" solution is to either locate a suitable base maps from Commons (or NASA or other PD source), draw your own, or commission them via c:Commons:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
If the presumption of copyright is incorrect (e.g. the photos are PD or freely licenced), then let me know and they can be restored and correct attribution and licence declarations made. In that case, they actually belong at Commons.
Sadly, being thanked by academics does not overrule copyright.
Even if these are copyrighted, I can also provide you with the files if you do not have access to them any more. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: I'm glad to see you're editing again. I'm not sure why you felt it relevant to mention that you have +sysop on enwp, but since you bring it up… as an admin on enwp you should be well familiar with the need to make policy-based arguments in such discussions and to familiarise oneself with the policy on the project. I have raised several policy-based concerns, and your response addresses none of them. However, to reiterate the challenges:
The text on Translation:Manshu is not a mere translation of a previously published work. It contains substantial portions of your own analysis, comparisons, and commentary: all of which is original rather than previously published content. In enwp terms, think of it as "original research": it's not a perfect analogy, but the problem is similar. This is out of scope for English Wikisource. In addition, you include extensive quotations from the other (professionally published) translation, but that translation is not public domain or compatibly licensed. Fair use content is not permitted on English Wikisource (and even on enWP only in very narrow and limited circumstances), which puts in violation of our licensing policy.
Now, as I wrote above, this is an impressive work and I am sure it is a valuable contribution to the knowledge in that area of study. It just isn't compatible with the policies on Wikisource. In other words, if it is to stay here it will have to be stripped down so that it only contains the translation, without embellishment, of the original text and all non-public domain elements removed. I imagine that's not your first choice as I get the impression it is the analytical parts of the work that interest you the most. So as an alternative, works such as this may be in scope for WikiBooks: their scope explicitly includes original works so long as it falls within their definition of "educational". As another Wikimedia sister project it is possible to import the pages between projects, even preserving revision history. If you need it we can try to facilitate contact with the Wikibooks community to get the ball rolling. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This whole situation is insulting. The work is clearly a Wikisource translation of a work in the public domain, and is thus in scope, your complaints about the annotations aside. This discussion should never have been started, and much less dragged on this long. The problem with the maps is unfortunate, but the rest is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, and I would love nothing better than to see much much wider participation in discussions here and on WS:CV so that we could properly determine community consensus and within a reasonable time. That's why I so very much appreciate your efforts to participate in both venues! However, meanwhile we have to operate within the reality that exists. I am sorry if you found this insulting, but there really is no other way to address such issues. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I’m sorry, that was a bit much. My apologies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Act No. 3815Edit

Copydump, what formatting there is uses raw HTML, with no source and no license. A superficial look also suggests this is a modern translation (the specified translator shows up in Google as a paralegal) so it may also be a copyvio, but I'm too lazy to do the research on that just now. Xover (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Weirdly it looks to have been originally published in English so I am not sure what that translation is about, see e.g. here (which says public domain). The source is almost certainly from the copyrighted source here: since it has the chan robles header. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please look at Republic Act No. 8293 Section 176 (which is also here in Wikisource at RA 8293#Sec. 176), the Philippine law stating all Philippine government works (including your proposed Act No. 3815) are and must be not copyrighted and are in the public domain.
Also, all Philippine laws are written in English and not a translation of any kind.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Yivan000: Thank you for working to improve this text; however, please familiarise yourself with our style guide. enWS does not use the automatically generated table of content that MediaWiki provides, does not use the heading syntax of MW wikimarkup (we use direct visual formatting instead), and we use formatting templates rather than raw HTML. Paragraph breaks should be done by simply inserting two newlines, and italics should be done with wikimarkup, not HTML. In short, while massively improved from the cut&pasted text that was there before, this is still a mess. Xover (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Interrogation of Wolfram SieversEdit

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

  • Oppose. It is part of the general scheme of Nuremberg excerpts contained here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep but should certainly be made part of an overall volume-based hierarchy and, of course, scan-backed.

April the 8th came certain intelligence to London from BruminghamEdit

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

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

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

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

Biþ On WæterælfadleEdit

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

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

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

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

The complete works of Count TolstoyEdit

Some page scans of (mostly) Wiener's "The complete works of Count Tolstoy" exist as 2 versions:

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_01.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc01tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_03.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc03tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_04.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc04tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_12.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc12tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_13.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc13tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_17.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc17tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_21.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc21tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_22.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc22tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_24.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc24tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_26.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc26tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_28.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc28tols).pdf

To avoid that people start editing them twice, one of these sets should be deleted. Because the indices with the *.djvu seem to have been used already in the , the preferential deletion should target the PDF versions, not the DJVU. [On the other hand, the PDF volumes seem to be complete but some DJVU volumes missing, so a homogeneous name space would rather keep the PDF...] R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's frustrating, given that I speedy deleted several of the pdfs as duplicates back a few months and someone has blithely recreated them. Yes, once any proofread pages have been appropriately dealt with, delete all the pdf versions and also delete the template that lists the volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a message of some "InductiveBot" of 2021-05-17 in Page:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksof02tols).pdf/107 which says that some DJVU pages have been moved to the PDF pages. Will something like this happen again, if the PDF scans are deleted? (I'll start to copy all contents of the PDF pages to the DJVU...). - R. J. Mathar (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@R. J. Mathar: InductiveBot is a bot operated by Inductiveload If it moved these pages it was probably in response to a request someone made. I would suggest you hold off moving any pages until we figure out the background and decide definitively what indexes we are going to use. It is also probably best to let an admin do it to avoid a lot of cleanup afterwards. Xover (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
(E/C) This was talked about before, but no much seems to have happened: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05#Tolstoy_(Wiener)....
@R. J. Mathar: please do not copy the content, that's a complete waste of everyone's time and removes history. I'll move any pages if needed. Manually moving pages between indexes is rarely the right thing to do, because if you do that, whoever does the move properly will need to delete the copied pages first.
Volume 2 was missing pages in the DJVU, so it was migrated to the PDF (see the deletion log at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu). If we want to go for a full set of DJVUs, that needs fixing. Or do we want a mixed set?
If a batch upload of the missing DJVU volumes is desired, I can do that if provided with a spreadsheet of metadata as explained here User:Inductiveload/Requests/Batch uploads. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I had in mind to do some Tolstoy a while back and found this mire, when I noticed an admin assisting the disruption I stopped trying to sort it out. It is very easy to waste a lot of thoughtful contributors time with a few clicks. Can someone please ping the relevant accounts? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the templates, Template:The complete works of Count Tolstoy volumes, and the history of the other. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: do you have any comment on what you were attempting to achieve? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
As I recall, I started importing this set for the inaugural MC because someone recommended Anna Karenina. I didn’t realize that someone had already started this one as a DJVU set because it wasn’t listed on the Tolstoy page. Then, while looking through some of the Tolstoy works, I stumbled across the partial set of DJVUs. So, I requested that the text be merged over to the PDF because some of the DJVUs had missing pages or were worser quality. Beeswaxcandle then deleted the PDFs leaving to partial sets. Soon afterwards, I had to take a wiki break. It seems that in the meantime, someone began improving the DJVU set and restored the PDFs. Now, it seems like we have three choices. First, move the pages over from the DJVu to the PDF and delete the DJVU set. Two, import all the PDFs, move the page list over, merge the PDF pages to the DJVu, delete all the PDFs. Three, create a mixed set of PDFs and DJVUs by moving the pages over from the PDFs to the DJVUs and then deleting the PDFs. Two seems like the most work, three will produce a more confusing template, and one will require a bot to move stuff. Languageseeker (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the missing pages 311 and 312 (that is 337 and 338 if counted from 1) to the Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_02.djvu version on the wikimedia commons, copying the pages from the PDF scans. So at least that djvu-volume does no longer have missing pages. It would be useful to know exactly which other dvju volumes miss which pages. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcriptsEdit

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

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

Everything in the mainspace in Category:Project disclaimersEdit

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

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose. Thanks for pinging the other account. Maybe something like {{AuxTOC}} can be used to wrap the disclosures. I imagine the information is available elsewhere, but I think it is good idea to make the disclaimer information more immediately available for the encyclopedia projects. I've never checked the alternative disclaimers cited. They seem too obscure to me. The contents listings for the encyclopedias are also not part of the source. Something should probably be done there. Maybe just {{AuxTOC}} could work somehow. The disclaimers could be moved back to the main namespace with a wrapper of some sort since it seems tough to wrap a redirect. Seems fair to keep around the redirect though since the destination makes things clear. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bob Burkhardt: You don't think moving them to another namespace is a good idea, at least, as you've done at EB1911? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think putting the disclaimer in the project namespace is an effective solution, but you were talking about deleting the redirect, and the wrapper solution, which I have become aware of more lately, would avoid the redirect. I like the current solution better than the wrapper for the disclaimer. The wrapper solution ({{AuxTOC}}) would work better for the tables of contents. It is widely used. I will also mention the ACAB disclaimer has some things that I think are really very necessary for that work. Probably the encyclopedia disclaimers should at least refer to the General discliamer. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These project disclaimers were added a long time ago, and are a part of the project’s set-up. While, strictly speaking, they are not neccessary, I think that, at this point, it would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them. Certainly, they should not be made now; but I do not think they should be deleted. Any move (across namespaces) would necessitate a cross-namespace redirect, owing to the age of the original name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "It would be more detrimental to delete them than to keep them." – For what reason do you say that? Age alone isn't a reason to keep—there are lots of old relics that we've deleted at WS:PD. Assuming that we delink all references to it in the mainspace (which is what I'm advocating for by the way), what harm would this do to the project itself, reading- or editing-wise? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: The “old relics” which have been deleted were entire works—although they were usually not quite so entire; this is not the case here. I oppose removing the references, as the continuity of use of them (my meaning in age here, my apologies for the confusion) would be so disrupted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: "The old relics were entire works; this is not the case here." Right, they aren't works at all, nor parts of works, in any sense. The mainspace is for works, not entire user-generated pages dedicated to explaining some bits of information about how a work ought to be used, especially when all of those notices are already fundamentally covered by WS:General disclaimer. Furthermore, the initial question I had has still not been answered. That is, why, specifically, would the removal of these disclaimers in the mainspace be so destructive to the encyclopedia projects? You even admit that "strictly speaking, they are not necessary", so if something isn't necessary, why would deleting it be so detrimental? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: They are not as a rule necessary, but these in particular have been made necessary as an exception because of their long use. No, the notices are not covered by the general disclaimer; that is why they are project-specific, and deleting them would entail recourse to the general (and thus not specifically useful) disclaimer, while losing the information of specific relevance to the articles at hand. They generally serve the purpose of informing Wikipedia users of some relevant facts for local (to Wikipedia) rules regarding “verifiability,” “notability,” and such, I believe; such being the reason for their initial creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PseudoSkull: Many encyclopedias (e.g., EB, EA) are still covered by trademark law, but most (if not effectively all) books are not. My response to your (rhetorical?) question about The Masses is the following: No, it should not have a disclaimer, because no new disclaimers should be made. The maintenance (read: non-deletion) of these project disclaimers harks back to when Wikipedia copied at large from the old encyclopedias, and they noted them back to Wikisource. The disclaimers were added to the projects at the time to facilitate this, and thus, to maintain this ad-hoc “backwards compatibility,” they should be kept. I disagree with your interpretation above: the Collier’s disclaimer is more specific than the general disclaimer, and thus is useful. (This is the case with other project disclaimers, as well.) I also believe that the general disclaimer is perfectly functional in its current state: being a general disclaimer, it doesn’t need excruciating detail. I agree regarding the general disclaimer discussion; for another time, perhaps. (As for the old film magazines, they are quite interesting, but with so many images, it is a daunting prospect.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There have apparently been incidents regarding the use of the Sherlock Holmes character in newer works, as policed by the Doyle estate. However I'll digress on everything else, for the sake of further community input on this issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, but Sherlock Holmes is not title, but character; for titles, there are but few trademarks, though for characters, there are many more. (I am reminded of “Herlock Sholmes,” though from whence I know not.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that the issues around Sherlock Holmes are around copyright because some works are in and some works are not, with the claim that derivative works are derivative of those works still in copyright, the trademark in terms of print [was abandonded]. Tarzan on the other hand has had court cases around the character and is a live trademark. Winnie-the-Pooh and Steamboat Willie will be other interesting cases of this. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: It'd be a shame if Sherlock Holmes as a character was still under copyright proper in the UK. In the US, the original being public domain would allow for derivative works of that original interpretation to therefore be allowed, not counting in the possible exception of a trademark still being in effect. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: The claim of the Doyle Estate was that while Sherlock Holmes as a character is in the PD as represented in the PD works, Sherlock Holmes as a character is not in the PD as represented in the still copyrighted works. Specifically, they talk about Holmes showing emotion, respect for women etc. as a development in the later works and still copyrighted. This particular issue will go mostly away, thankfully, come January when the next batch of stories enter the PD, but the main legal question is what counts as "original interpretation" of the character and what is still copyrighted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Strongly support moving these to WS namespace. Neutral regarding actually deleting them (at least within the scope of the current discussion) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in HistoryEdit

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

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

Portal:Top 100 authorsEdit

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

  •   Delete If someone wants to set up a bot task to automatically generate such a page I'd be all for it, but as a manual process it's doomed to fail and will suck up valuable resources in the process. --Xover (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @EncycloPetey: in past discussions you have advocated for keeping author indices that I thought worth deleting; do you have any thoughts on this one? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    This looks more like a Wikisource-space project page than something I'd put in Portal space, since it's based entirely on Wikisource data and nothing external. If it's not going to be updated, though, I don't see much value in moving it to a new namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment This could actually be done with some kind of fairly simple bot on a fairly regular basis. I'm not sure if anyone actually cares enough to make it worth the effort, but if people think it's worth it, I can have a go. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: I support it if you are willing to do it, but I have absolutely no idea how much time and energy it would take, so it is up to you to decide :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Inductiveload: I would love to see such statistics to help guide the MC. Languageseeker (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Son of Tarzan.djvuEdit

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

What was "bad" about it? A random selection of pages have the text matching the scan and the mainspace text purports to be the Grosset & Dunlap edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing texts from captions, improperly joined words across page boundaries, a few suspect areas. Honestly, the experience of Sense and Sensibility and The Great Gatsby demonstrate that match-and-split creates a significant likelihood of introducing subtle errors that slip through validation. I'd rather start from a clean OCR than hoping that users will catch the subtle differences. Languageseeker (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a perfectly normal match-and-split; there are no problems beyond the usual cross-page clippings of words. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep. There are only minor issues here. If you feel that a M&S text causes problems in the MC, then don't use them. Put something else in instead. They'll get proofread at some stage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep. M&S is not my preferred way forward but the outcome here is acceptable. Now that is is done with these results, it would be a waste of effort to delete and redo it. We don't even know if the OCR would be really better and just to investigate that would be a waste of energy. Mpaa (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In general it would be great to have a bot to regenerate the OCR and dump it as non-proofread. I understand you can now easily do OCR per page via the opt in gadgets but I routinely run into cases where the OCR is misaligned or done 10 years ago and once rerunning it is perfectly good basis for proofreading. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    @MarkLSteadman: Indexes where the OCR is offset is due to a combination of (known) bugs (and only affects DjVu files). I have tools to fix such issues. We can also regenerate most such scans to replace the hidden text layer with an updated version, which will often but not always, be better than the old version. This is strongly preferred over saving out the new OCR text to the wikipages because it can more easily be updated if further tooling improvements materialise in the future; doesn't get in the way of those users whose workflow depends on the absence of "Not proofread" pages; and doesn't misconstrue the progress of proofreading. You can request both kinds of fixes at the Wikisource:Scan Lab. Xover (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
There is the possibility to run bots to upload OCR-text either from the djvu file, phetools or googleOCR. If needed, a request can be placed at Wikisource:Bot_requests. Mpaa (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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

I can run it, just would not like to override above votes (even if there is new input that reOCR is better than current). Be aware that there are several occurrences of fi as in 'profit' and of fl as in 'shuffling', which are difficult to see and distinguish (see e.g. OCR of Page:The Son of Tarzan.djvu/18).Mpaa (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  Keep @Languageseeker: Even if the results of the match and split process were god awful (which they weren't per comments above), why is that a reason to delete an index page? That's called a transcription project for a reason; because it's an ongoing ordeal. If there was a mess-up with the data transcribed, that part could be redone, fixed, or improved at any point. Why delete the entire project for such a reason, just to have someone who wants to improve it have to retype all that info in the Index page form? To summarize, the argument itself that was given for deletion of this transcription project was invalid in my opinion, even if you disregard the fact that the quality of the match and split wasn't even that bad anyway... PseudoSkull (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Sorry, if wasn't not clear. I don't want to delete the Index, but the match-and-split. So that a clean OCR can be used for the MC. Languageseeker (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: I see. Well, I don't think the pages should be deleted either, because that removes the revision history when the page is recreated later. We generally don't want to delete those pages unless we absolutely must. Discuss the issue of the OCR as you might, but in my view this is not a reason for deletion of anything in those namespaces. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I can see no evidence that anyone has performed a "re-OCR" on any pages. Or, if they did, they were silly enough not to save it. There is nothing wrong with the M&S text. The two random pages that I proofread were a perfect match of text to image. The only thing missing was the running header, which is minor. The only thing extra was a references tag in the footer, which is irrelvant. Stop wasting time on frivolities. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: You may think that I'm wasting time, but take a look at Page:The Son of Tarzan.djvu/277 where about 1/3 of the page is missing. Also, take a look prior experiences here and here. Match and Split produces flawed results. Why can the text not be reOCRed by a bot? I can understand that the M&S took significant work, but is this a reason enough to prefer it? Languageseeker (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: That’s a different page, I’m talking about DJVu page 277, and the diff is DJVU page 275. Languageseeker (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

They should be kept. We don't judge the merits of a particular edition or printing. Yes, some of us prefer first editions over later editions, however the later editions are acceptable here. We're also not about to start junking the valid work of contributors unless there is a copyright issue, which does not apply to this particular work.   Keep for this edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: *sigh*
There are circumstances under which we might decide to delete a scan-backed and fully proofread text, but this is not nearly it. Your argument here comes down to mere snobbery: there is no general rule that makes editions "without authorial or editorial input" less worthy. Quite the contrary, for most works the most interesting editions, by some measures, will be ones where an author was nowhere near its production (for example, because it has had spelling corrected or illustrations added, or merely is in a more convenient format).
For some works, authorial input on an edition will be a factor; and for some works the differences between multiple editions where the author was involved will be a factor. For example, in selecting an edition to include in something like the "Monthly Challenge" it would be natural to consider which of the first three editions of Jane Eyre to pick based on such criteria, and in combination with factors such as quality of available scans, ease of proofreading, presence of illustrations, etc.
In general, the "worthyness" of a given edition is only relevant in a situation where we have multiple to choose from and can only proofread one of them. But there is no real limit to the number of editions of a given work we can host, so once an edition exists here that argument becomes moot. We would host even a "botched" edition, because bibliographically and historiographically a "bad" edition is as interesting and relevant as a "perfect" edition. Just think of Thomas Bowdler's literally Bowdlerised Family Shakespeare. And once we're on Shakespeare, the most interesting editions are the great 18th-century editions and the changes they make to the text (see eg. Margreta De Grazia's Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (1991, OUP) for one rather harsh criticism of the great 18th-century editors, exemplified by Malone, and their fetishisation of "the author").
Many contributors here prefer first or early editions (it is an argument), but many also prefer "the edition with the best illustrations" or "the modernised-spelling edition" or "the edition with the most footnotes added" or "the edition with large type, good scan, and great OCR that is very easy to proofread" or "the US English edition" or … In your own efforts you are perfectly entitled, and encouraged, to prioritise first those editions which most interest you. But please don't dump all over other contributors' priorities and interests or devalue their contributions just because you don't personally share those priorities and interests. At a quick glance Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition) is nicely formatted, scan-backed, fully validated, and in general seems up to our highest current standards. Those who contributed to it should be applauded, and we should all express gratitude for their effort.
If you want to do something to raise our average quality, there are literally thousands of non-scan-backed, and often entirely unsourced, texts that could beneficially be replaced by a scan-backed version (feel free to prefer whatever edition you want for the completely unsourced ones). A lot of these are cut&paste jobs from some random website (i.e. of completely unknown provenance), and a not insignificant number of them contain either no formatting, minimal formatting, non-standard formatting, or raw HTML formatting. These are actual problems for which various deletion rationales could be entertained; unlike a hypothetical overabundance of high-quality, fully-validated, scan-backed editions. Xover (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  Keep — Of course, I think that the original novelized edition of any work should be prioritized over other later editions, but that by no means implies I think we should delete them. Yes, there does need to be discussion about what to do with reprints and facsimiles, but that discussion includes how we could theoretically configure more of them faster, and DRY (don't repeat yourself) them up more, not how we can delete all the ones we have. Starting that proposal discussion is on my list.
The reason we don't want to delete reprints is because we want to preserve any content that appeared in those reprints, because they are still usable as what they are, at least to some extent. Even if the only original content in it is a different print date on the colophon, I think it should still get a separate transcription here. And I thought that was the unpopular opinion. Also, some people might remember the book by that specific reprint, so having it transcribed here is also nice for those folks. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep per above. Mpaa (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  Comment @Xover: I completely agree with you that we should not judge the worthiness of editions. Every editions that you mention, I would keep or argue for their inclusion on enWS. Each one of them has some sort of originality that makes them distinct. This is their merit. The edition of Jane Eyre has none of those. There are no illustrations or editorial contributions or anything else that makes it distinct. Nor was it published during the author's lifetime. It's one of the hundreds, if not thousands of editions that implicitly or explicitly claim to be identical to the original Jane Eyre. Is every copy of Jane Eyre or a similar book in-scope on enWS? Or, should there be some decision as to which of these thousands should be included? Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Dump the texts and show any differences between our two nominally different texts. If there are none, or none of interest, then there's no reason we should keep this. But if there's textual differences, like respelling or slight omissions or even interpolations, then why delete it?
Every old-enough edition of Jane Eyre is in scope at Wikisource. If we could with a wave of a hand, why wouldn't we provide every single edition? Certainly, in an optimal world, this would not have been one of the first editions done. But it was, and if that was the best edition available, that was the right choice, and there's no value in deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: For me, this situation is more of a tragedy. I know how much effort it takes to proofread and fully validate a work. Yet, there is the other side which is the reader's perspective. Each additional edition increases the confusion that the user faces when picking an edition to read. Of course, we can host all the editions, but that will probably overwhelm a reader. How would anyone feel if 500 copies of Jane Eyre showed up on their doorstep? How do the reader pick which edition to read? Why should any reader choose this particular edition.
I'm sure that textual differences will exist between different edition, but, in this case, it will come from a printer's mistake and not any deliberate thought. They're errors not editorial choices. I'm not against different editions that add value, but a mere reprint does not add value. In general, I think that we can group editions of popular works into four major categories. First, the editions that the author contributed to or might have contributed to. Two, editions that an editor contributed to (such as Thomas Bowlder's Shakespeare.) These editorial changes make it a unique text with independent value. Three, illustrated editions where new illustrations can change the perspective on the text. Forth, mere reprints to which the author did not contribute to or are not based on a manuscript, have no editorial input, or illustrations. Why should anyone read these reprints? For me, Jane Eyre (c. 1900 W. Nicholson & Sons edition) falls into the fourth category. I know that making such a call is difficult and care needs to be made avoid imposing totalitarian control over what user do. At the same time, I believe that a certain quality standard should be maintained. Languageseeker (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
So sure you don't even need to check. Bookstores and libraries have many different editions of Jane Eyre, and users in a situation like this are likely to grab the first one or read through the descriptions and pick one reasonably. Why should anyone read these reprints? You haven't made the case that it matters if they do. I don't see any reason we should delete a work just because you think it's the "wrong" edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep fully within scope, no quoted criteria are not our measures for scope. Our readers can make up their own minds on what they read, as our transcribers make up their minds on what they translate. We don't burn books based on preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikolai PalkinEdit

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


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

My Life and Loves (OCR)Edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted both pages--Jusjih (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

  Comment Note to deleting admin, My Life and Loves (OCR)/Preface is a subpage. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject NLS duplicate filesEdit

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

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

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

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

List of index pagesEdit

Extended content

CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Gróttasöngr and VöluspáEdit

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

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

Excerpts of works by Viktor PinchukEdit

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

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

The three miniatures translated by me are fully completed little novellas that have only an indirect relation to the content of the book that includes them. This is the case when one work, more extensive, contains another — smaller in volume: this happens in literature. The book written in genre of "travel literature", telling about real events. The miniatures (exhibited for delete) are created in the artistic genre. They are small fantasy scenes played in the mind of the main character of the documentary work. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Виктор Пинчук: If Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are NOT excerpts from Six months by islands..., but instead are themselves complete works, that were published within Six months by islands..., then I believe we can host them. As for Translation:Flight of fantasy, you identified it as a "fragment of an article"; so it does not appear to be a full article. If it is only a portion of an article, I do not think we can host it here. We can *omit* portions of an article, if necessary due to copyright, but in this case most of the article appears to be missing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beleg Tâl: Any of my newspaper articles is part of a series of articles devoted to some topic, and any of my books is part of a description of adventures from my life. So you can get to the point of absurdity, figuring out where a "part of the work" is and where "the whole work" is.
  • If, for example, an extensive newspaper article on a political topic describes a meeting of the president of a certain country with a representative of a neighboring state, at which one of those present told an anecdote unrelated to politics, then the anecdote taken out of context can be considered a separate work, and not part of an article on a political topic.
  • My Newspaper article (Наяву_на_Яву_прибыл.jpg) written in the genre of "journalism", but the fragment ( — that is part of it is written with the help of grotesque.Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    If an extensive newspaper article about politics contained an anecdote, I still don't think we would be willing to host the anecdote without the surrounding article. I'd be interested in seeing the opinions of other editors on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk in Cyrillic.
I would be gently inclined to keep this as it technically does meet WS:WWI (published, free license, original source text exists). Publication in a local paper is indeed a low bar, but we set the bar at "publication of any sort except self-publication". However, I would like to see the following issues addressed before I commit to a "keep":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There are several works by Pinchuk which I am not proposing for deletion, because they are published in a local paper and as such meet our publication requirements. The three which I am bringing to the attention of WS:PD are specifically because they are exerpts and not full works, as per WS:WWI#Excerpts. "Provincial story" and "Final swim" are not works, they are extracts from the 1916 book Six months by islands.... If the book Six months by islands... were added to Wikisource in full, I would have no further objection to keeping these portions within it. Similarly, "Flight of fancy" is a fragment of an article published in Respublica Krim; if the article in its entirety were to be hosted, I would have no further objection.
To your other comments: I have already scan-backed all of the other works we have by Pinchuk, and removed images or added {{image missing}} as needed. I'm neutral on the idea of having the entire structure of Respublica Krim in Translation space just for these articles (though of course I would demand it in mainspace). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, well, then I am guilty of not paying full attention and thought these were just small self-contained works. Indeed, all of these are fragments of works-as-published and thus are indeed out of scope. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Pinchuk has convinced me that Translation:Final swim and Translation:Provincial story are complete works per se, despite being published within a larger work. I am still not convinced about Translation:Flight of fantasy, which apparently is comparable to a tangential anecdote being exerpted from a longer article detailing the full conversation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Виктор Пинчук: thank you for the redaction of the image.
  • R.e. Виктор Пинчук = Viktor Pinchuk, that is just a clarification to make it clear that you are the author in question in case it's not obvious to others. There's no problem with it.
  • R.e. the illustrations: Wikisource is a repository of texts as published. English Wikisource doesn't accept self-published works. Thus, while the version of the works that appeared in Respublica Krim are in scope, self-published editions are not. Also, under WS:ANN, Purely decorative illustrations and images. (Known as grangerisation or extra-illustration) are specifically excluded from permissible annotations.
  • Note that Wikisource is not a publishing platform for users work, it's a platform for published works, which in this case, just happens to be by a user: yourself. If it had not been published in a paper, it would be out of scope. If you would like to host your own work somewhere online and it's not in some published format, I do not think the WMF ecosystem contains such a platform. Usually content like that is published via personal website, blogs, or sites like Medium or those mentioned at meta:Wikifiction. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t have texts that have not been published in newspapers, magazines, or books, but there are illustrations that, for technical reasons, did not fit into officially publications. These illustrations are not Grangerization and they are not extra-illustration: they correspond to the theme of the material. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hospital Sketches (Gutenberg)Edit

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

  • A glance at the PG listing indicates that it is the same edition as the sourced version Wikisource now holds. This should thus be deleted as a duplicate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    • While this version at PG is the same version as the scan we have, are we certain that it is the same version as this version at PG that our Gutenberg-sourced text is copied from? Not doubting, just verifying. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Beleg Tâl: A comparison of the text of some pages of the first chapter (as scan-backed) against the first PG chapter as hosted here shows an exact resemblance, excepting “--” for “—”. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Rose in BloomEdit

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

  • There is a scan noted at the relevant Author: page; the text should be put through match-and-split and left alone. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep, proofread in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • retraced per Beleg Tâl Languageseeker (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  Keep, but only as there's proofreading underway. Otherwise, match and split what there is to page NS and delete the mainspace stub pending a useful quantity of text. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal (Unsourced)Edit

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

  •   Delete. Agree, no need to store such a version when a sourced version exists at WS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

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

History of WyomingEdit

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

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

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

The Roll of CaerlaverockEdit

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

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

  Delete Per nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, and move to scan here (file already uploaded, index just created). I wouldn’t mind proofreading the text, but there a great number of pictures which would need to be added. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

No objections from me. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


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

  Delete It certainly is. Also,   Comment that it has a Wikidata item, ORIGINS OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM (Q19089214), which isn't attached to anything else and should probably be nominated for deletion at d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions if this page is deleted. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  Delete — Not to mention, the all-caps here is a major problem with the title, and it goes against our titling conventions. Someone ought to run a script through WS and look for all pages with titles in all caps, so that those pages can be moved to a title-case title. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
All categorized pages with no lowercase letters in title, excluding court citation redirectsBeleg Tâl (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Poems of John Donne (1896)Edit

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

  Delete from main (but in scope if someone wants to proofread it fully). If you want to migrate it to page and add a transcription project link, the scans are available (IA). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  Delete scans are now on hand: Index:The Poems of John Donne - 1896 - Volume 1.djvu and Index:The Poems of John Donne - 1896 - Volume 2.djvu Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  Comment note that there are other pages on wikisource that are part of this work, e.g. Elegy I (1896) Poems of John Donne (1896)/Elegy I. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An Incident at Stiffner’sEdit

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

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have cleaned up and scan-backed the work in question; there should no longer be any cause for deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bound Together, A Sheaf of PapersEdit

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

  Keep But attach to scan (external scan). Given the little that has been done, and the fact that the sections are independent works bound together in the volume, this should be easy to do. It would make a nice item for the Monthly Challenge. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


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

  • Per that page, this is not the proper forum. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Exactly, which is why it should be deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @TE(æ)A,ea.: mainspace is not the proper forum for a snippet of code referenced in an archived discussion from five years ago; hence it should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Comparative textsEdit

This is totally out of scope.

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

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

Epigrams of PlatoEdit

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

convert to redirect? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Billinghurst: the entity being referred to is the w:Zakarpattia Oblast CouncilBeleg Tâl (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

  • Alcmaeonid: which is also incomplete. Created 2008, creating user last edited 2020 (here), early October (globally, on enWP). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  Delete Languageseeker (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


Unsourced edition of unknown provenance when a source edition exists.

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

Index:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.djvuEdit

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

  •   Keep until there's a replacement. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep It's not just a transcription but a scan: note that it has original media in it as well. Also, what was copyrighted was two photographs: the work is substantially similar to the original. No reason to delete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The scan of the 1954 are on the IA Internet Archive identifier : autobiographyofc0000henn and should be PD-US-No Notice. However, the IA has them locked behind a wall without a 14 day loan period which would allow for a PDF download. Is there anyway to sneak it out? I'm not trying to be mean, but I think that scan-backed should mean backed against an actual publication and not a transcription of a publication. Languageseeker (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the provenance, proposing this for deletion without a replacement is premature. If your aim is to force the issue to get a scan, I find that annoying and impolite to both whoever it is that provides a scan and the original contributor who gets their work proposed for a deletion without a clear upgraded replacement. If you wanted a scan, ask for a scan. If you want to work on scan-backing all the books, the place to request that is WS:LAB, or a dedicated WikiProject for a scan-backing drive, which you are more than welcome to set up (though it seems to me that the MC is chewing though quite a few previously-PG-ish works anyway).
Indeed, part of the reason I set WS:LAB up in the first place was to move quality remediation discussions out of the deletion space. Forcing maintenance at deletion gunpoint is not how we should do things, IMO. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not just to force the issue. I truly believe that Indexes should not be created from transcriptions. I'm was merely trying to help the user who is working on that. Languageseeker (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep on writing that it's a "transcription" when it isn't? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: Footnote 1 on page 1 states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
How do you transcribe a photograph? This is a scan. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf It is, in fact, not a scan: the original file is, which has been typeset in LaTeX (I can even tell you it was pdfTeX-1.40.10 and was created on Sun 24 Jul 2011 at 16:29:58 BST). The DJVU we have is just the Internet Archive derivative format (which is also fairly pointless: for a born-digital "edition", ideally you'd use the "original" file, which in this case is the PDF). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
But you can't "trasncribe" a photograph. It was clearly scanned. What seems likely to me is that it was scanned, an OCR layer was created, and that was manipulated or otherwise set in LaTeX. Someone clearly had the book and scanned in the material. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they did, or maybe they transcribed laboriously by eye. Regardless, the file we have here is not the output from any scanner (the cover notwithstanding, that is indeed a scanned image) and does not have a 1:1 correspondence to any published edition, which, in this case, are all physical editions. This self-described transcription would do in a pinch, but since there is an actual scan available, it's very suboptimal. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I am confused what is meant by "transcription" and "original publication" here. We wouldn't say this is a 1920 "transcription" of a 1850 original publication made by some other publisher, delete it, or a 1920 "transcription" with illustrations added or removed delete it? That something like this should be deleted as a 2007 transcription of a 17th century publication and there is no possibility to host it since the owner refuses to allow use of the only copy of the "original publication" so we can't use something like this as a scan-backing? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As I replied to Koavf, the book states "This publication is a 2007 transcription of the 1954 printing." Therefore, I am referring to this 2007 pdf as a transcription and the 1954 physical book issued by Catholic Worker Books as the original publication. As far as I can tell, the source of the PDF is [1] via the IA which "provide at one site the collected works of the major anarchists and an online history of anarchists and anarchist movements worldwide, including a graphics archive." There is no evidence that Catholic Worker Books published a 2007 edition of this work.
In your case, I would suggest using [2] Languageseeker (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed the restrictions the image host places on it are not enforceable with respect to copyright. Index:The Selling of Joseph - 1700 - Sewall.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The question is are you saying that if we didn't have the scans from Mass Hist, the desired behavior would be current unscanned version linking to the University of Nebraska version without pagination is acceptable to host but the a scan-backed version using the University of Nebraska version with pagination isn't acceptable to host and should be deleted because it now is a "transcription"? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The point is that printing HTML text to a PDF and acting though it's a paginated "scan" is pointless. If you're going to copydump (and, yes, rarely, that's the only way), just do that. I'm personally not militantly against such "transcription scans" specifically, to me they're just copydumps with extra, pointless, steps (though clearly others are more against them). I am against copydumps in most cases, "fake" scans or not. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm against such scans because they wind up wasting a lot of users time. Koavf spent a lot of time proofreading what they believed was a real scan. Another user was planning on creating an annotated edition based on such scans. Then there are the transclusion in mainspace that will need to be redone. Speaking of transclusion, the current process in a sense "washes" scans and makes fake scans look just like real scans. If we are to allow fake scans, should we not also make it clear to users that they are reading a transcription of a fake scan? That would probably require adding a new field to PP extension and adding code to distinguish between Source (Real) and Source (Copydump). Then all the Wikisources would need to adjust their implementation. We would also need maintenance categories for these.
Also, it's not always possible for users to tell between real scans and copydumps. Languageseeker (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No one alleged that Catholic Worker Books (re)published this in 2007. Should we not have any copies of the Bible because we don't have scans of the autographs from Elijah, Luke, and Peter? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If the options are a photographic scan of a published edition of the Bible or some HTML or TeX on some website that purports to be the text of the edition, then we should use the scan whenever remotely possible. We're not in the business of archiving random websites, the Wayback Machine has that amply covered. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Then why did you change my edit to the Publisher field from unknown to "Catholic Worker Books"? Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Siege of NewarkEdit

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

Gulliver's Travels (unsourced)Edit

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

  Keep It's not necessarily the same edition, and the unsourced is the version with audio. I would wait until we have a scan-backed stand-alone volume, with matching audio, before we delete the only audio-paired copy we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done This was the result of a volume II from one edition being renamed incorrectly as volume II of a different edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 07:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)