Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2020

April 25, 2010 ECFA Debate Transcript part 1

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted; transcription/translation is explicitly copyrighted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We have no information on the copyright status of this "debate". It can be found here, but this source has a clear copyright designation. BD2412 T 21:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The transcribers (and presumably translators, and annotators) are Mo Yan-chih and Loa Iok-sin, who are employers of the newspaper that published this transcription under explicit copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Letters to Pope Pius IX

The following discussion is closed:

closed. Texts have been researched and backed with early sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We have two copies of the same letter, but they differ considerably from each other. Clearly one of them is incorrect and superfluous, but I cannot say which one. Perhaps both are.

• Letter to Pope Pius IX
• Letter to Pope Pius IX by Jefferson Davis

The letters are dated the same, and are similar enough to probably be derived from the same original source. However, neither identifies the source of the text and the differences are so great that they can't both be right (if either is). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The first one gives the source at the talk page, so it should not be deleted, although it would be better if it were matched with the scan in the Index namespace.

The second one does not give its source, but the text can be found for example in Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. It looks more like original wording of the letter while the first one looks like edited wording. Therefore the second one should be kept too, but it should be definitely matched to some source. Both versions should be listed at the version page of the letter. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've imported the scan for the first one and moved it to The Rebellion Record/Volume 7/Documents/Jefferson Davis and Pope Pius IX, and scan-backed the text (and it includes the reply as part of the same document). Not sure if the page name should actually be "../Document 174", though.

WRT versions, there is also the reply at Letter to Jefferson Davis by Pope Pius IX, but the stated source for that is this. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The text appearing in The Rebellion Record was published in The Boston Pilot on 23 Jan 1864 [1] with the cited source being the Paris newspaper La France. It would therefore appear that the discrepancy is due to the text being translated into French and then back into English. The original English text would presumably have been made public at a later date. The Pope's reply was written in Latin and translated into English by Davis's ambassador Ambrose Dudley Mann. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it also possible the original letter was sent in Latin, and therefore we're dealing with a pre-translation and post-translation version? JSTOR might be saying Davis spoke Latin himself. Lemuritus (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not according to the articles I read when I found the information above. From what I read, Davis wrote the letter in English, and Mann provided the necessary interpretation in Latin when he presented it to Pius IX. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There is now a versions page at Letter to Pope Pius IX by Jefferson Davis and incoming links point to that. If anyone disagrees with the "RR" or "ORUCN" work page naming, feel free to make any useful changes! Hopefully having a structure for these works would make it easier to add things from them. Between 11 vols of RR and the 30 vols of ORUCN (and 130(?) of ORUCA), there's an almost inexhaustible supply of US Civil War historical fragments. If only other periods and places had such good documentation! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Address before English Annual Session of the American Medical Liberty League

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Text is apparently a reprint of a reprint in a source of doubtful provenance, and not traced back to a verifiable source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Dated 1927, so not out of copyright unless we know that it wasn't renewed, which we don't. Therefore, this should be deleted. BD2412 T 05:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not inspired to dig this out, but quick searching shows no evidence of contemporaneous publication on HathiTrust or Google Books. It's possible it's not actually from 1927.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Text of the work refers in the past tense to events occurring at "the Paris Academy of Medicine in July, 1925", so it is after that date, at the earliest. BD2412 T 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Delete quickly. I found the text in some modern books by the same author (Trung Nguyen) who claims it to be citation from some 1927 publication (Philosophy of Health), see [2] and [3] . However, I failed to find that publication. As the Nguyens text seems to be one of the so called conspirational theories, it is possible, that the alleged 1927 publication does not exist. So unless its existence is confirmed and its copyright not renewed, it should be deleted. Considering the harmful character of the text, it should be deleted as quickly as possible. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of Health was a real publication; here is a photo of the Dec 1927 volume of that work. However, the version of the text found in Philosophy of Health was a reprint: "we quote the following as reported through that astute and courageous paper, The Truth Teller, of Battle Creek, Michigan". The Truth-Teller (formerly The Peril) was the official paper of the American Medical Liberty League from 1918 to 1931. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Keep I can find no renewal registration for either The Truth-Teller, nor Philosophy of Health, nor for any text by Lily Loat, nor for anything related to the AMLL. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done with confirming the existence of the periodical. However, I believe that if we want to transcribe something from an old publication, we have to do it directly from that publication. How can we be sure that Nguyen or whoever did not make a mistake and that it was really taken from Philosophy of Health and not from something else?

Even if we assumed that it was really published in Philosophy of Health in 1927, how can we be sure that the text we have was not edited and does not differ from the original 1927 publication if nobody saw it? If we want to keep the text and the license is to be based on the fact that it was published in 1927 and copyright was not renewed, we have to transcribe it from the 1927 publication and not from a later edition. This should be applied to all texts and especially to controversial ones. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to mention that we can, do, and should have harmful texts on Wikisource. Censoring texts that contain harmful content does a disservice to legitimate researchers, and increases the fervour of people who agree with them. A lesson which many have had to learn the hard way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The harmfulness was ment only to support the speed of deletion if we agree on deletion for licensing reasons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, this text is useless to legitimate researchers, as it has no provenance, and hosting it on a relatively high-profile site increases the visibility of people who agree with them. I think there's good justification for at least deleting works that are not easily verifiable, where we're hosting an unchecked and basically uncheckable copy of a work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards  Delete because the only source presented so far is a quasi-self-published 2018 ebook edition of a 1950s book containing a reprint of a reprint of a report of a speech. That's too far away from the original for me to be comfortable with, laying aside any possible copyrights arising in that chain of editions. BethNaught (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Beleg Tâl, there is no shortage of anti-vaccination texts of a character similar to this one that are demonstrably in the public domain. BD2412 T 00:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per BethNaught and Prosfilaes. While I agree in principle with Beleg Tâl, this text is also problematic for the other reasons and in sum leads me to land on delete. --Xover (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Reasons Why You Should Support the National Anti-Vaccination League

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Text has been traced to public domain source and placed within the context of the main work in which it appeared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The other unsourced anti-vax work we have from Loat. Clearly, if we can find a verifiable source, then it's PD-1923 in the US (though not in its home country, the UK). BethNaught (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete unless scan-backed and the original can be demonstrated to be of sufficient notability to justify hosting despite its damage potential (not every pamphlet someone once had printed merits hosting, and we can certainly insist on mere technical and policy standards to be met and exceeded for these things without compromising other principles). --Xover (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete Controversial materials definitely have to be well sourced. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep This content is part of The Healthy Life Cook Book and should be moved to a subpage of it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have moved it to the correct location within The Healthy Life Cook Book —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Which is also unsourced; an acknowledged copydump from Gutenberg in fact. In context I'll give it marginally more weight, but only marginally. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  It is a published text that is uncontroversially in the public domain. The text is in good condition. If a scan is available, the work should be scan backed, but until one is found there is no need to delete it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  I am not a friend of texts mirroring Gutenberg either, as I cannot see any value in them. At w:Wikisource#History we can read that one of the major obstacles to launching Wikisource was the concern that it would have no additional value to Guttenberg, and I agree with this: If there is no additional value, it is useless to host it in a Wikimedia project. If the text were newly added, I would hesitate whether we should give the contributor a chance to improve it, but this one does not seem to have any chance of improvement. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have a strong dislike of Gutenberg-imported texts myself, but I really do not think we should start deleting texts just because they are from Gutenberg. This text is perfectly compliant with our policies, and can be improved at any time by any person who has a copy of the book itself and a scanner. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep now that it has been placed within the context of the original work where it appeared. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

mul:Sunnydevanand

The following discussion is closed:

deleted at mulws —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sunnydevanand exists at at https://wikisource.org/wiki/Sunnydevanand which, for some reason, I can't seem to wikilink.

It's vanity autobiography which the user has brought over from enwiki after several attempts there. The author User:Itsmywayokok appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Sunnydevanand who has also edited as User:Sunnydevanand 1. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It won't wikilink, because it's not here at the English Wikisource (en.ws); it's at the multilingual Wikisource, https://wikisource.org.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now filed there. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Index:Dudeney - Amusements in Mathematics.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as obvious speedy under CSD G4. If anyone actually objects I'll be happy to undelete and have a full deletion discussion.

I would like to suggest that Index:Dudeney - Amusements in Mathematics.djvu be reviewed for deletion as a duplicate. There is a more recent Index Index:Amusements in mathematics.djvu which has had a lot more more work done to it recently. Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Delete speedy. Don't forget to delete the underlying pages also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Delete Agree, speedy delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

All Around the Mulberry Bush

The following discussion is closed:

Unsourced and unlicensed version deleted; replaced with versions page listing a sourced and properly PD version.

The original nursery rhyme is in the public domain, but there are many variations, and the earliest publication date I can find for this specific variation is 1985. If not deleted, it should be replaced with a variation that can be found in its entirety in a public domain source. BD2412 T 05:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There's an excellent version here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added that version to Talk:All Around the Mulberry Bush for now, although that version does not actually contain the phrase, "All Around the Mulberry Bush". I note that the article was originally created with only four verses, and the rest (including the likely non-PD stuff) was added by this 2017 anon edit. BD2412 T 01:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The song is generally called "Pop Goes the Weasel", and the lyric "all around the mulberry bush" does not appear to be the most common variant ("All around the cobbler's bench" is, from what I can tell, the usual phrase). In my opinion, we should make a versions page, add the Beadle variant and perhaps a couple others, and then just delete this unsourced unlicensed version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Versions page is created at Pop Goes the Weasel (nursery song) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Banks of Sweet Primroses (no source)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced, and redundant with multiple sourced editions.

Unsourced edition of a song for which we have two excellent sourced editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete without prejudice to keeping it if the version can be identified (and it's PD). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  The uploader also created the Wikipedia article for this song, and the references for lyric quotations on the Wikipedia article cite the music recording "Bob Copper, A Song for Every Season, London, 1971", so I'm guessing it's a user transcription of that recording. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete If we have an (let alone multiple) sourced editions I see no reason to keep an unsourced one. --Xover (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The River Dove

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: a partial two-page extract of raw OCR copied and pasted with the wrong author and the wrong date (by 200 years or so). I've created the author page, uploaded a scan, and set up an index; but there was no point trying to preserve the low-quality cruft from mainspace so i proofread those pages from scratch instead. The project is now set up if anyone wants to work on it in the future.

I am willing to move the existing two-page excerpt to scan, but given recent discussions I'm presenting it to the community for deletion first. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete It's an abandoned extract that nobody is likely to work on any time soon. M&S'ing it into Page: namespace and linking the Index: on the author page will do far more to encourage future improvement then keeping this low-quality fragment sitting around in mainspace. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete, consistently with my votes in similar cases above. I support uploading the scan, but the namespace page can wait until somebody decides to proofread it (if somebody decides to proofread it). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete scan is better --DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The River Dove

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted: a partial two-page extract of raw OCR copied and pasted with the wrong author and the wrong date (by 200 years or so). I've created the author page, uploaded a scan, and set up an index; but there was no point trying to preserve the low-quality cruft from mainspace so i proofread those pages from scratch instead. The project is now set up if anyone wants to work on it in the future.

I am willing to move the existing two-page excerpt to scan, but given recent discussions I'm presenting it to the community for deletion first. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete It's an abandoned extract that nobody is likely to work on any time soon. M&S'ing it into Page: namespace and linking the Index: on the author page will do far more to encourage future improvement then keeping this low-quality fragment sitting around in mainspace. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete, consistently with my votes in similar cases above. I support uploading the scan, but the namespace page can wait until somebody decides to proofread it (if somebody decides to proofread it). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete scan is better --DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The Atheian System

The following discussion is closed:

No evidence of publication with author's permission. As an unpublished manuscript its term of copyright protection is pma. 70, and thus will be in copyright in the US until 2034.

I can see no rationale why this purported 1963 publication would not fall under copyright. The author also died in 1963, so we won't even hit the 70 year mark until 2033. BD2412 T 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's one of the frustrating works where pedantry stops us from keeping a work that's widely available and nobody would worry about. But I see no evidence this was ever published with permission of the copyright holder, which would make it legally unpublished and eligible for undeletion in 2034.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete I see no plausible arguments why this should be public domain or freely licensed. On the talk page, Mukkakukaku asserts that it is PD-USGov by virtue of being included in the Warren report, but that's just the common public record vs. public domain misunderstanding. (PS. BD2412 shouldn't this have been posted to WS:CV instead?). --Xover (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The outcome should be the same irrespective of the formality of which forum is used. BD2412 T 13:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete, I see no reason to consider this PD —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. By the claim of User:Mukkakukaku, it is either in the public domain as a result of U. S. governmental publication, or by the abandonment of the author or the lack of renewal. There is no reason for this to have ever been copyrighted, and if it was, it would certainly be in the public domain currently. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

  Unfortunately, all of this is incorrect. Despite Mukkakukaku's erroneous assertion, government publication does not render the document PD (see previous discussions that make reference to Green Eggs and Ham). Abandonment does not render the document PD; there is no provision in copyright law nor in Wikisource policy for this. Renewal is only relevant for works published in 1963 or earlier, and the Warren report was published in September 1964; prior to this, the work was an unpublished manuscript (unpublished manuscripts are copyrighted for life+70 i.e. until 2033). Finally, all works are automatically copyrighted at the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium, so the idea that "there is no reason for this to have ever been copyrighted" is simply false. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Naval Officer, or Scenes in the Life and Adventures of Frank Mildmay

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under M1/G4: this was an abandoned false start that was continued at The Naval Officer. That work is a Gutenberg import of the 1895 edition, so I've also uploaded and set up indexes for the 3-volume 1829 edition on the author's page in case anyone feels like proofreading this (it's swashbuckling high-seas adventure!).

Four copydumped pages of this work, abandoned since 2006. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Index:Public School History of England and Canada

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under CSD G4.

Replaced by Scan-backed edition at Index:Public School History of England and Canada (1892).djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

IMO can be speedy-deleted as a duplicate.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't forget to delete the Pages as well (sometimes they get forgotten) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Index:Hindu Tales from the Sanskrit.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant / superior scan existing.

Duplicate to Index:Hindu Tales from the Sanskrit.djvu which has better quality scans. Existing proofreading migrated over. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Delete, can be speedied if truly a duplicate. Don't forget to delete any Page content. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for recovers

The following discussion is closed:

Resolved to satisfaction of thread initiator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Administrators
some of my contributions are deleted, without a discussion, by Administrator EncycloPetey on 5 December 2015 and 4 March 2017. I beleave that was not done with malicious intent, but I think it must be right my contributions recovered and then removed, or merged, to the current titles. I wouldn't want to appear as deleted on XTools, etc.

I found six of them and an overwrite:

• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Acestor (Deleted and created the Acestor 1. or/and the 3.)
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Acestor Sacas (Overwrited with a redirection to Acestor 2.)
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Eurybates 1. (Deleted and created, instead of merge to Eurybates)
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Eurybates 2. (Deleted and created, instead of merge to Eurybates)
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Eurybates 3. (Deleted and created, instead of merge to Eurybates (Argive))
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Eurybatus 1. (Deleted and created, instead of merge to Eurybatus)
• Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology/Eurybatus 2. (Deleted and created, instead of merge to Eurybatus)

I can't find the seventh, please check:
 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special%3ADeletedContributions%2FFrancois-Pier

Thank you. --Francois-Pier (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What has happened is that the original copy-paste articles have been replaced with transcluded copies from the scan. The original articles had items that were single dictionary entries created across multiple articles. I will see what I can do to accommodate your wishes, but it will be a mess. I am not sure how "deletions" are logged at XTools. The process of merging these will involve additional deletions, so if the number of deleted actions is logged, then your deletion count will actually go up from performing these merges. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Acestor Sacas" is a bad title. Nothing was deleted so there is nothing to restore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's ok, thank you. --Francois-Pier (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese emperors

The following discussion is closed:

kept: works have been identified that were authored by both individuals. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears that neither of these emperors of China were the authors of any works.

• Author:Qin Shi Huang
• Author:Wenzong of Qing

With no known works written by them, the pages should be deleted, since they are not authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Qin Shi Huang has, as far as I know, no extant works as such. Though he is frequently referred to in works from or about China, and if the sole subject of some books. So at least this should be a portal with a redirect. zh:Author:秦始皇 has a few works listed as by him, but I think they might be extracts from things like Author:Sima Qian's Shiji.
• Wenzong of Qing (Xianfeng) was an emperor in the 1800s, and will have many references to him in non-fiction works since then. There will be plenty of his works (edicts, etc) still existing. Edicts, especially, occasionally pop up in English-language journals (like this one from the Jiaqing Emperor (Xianfeng's grandfather). Several Chinese-language texts by him will also be available, but I struggle to dig these out of the Chinese-language internet (if you think IA/Hathi is a mess...). VIAF/WorldCat has a few works listed, but they don't turn up scans immediately (this one (Historical Records of Xianfeng) suggests there are over 5000 pages of material under his name). I suggest leaving this where it is, since there will be works both by and about, we just don't have any yet. And there are incoming references to him already, eg Treaty of Tien-Tsin between the Queen of Great Britain and the Emperor of China (where the Emperor of the title is Xianfeng). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Works about an individual aren't reason to have an Author page; we've established that as a community over and over. The question is whether there are works written by him that can be hosted here. If there aren't any works written by him, or if none can be found in English, then there is no reason to have the Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • As promised, there are English-language translations of at least some edicts of this emperor in contemporaneous collective works. They can be tricky to find because they often don't use the name at all or use various transliterations (Heen-fung in this case). I have uploaded a scan, but I'm unsure how to lay the work out in mainspace (it's a collation of multiple sheaves of documents, some with identical names, as a report to British Parliament, with repeated numbering within the document), so I didn't make redlinks, just a scan link. Input welcome on that.
    • FWIW, I find the Author/Portal split for people who clearly did write things based solely on the criteria "we have PD English works to hand right now" to be pedantic but I get that that beaten horse is long dead. Perhaps if "Author:" was "Person:", but it isn't. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • agreed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • It would be great if such translations were not only discovered, but also added here. My personal opinion is that author pages at English Wikisource should be founded only for authors having some works at English Wikisource, but I admit this opinion is not backed by the below linked rule. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An edict by Qin Shi Huang was recently discovered. I don't know if the text of the edict is available online. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I guess this work is elligible to be added to Chinese Wikisource, and so might also be the ruler’s author page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Chinese Wikisource already has an author page for Qin Shi Huang (zh:Author:秦始皇), though I believe the "works" are extracts from other historical documents. I don't think they (yet) have the Liye slips mentioned by Beleg Tâl. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • If we at least have evidence that works by that emperor are known with certainty to exist, then that is enough to satisfy me. That at least provides a basis for original translations once the Chinese text becomes available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
          • If some original Wikisource translation of such a work were made one day, which is imo very unlikely, the author page can easily be founded then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
        • WRT "works" that are extracts from other historical documents, this is the same situation as Author:Jesus of Nazareth. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete or move into portal namespace per Help:Author pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Being almost entirely ignorant of most of the fields in play here, I have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion (I'm not even certain I understand what it is that's the locus of debate). I will however note that the discussion appears to have stalled, and at least for my own part I do not feel comfortable trying to assess the consensus here. If someone else feels able to do so, it can probably be closed now. If not then it will be necessary with further discussion, and if so it might be helpful if someone who does understand the issue could summarise it for the benefit of others who are as confused as I am. --Xover (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The following discussion is closed:

kept per Beleg Tâl, within scope, now source-backed

As discussed ad nauseam on the talk page, no one's really sure of the source of the text we have, but the person who created the page claimed that it's from this 2005 PDF which reproduces a 1958 edition of a 1920 British translation by Victor E. Marsden which was first published in 1923. Given that Marsden died in 1920, the original 1923 edition is probably public domain. However, the 1958 edition is expanded and retitled (as World Conquest Through World Government) and may not be public domain. It isn't clear if the 1958 edition makes any changes to the primary Protocols text or simply adds additional commentary to the front and back matter. It also isn't clear if the 2005 PDF strictly adheres to the 1958 edition or not, but there are clearly minor changes between our text (even in its earliest incarnations) and the Protocols text given in the PDF. So to summarize, our text is apparently 3 generations away from a known public domain source, and at least 1 of those generations introduced changes.

There is a known public domain English translation available for indexing and transclusion at File:The Protocols and World Revolution.pdf. Let's delete this text to make way for a new source-based transcription. Since the text itself is a hoax, the only legitimate uses for this text are historical research or research on anti-semitism, both of which are pretty pointless unless the text actually matches a published source. And for what its worth, there are literally hundreds of copies of our current text floating around the internet, so no one should miss it in the meantime anyway. Kaldari (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. My tolerance for unsourced texts is low to begin with; and for texts of this nature I think it would be unconscionable if sourcing and fidelity are not impeccable. We are not a free web host for extremists, propagandist, and conspiracy theorists: such texts are justifiable only as historical artefacts and for scientific and educational purposes, and need to be treated as such. --Xover (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

   Keep Changing to keep per Beleg Tâl below. The text is now backed by a scan (although, I must say I am very confused about which specific edition it is we have and the provenance of the scan!), and Beleg Tâl has elsewhere indicated that I have not proofread it thoroughly enough to change the page status, but I have checked it closely enough to be convinced that there are no differences in the text beyond the occasional typo correction (and italicization, which was incorrectly omitted from the intermediate source that we were using previously).. I am somewhat torn and would have preferred better provenance, but ultimately conclude that this will have to do. --Xover (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom, and Xover's assesment re the fidelity and integrity of the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• I say no to the deletion. As a Goyim and a believer in the Messiah Jesus Christ, I firmly stand for seeing all devices that the enemy can use against humanity. For it is written "no weapon formed against us shall prosper and every tongue that rises against him (Yashua) thou shalt condemn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.52.119 (talk)

  The problem is not that it does not belong here, but that it is badly sourced and people above argued there are some differences from the alleged source in our version. I personally would also like to have it here as it is accompanied with a clarifying notice unlike other versions flooding the Internet, but the sourcing must be improved and our version has to mirror the sourced text. So as a result I am inclined to vote  Delete. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Changing to  Keep after Beleg Tâl backed it with a scan. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep I vote keep. This is useful to be used as a source to the text itself that is relevant in the political discussion and for past history event researches, referenced in several political writings. The translation is believed to be the real one from the russian upstream "original", specially as this edition was published by Ford and others in the past. Whether of its political message, it's a reference text and should not be deleted, instead, the largest and most widely available (and published) translation kept for historical context and accuracy, specially considering the nature of the text. --Cfmsits (talk) 20:24, 25 Fed 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep Works with second-hand provenance do not violate any Wikisource policies. Marsden's translation is notable, in scope, and in the public domain. I see no reason to consider the 1958 edition, with editorial content removed, to be a violation of copyright. This work should be updated against a better edition of the same translation (like, perhaps, this one), but should under no circumstances be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  The 1934 edition is uploaded and the Index page is here. The work in question should be moved to the appropriate subpage of The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  The work has now been scan-backed and is now located at The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion/Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion (the structure of the subpages can be modified if desired). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I closed this discussion because all deletion rationales have been addressed, and the proposal is now essentially moot. However, other editors have expressed that my closing of the discussion was premature, so I have reopened it in case anyone wants to discuss further. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Undelete The Great Irony of the Impeachment Trial

The following discussion is closed:

not done, redundant copy. Other has full source, and that version has less problematic wikilinking. If someone wants to start a deletion discussion for other work, then please do so.

This is the speech by Rand Paul in which he mentions the name of the speculated whistleblower.

@JzG: brought it to the Scriptorium, concerned that "This article is likely to be abused to try to weasel the speculated name into various Wikimedia projects in the absence of any reliable independent sources that do so.". That strikes me as a somewhat circular argument, since this is itself a reliable independent source FWIW.

@Xover: deleted it "[o]ut of an abundance of caution". I have no issue with taking an abundantly cautious approach, but I do think there should be a follow-up discussion here.

My concern is that we have always taken a firm line on NOTCENSORED. We have rape porn here for goodness sake. We do not position ourselves as arbiters of what is moral / ethical / acceptable to host here.

This document clearly falls within our scope, and it appears to be legal for us to host it. Until now, that has been enough. Are we now turning into censors? Undelete.

Hesperian 04:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong undelete This is clearly in scope. While I think deletion was well-intentioned, idle speculation on someone being a whistleblower is not cause for deletion and salting. Is there seriously any universe where we're getting into legal trouble for this or someone's life is in danger for us hosting what is already in the public record? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I did not notice there was already a page about this and created one myself. My only real issue is with conjuring up a specialized title for the speech as I do not believe there is a formal title. Paul's speech is in the Congressional Record and viewable on C-SPAN. There is no local policy that appears to apply to this content at all and it is in the public domain. Furthermore, there is no Terms of Use violation as it does not violate any privacy laws. Nowhere is a person identified as the whistleblower and the context in which Paul mentions names it is not to allege anyone is the whistleblower. A Senator of the United States giving a speech on the Senate floor is not in anyway prohibited, nor anyone else for that matter, from naming a government official whose name has been publicly reported for many years over matters unrelated to the impeachment proceedings, especially when the government official is named solely to ask questions about his conduct as an official years before any alleged whistleblower complaint. Even if Paul had suggested a named individual was the whistleblower because of the public reporting about that individual, there is no law that would prohibit him or anyone else from doing the same thing, unless it was someone from the ICIG's office as they are bound by law to protect the identities of whistleblowers. I think the more descriptive title I used is more appropriate, but otherwise support undelete in the sense of allowing this document to be present here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence

The following discussion is closed:

duplicate proposal; please contribute to the discussion at WS:CV#Istanbul Convention and other CoE treaties instead —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As has been agreed here by User:billinghurst, User:Beleg Tâl and me, this text never was a copyvio because it is a treaty that is in the public domain. It has also been agreed to add the tag {{PD-EdictGov}} to the text to indicate this. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Riders to the Sea

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under CSD§G4. (courtesy ping to requester)

I would like the pages linked at Index:Riders to the Sea.djvu deleted. (No need to delete the main Riders to the Sea page though, or the Index page itself.) I just generated the using Match and split, but I have since noticed that there is a far better transcription -- more accurate and better formatted -- at Gutenberg. I would like to start over.

The source I originally used was uploaded by @Hody byran: in 2014. It was this user's only edit to Wikisource. It appears to be a somewhat different edition (for instance, the transcription listed "Characters" at the very beginning, while the source listed "Persons"; and much of the formatting throughout the play is inconsistent with the source. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Peteforsyth: Provided the old text that you ran through M&S was unsourced (and not merely a different edition; we do keep multiple editions of the same work), and that what you're proposing is to use the Gutenberg text only as the starting point but proofread it against the actual scan, then I have no objection to deleting these pages. Given those caveats this would be a speedy under CSD§G4 (otherwise it's regular deletion, with one week minimum discussion). --Xover (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes @Xover: that's all accurate. I notified the uploader; but since the only action I'd need would be the pages I created via M&S, I suppose there's no harm in forging ahead without a response, as their upload will persist in the edit history in the (unlikely) event that we learn there was something we overlooked. So if you're comfortable doing a speedy delete, I'd be much obliged. -Pete (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Index:The Kingdom Of God Is Within You by Lev Tolstoy.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; work not in scope as self-published aspects without peer review process. Original work would be generally considered within scope — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Underlying file is up for deletion on commons as a suspected copyright violation.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the file has got a good chance to survive the deletion request as the copyright of both the author and translator has expired and the discussed file is a mere reprint of the 1894 edition (and if it does not survive, we can IMO host it here). However, I personally do not see many reasons for transcribing this reprint, as the original edition is available. So unless User:EarthlyFireFlies, who created the index page, has reasons for transcribing this particular reprint, I suggest replacing it by the 1894 edition. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This version is NOT identical to the original translation by Constance Garnett. I have verified every word with the source and found a number of errors in the translation, distorting the meaning of the original work by Tolstoy. Here's an incomplete list of the discrepancies I found:

list of discrepancies

1. 1 (Chapter I)

Original: Та же неизвестность постигла и другого борца за непротивление злу, недавно умершего, в продолжение 50 лет проповедовавшего это учение, американца Адина Баллу. До какой степени мало известно всё то,… Translated: Another champion of non-resistance has been overlooked in the same way--the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending fifty years in preaching this doctrine. Lord God, to calmly and meekly abide the doctrine. <- this insert is completely made up, not in the original, and it’s impertinent to Tolstoy’s understanding of the truth.

1. 2

Original: “сочинение Хельчицкого должно было быть издано в первый раз на чешском языке в журнале Петербургской академии наук” Translated: Helchitsky's work was to be published for the first time in the Czech language in the Journal of The Petersburg Academy of SILENCE (should be: Science)

1. 3

Original: Такое же впечатление [как в случае с Балу, Гаррисоном, и др.] желания [властей] скрыть, замолчать то, что я старался высказать в своей книге, произвели во мне и суждения о ней. Translated: The impression I gained of a desire to conceal, to hush up, what I had tried to express in my book, led me to judge the book itself afresh. (wrong meaning in this clause) Should be: Based on the reviews I received on this book, I’ve got an impression of alike intent to hide, silence that what I attempted to express in my book.

1. 4

Original: Во всей же проповеди и жизни учителя Translated: “in our Savior’s life or preaching” (Tolstoy didn’t call Jesus “Saviour” neither considered him God) Should be: “in our teacher’s life or preaching” ...

1. 9

Original: которая посмотрела бы на учение Христа как на философское, нравственное и социальное (говоря опять языком научных людей) учение. Translated: who criticized Christ’s doctrines as philosophical, moral, and social principles Should be: which considered Christ’s teaching as philosophical, moral, and social principles ...

1. 11

Original: если бы мы начали жить хорошо, как нас учил Христос, мы не могли бы продолжать жить дурно, как мы живем и привыкли жить. Translated: if we have begun by living sinfully, as we do live and are accustomed to live. Should be: if we have begun to live virtuously, as Christ taught, we wouldn’t be able to continue living sinfully, as we do live and are accustomed to live.

1. 12

Original: мерзости, которыми полон Ветхий Завет, не может верить в нравственный закон Христа Translated: atrocities of which the Old Testament is full, cannot believe in the holy love of Christ. Should be: atrocities of which the Old Testament is full, cannot believe in the moral law of Christ. …

1. 15 (VI)

Original: Разрешение противоречий жизни и сознания возможно двумя путями: изменением жизни или сознания. Translated: The antagonism between life and the conscience may be removed in two ways: by a change of life or by a change of conscience. (You are unlikely to change conscience – such notions of right and wrong are given to us.) Should be: The antagonism between life and the conscience may be removed in two ways: by a change of life or by a change of consciousness. (understanding of life)

1. 16

Original: Если признаются еще некоторыми нетронутыми христианством людьми идеалы нехристианские: сила, храбрость, богатство, то это идеалы, переживаемые и разделяемые не всеми и не людьми, признаваемыми лучшими. Translated: Though some non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and wealth, are still valued by a few who have not been penetrated by the Christian spirit, these ideals are out of date and are abandoned, if not by all, at least by all those regarded as the best people. Should be: Though some non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and wealth, are still valued by a few who have not been penetrated by the Christian spirit, these ideals are lived by and shared not by all people, and not by those who are regarded as the best people. …

1. 19

Original: Говорят об освобождении христианской церкви от государства, о даровании или недаровании свободы христианам. Translated: People talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about giving or not giving freedom to Christians. Should be: People talk about the separation of the Christian Church from state, about giving or not giving freedom to Christians. …

1. 22

Original: [теория, что:] увеличение войск приведут к необходимости разоружения посредством конгрессов, арбитраций и т. п. Translated: [theory that:] the multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of making war by means of congresses, arbitration, and so on. Should be: the multiplication of armaments, will lead to the necessity of disarmament by means of congresses, arbitration, and so on.

1. 23

Original: Мы только не замечаем этого, как не замечают люди движения, когда они сами движутся вместе со всем окружающим. Translated: We do not notice it just as we do not notice the movement of the earth, because we are moved together with everything around us. [Tolstoy didn’t refer here to a ‘moving Earth’ (especially Tolstoy didn’t think the Earth is moving, as none of us feels it); it’s enough to notice the described phenomenon when sitting in a train and observing moving or unmoving surrounding and be confused whether it’s you that is moving.] Should be: We do not notice it just as we do not notice movement when we are moved together with what surrounds us. …

1. 25

Original: теперь люди, стоящие во главе управления, и богачи, не составляют, как это было в старину, цвета общества, а, напротив, стоят ниже среднего уровня. Translated: Consequently, nowadays the wealthy class and men at the head of government do not constitute, as they did in former days, the elite of society. On the contrary, they are inferior to the middle class. [This isn’t what Tolstoy said. And why suddenly “middle class” is referred to having higher morals or education?] Should be: Consequently, nowadays the wealthy class and men at the head of government do not constitute, as they did in former days, the cream of society. On the contrary, they are below average.

1. 25

Original: Всякая, самая короткая война Translated: Every war, even the most humanely conducted, [word “humanely” should never be allied to war] Should be: Any war, even the briefest one,

1. 26

Original: стоит человеку во сне только сделать усилие сознания и спросить себя: да не сон ли это? Translated: the dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask himself, “Isn’t it a dream?” Should be: the dreamer needs only make a conscious effort and ask himself, “Isn’t it a dream?”

1. 27

Original: Царство божие усилием берется, и только делающие усилие восхищают его,… Translated: “The kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matt. 11:12) (This Bible quote doesn’t correspond to this sentence. And “violent” isn’t a good descriptor to the spirit of God.) Should be: “The kingdom of heaven is taken by efforts, and only the ones doing such effort please it.”

1. 28

Original: и есть то усилие, которым берется царство божие и которое должно и может быть сделано в наше время. Translated: it is this effort of violence that must and can be made in our times. (Again, Tolstoy would never use the word “violence” in this context.) Should be: it is this effort that must and can be made in our times.

EarthlyFireFlies (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are essentially doing corrections to an existing translation, you are creating a derivative work from the 1894 translation. If those corrections are your own, (peresumably based on academic opinion), I would suggest dropping a suitable e-mail to the permissions queue. As a translator, It is hoped you understand why Wikisource/Commons has to be cautious when it comes to copyright issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, even though Wikisource doesn't have annotated editions, I would strongly suggest you consider using the talk page ( or perhaps Wikiversity) to document the reasons for or logic behind the "corrections" you've used. This would be in line with other scholarly translations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I am not able to argue whether all the listed errors are errors or not, at least some of them seem to be only a matter of the translator’s preference: For example No. 27, where you argue that "“violent” isn’t a good descriptor to the spirit of God." I do not want to talk about the POV whether "violent" is a good descriptor of God or not (which is in fact irrelevant for Wikisource purposes), but this translation is literally taken from common English translations of the Bible, and if you do not want to confuse readers, you cannot invent your own translation in this point, without detailed knowledge of the oldest preserved Greek texts of Mathhew. So what we imo need first is the original translation of the Tolstoy’s work, and only then we can add an annotated version, but the annotations need to be done more carefully: only real and clear errors should be commented directly by a Wikisource contributor, translations of Bible quotations should be commented only with reference to some biblicist authorities who translate the given passages differently. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Just if anybody were interested in proofreading the original 1894 translation, I have downloaded its copy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Delete as a self-published derivative edition, and replace with the edition uploaded by Jan Kameníček —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What Modern Warfare Looks Like When Experimented Upon Helpless People

The following discussion is closed:

not within scope; not moved to WQ as they need reliable sources, and user can have that discussion there themself. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This tiny fragment of a speech, with no source anywhere that I can find, should be moved to Wikiquote. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete. Looks like something for Wikiquote, although I think they prefer primary sources, while I found it only as a quotation in a secondary source The Voice of Ethiopia --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete per above. -Pete (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Old English Runic Inscriptions

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope.

This list of various known runic inscriptions, imported from w:Anglo-Saxon runes#Inscription corpus, appears to be completely out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. N. B., original uploader has not been active here since Dec. 2016 when this work was uploaded. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

History of the Municipalities of Hudson County, New Jersey, 1630-1923

The following discussion is closed:

Scans uploaded, issue behind proposal now resolved. -Pete (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Excerpts of a book, with no scans available to create the rest of the work. I have left a note with contributor of the requirement to retain, and if that is achievable then the work can be retained. If not, then the two existing biographical entries with the root page need deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

“	Random or selected sections of a larger work, are generally not acceptable. When an entire work is available as a djvu file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts.	”
—WS:WWI#Excerpts

•  Keep as creator, this appears as the same as entries for Dictionary of National Biography such as Hutchins,_John_(DNB00). The entries are complete works in themselves, just as we have individual pages and individual articles from a newspaper issue, even though the issue is the entire copyrighted work. See for instance The New York Times where we have individual pages. See for instance The New York Times/1867/11/27/Washington. Reports of the Judiciary Committee on Impeachment where we have individual articles from the New York Times, not the whole page and not the whole issue and not the whole week, not the whole month, and not the whole year, and not the complete run from 1853 to 1925. The deletion nominator sent me to this page Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, if your going to tell me the answer is in the bible, please quote the chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

   Comment It is an excerpt from a work, it is not the whole work, and it is not scan backed. It is not the same as the DNB 1) because we have all the DNB articles, they are not displayed as subpages they they are continguous, so not a reasonable comparison, and 2) DNB is scan backed. Newspapers are a different beast, this is not a newspaper. — billinghurst sDrewth

  BTW it is not hard to look for the heading "excerpts", didn't know we were now handholding. (citation now inserted above) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  What you call "handholding" I call aiming for a high level of discussion among informed participants. Thank you for adding the quote. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep per creator above. per Beleg Tal below. A small question -- as of right now, there are two entries; the first one contains a scan of the relevant pages from the original work, but the second one contains no scan. IMO it's ideal if there's a scan. Are you planning to create more entries, and if so, do you plan to scan the relevant pages? -Pete (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Peteforsyth: Please tell us how it is within scope. Or how and why you believe that we should be amending our scope to fit these excerpts. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Also could it be addressed how this would not set a precedent, and how we would then manage all random articles added hereafter, and how they will be curated, and works built, know that a work is complete, in order, and proofread. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hesitating. I think the two excerpts are not separate works, they are just small chapters of a work written by one author. I generally prefer scan-backed contributions, and it looks it is even more needed in this case: the current contributor probably does not plan to add the whole 3-volume work, but without scans it is very unlikely that other contributors will add some more chapters. It would be much more useful if user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) uploaded the scans and created the index pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Besides that, adding an excerpt of a scan directly to the main namespace, as in Freudenberg, Arthur Oscar is imo not a good idea: scans (including those in .jpg or .png format) belong only to the page namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

   Keep after the excerpts were scan backed. Although technically they are just excerpts, they make sense on their own similarly to various encyclopaedia entries, and so they should stay in the main namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep: scans are available at HathiTrust as noted above; if the scans are added here, the work will be in compliance with WS:WWI. (@Xover: would you be interested and willing to pull the scans from these three volumes?) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Which is what I said to the contributor and what the WS:WWI states. 'once there are scans they are within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Then this shouldn't be a deletion proposal; it should be a request for assistance in finding and adding the scans. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, that is why we have a scope and a deletion discussion about how a work can be brought into scope. It puts the emphasis back to the user to go that extra step rather than dropping an article here. Alternatively, if the community decides that it wants to do the work, then that can be its decision, and this effort follows. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Beleg Tâl: File:History of the Municipalities of Hudson County (1924), Vol. 1.djvu, File:History of the Municipalities of Hudson County (1924), Vol. 2.djvu, File:History of the Municipalities of Hudson County (1924), Vol. 3.djvu. Minimal checking done so better not assume they're complete etc. without going over them.

  I haven't looked at this particular case (no time, sorry) but my general stance is delete mainspace excerpts unless someone is actively working on the complete work (at least one volume), but keep any files and indexes. But this is not a vote, merely a general comment. --Xover (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for grabbing the files. As for deleting mainspace content, I 100% disagree with this for works of this type - the chapters on Freudenberg and McMahon provide value to users of this site even if progress on the remainder of the work is at a standstill. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I concur. I've done my best now to get things rolling with an index page for Volume 3 (from which the two biographies originally transcribed were derived) and building the headers for the main work and the various subpages. For whatever it's worth, I'd hesitate to call these "excerpts," since they are entire sections drawn from the original work, so I'm not convinced the section of WS:WWI quoted above applies. Another set of eyes on how I've assembled the headers and pages would be welcome. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Peteforsyth: Except that it was written specifically to cover this situation. We don't want one chapters of text inserted, or one biography added. It was problematic, we couldn't proofread, etc. and we wanted the whole work, not random components. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sure you were just typing quickly, but it would be rather surprising to learn that a 2012 addition to the criteria document would have been written specifically with this history of a New Jersey town in mind :) In all seriousness, though, the way one describes "this situation" has the potential to build an outcome into the argument, so care in this language is warranted. Maybe you could say more. I do not see these articles, or biographies, or sections as "excerpts" of the larger work. Rather, I would call them works unto themselves, which have been compiled in a larger work. If these are not excerpts, then the quoted section of WWI does not apply.

If you do consider excerpts, I'd like to hear more about how you define "excerpt." For instance, would you consider this obituary an excerpt from the May 7, 1895 edition of the New York Times, or not?

Notably, there are two excerpts included in a relevant wikidata item; those, I would call excerpts, whether "random" or "selected." If those had been transcribed here, I would support deletion.

Pinging Jeepday (talk • contribs) the author of the "excerpts" section. Examples of the precedents leading to this addition would be helpful, too. -Pete (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In Excelsis Gloria

The following discussion is closed:

deleted and converted to redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This edition of a traditional Christmas song is unsourced. We have a more-or-less identical scan-backed sourced edition of the same song here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Convert to redirect. I don't see any other editions, but if someone found one, this could become a disambiguation page. Otherwise, a redirect to the sourced version seems appropriate. That unsouced copy appeared here in 2004 (early days). --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Convert to redirect per EncycloPetey above. -Pete (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete Redirect, per the above. --Xover (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Index:Pliny's Natural History Book 1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

speedy kept; withdrawn by nominator, no cause for deletion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an incomplete scan and a duplicate of another transcription project of the same work here. Grillo7 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

They're not the same work; the one proposed for deletion is translated by Holland, the other one is translated by Bostock and Riley.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Keep You're right, withdrawing that proposal on the grounds of me not being very diligent. Grillo7 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Pad

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied under CSD§G7 per author's request here.

Superfluous to Template:Gap; author requests deletion (User_talk:Phoe#{{pad}}_vs_{{gap}}). Some pages link to it, so those instances will have to be fixed beforehand. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Maciej Szczepańczyk

The following discussion is closed:

Absent arguments to the contrary, I have speedied this under CSD§G8.

This user-based category is outside the scope of WS, as described in Help:Categorization. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Realign OCR

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete.

Proposed for deletion, given concerns from another contributor that it may be "over-templating", when the index ns pages it was used on are already indicated as "Source file needs to be fixed". As an intriem edit I've changed this into being a "silent categorisation" template, although as it is currently unused, this could be considered as a speedy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally, discussion whether we need/want some template should always precede its removal from Wikisource pages, not vice versa.

As for this particular one, I am unable to say any opinion, as the template has never had any documentation showing its purpose (creating a template should always be conditioned by creating a well-written and detailed documentation page) and as you have even changed the template prior to this proposal, so I cannot see anywhere what it is/was supposed to provide. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Translation:Exhortation of Wuhan Public Security Bureau Wuchang Branch Zhongnan Road Street Police Station

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. In this discussion there were no contributors arguing for its deletion, unless one counts the original speedy that brought it here for review. There was very limited participation in the discussion, but all who expressed an opinion were either neutral or in favour of keeping it. The best description for the outcome is thus "no consensus to delete": this discussion does not really settle the scope issue, and the matter of copyright has not been sufficiently discussed.

Translation:Exhortation of Wuhan Public Security Bureau Wuchang Branch Zhongnan Road Street Police Station was created by Njzjz and was deleted as a speedy deletion at 03:44, 8 February 2020. The reason for this speedy deletion given in edit summary is "WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope". But this file is a translation of zh:武汉市公安局武昌分局中南路街派出所训诫书, a legal document issued to Li Wenliang by a police department of China, which is in public domain according to the law of China. I think that it is a "documentary source" that is allowed to be included in Wikisource per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, and can be put in Category:Legal documents. I don't understand why it is beyond scope of Wikisource. Hope that it could be undeleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Since the text was speedied under G5 (beyond scope) rather than copyright or other "hard" deletion reason, I have temporarily undeleted it in order to facilitate a community discussion. The undeletion is temporary and should not have any bearing on the outcome of this discussion, beyond enabling the community to see what they are discussing. --Xover (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Neutral Hmm. Looking at the copyright, my initial thought is that it's borderline for PD-PRC-exempt and EdictGov. It's an admonishment issued under Chinese law, but it has limited claim to being itself a law, ordnance, judicial or administrative ruling, etc. Or put another way, it practices the law but does not define the law in any sensible manner. I would not, personally, see this as clearing the bar for exemption under either Chinese copyright law or EdictGov in the US.
  I also think this has some privacy issues that makes me uncomfortable hosting it.
  Finally there's the issue of scope… Under our current policy definitions it does not appear clear to me that this work would be excluded. It is not obviously an excerpt, even though it is a single-page form. While the original (non-form) text is brief, it does not appear to be simply data or tables. It is not an evolving work. It is not a previously unpublished scientific work. And so forth. That being said, I am, personally, not sure that this should be in scope: it sits in a grey area where good arguments might sway me in either direction.
  What is clear to me is that if we are to keep this we need to set up an index for it and move the translation to the Page: namespace; and the translation itself should be improved beyond the fairly mechanical one that's currently there. For this kind of text the sourcing and quality must be impeccable (out of respect for Dr. Li and his family, if nothing else).
  @Jusjih: I would like to see your perspective on this. --Xover (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  In my view, this letter, as an administrative ruling, is in public domain according to Article 5 of the Copyright Law of China, which states that copyright shall not be applicable to "documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature". And I don't think there is any privacy issue here since a picture of the original letter was posted by Dr. Li Wenliang himself to his own Sina Weibo account. It can be presumed that Dr. Li was willing to let the whole world know the content of the letter. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  That Dr. Li posted it himself ameliorates but does not remove the privacy concerns. He was under considerable stress at the time this was posted (and, depending on the timing, may indeed even have been ill), and may well have reconsidered or chosen differently under different circumstances. Since he is now dead the issue also affects his heirs who have a legitimate interest in the issue. We should certainly take such issues into account when deciding how to deal with this text. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  The fact that Dr. Li received this letter, and even the content of this letter, have been widely reported. The specific words in this letter do not expose any new substantial information. Probably Dr Li's birth date, the name of the WeChat group, and the names of the two police officers in this letter can be removed from the translation for privacy concerns. But anyway readers can know all the content of the letter by looking at File:李文亮的训诫书.png on Commons. Hiding that information on Wikisource seems meaningless if File:李文亮的训诫书.png is not deleted on Commons. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep mainly per Neo-Jay's explanation. IMO it can be also tagged as PD-ineligible as I can see there no creative input. The document is definitely in our scope, as a document "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Similar speedies are really harmful. The summary accompanying the deletion was WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope. The summary unfortunately did not contain any hint why the admin considers it beyond the scope. Looking at the first of the provided links, there is written "Beyond scope: The content clearly lies outside the scope of Wikisource (such as advertisements or book descriptions without text)" and the other link goes to a page stating that WS includes documents "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events", which seems contrary to this deletion. No trace of anything suggesting why the deleted page should clearly lie beyond the WS scope: Admins speedy-deleting works should take into account whether it is only their opinion or whether they can really suppose it would be generally considered clear by the community, and speedy delete pages only in the latter case. Speedy deletes for being out of scope should be used only in cases where discussion is useless because it is clear that its verdict would be "out of scope". Unlike in this case, admins should also always explain the reason why it is beyond the scope in the summary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for noting contributor's talk page where I explained what I had done, and how to bring it here for discussion.
  2. I will put it to you that a work should be demonstrated to be within scope, it is not to the administrator to demonstrate otherwise from anything but the contribution itself. The process for scope is that historical / evidentiary documents and people demonstrated to be notable, it is not a blanket opening for any evidentiary document. The person is not an author, and their notability was neither demonstrated nor evident from the document. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment The work has now been scan backed; deletion must also include Index:李文亮的训诫书.png. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Chinese Wikisource considers it PD-PRC-exempt while believed to be governmental administrative document. If no other comment, I propose keeping it per Neo-Jay.--Jusjih (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft in Warfare.

The following discussion is closed:

Index:Aircraft in Warfare.pdf (incomplete) deleted as redundant with Index:Aircraft in Warfare (1916).djvu (fully proofread modulo a few images).

I would like to propose the deletion of Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare.pdf

There are two copies of the same edition of this book in the system. This copy is the most complete Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare_(1916).djvu and it has been suggested that the second copy Index:Aircraft_in_Warfare.pdf should be deleted.

Thanks, Sp1nd01 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom orders of honour and subsidiary categories

The following discussion is closed:

kept the base framework for main ns works, removed author ns categories

I am wondering why we are bothering to capture these. They are sufficiently captured at enWP and Commons and Wikidata, I don't see that we need these for our categorisations. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment My immediate instinct is to agree with nomination, but I'm open to the possibility that there may be something I haven't thought of here. --Xover (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Pretty much what I was trying to say. If they were subject matter, then no issue, however, not for tagging of authors. This is another example of the vagaries of authors/portals, biographies and subject articles. One of the reasons that I want to add that clarity to our categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Iliad of Homer, translated into English blank verse

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

No content. Speedy deletion contested. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

 Delete and refer to scan from Iliad versions page and Author. Scan at Index:Iliad of Homer - Bryant - 1870.djvu. OCR seems almost as good as the existing text (missing some apostrophes, though). No incoming links of note. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Messianic Prophecies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

A few pages of entirely unedited OCR; the table of contents is present, but unedited. No addition to content since 2007 creation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

 Delete. Nothing much of value in mainspace here. Scan at Index:Messianic Prophecies - Delitzsch - 1880.djvu if anyone wants to work on it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The French Revolution: A History

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Only the first chapter of the first volume (of three) exists. In addition, there is no source provided. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

• @User:Xover: There are scans for this work at the Internet Archive. I was going to upload one, create an index page and then migrate this chapter to the page namespace. James500 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  @James500: Great! Let me know when the scan and index are set up and I can temorarily undelete this so you can copy out what you need. --Xover (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Goodspeed's Northwestern Arkansas

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

A few biographical entries from this work are all that have existed since its creation in 2006. The source is unclear, and possibly copyrighted in part. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Selassie's speech on Spirituality

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unsourced translation of an excerpt of an undated speech attributed to Haile Selassie (1892–1975), relying on lack of copyright treaty between the US and Ethiopia to claim lack of copyright protection in the US (meaning if Ethiopia establish relations, this will get US copyright anyway). However, the authorship of the text is disputed (cf. this edit, citing this thread on Wikiquote), and may instead be by either Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) or Appollo P.K Nvenge aka Amentu P.K N'venge in the book African Unity: the Only Solution (I've not been able to track down more info on this author).

The original text here gives the translator as "Author:Haile Selassie I Press" (no idea what that's supposed to be), and there's a textinfo template linking to jah-rastafari.com which appears to be essentially a fansite for Selassie as Rastafari (loosely, the Second Coming of Jesus).

In any case, only if the original is by Selassie and the translation here was contributed by the same person who translated it at jah-rastafari.com, is the text actually compatibly licensed. In either case it is an excerpt; it has unclear sourcing; unclear attribution; is not scan-backed; and has, at best, unclear copyright status (I was this close to speedy under CSD § G6 but there's a theoretical set of circumstances where it's not a copyvio so best to let the community look at it first). I suggest we delete it and if the full original is found with compatible licensing we re-add it with proper scan-backing. --Xover (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Landmarks of Rensselaer county

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Contains one chapter, which was uploaded in 2005 as a separate work. It has been marked with {{fidelity}} since 2008, and there is no indication of scans anywhere. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Colonel's Dream

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

One page, containing the dedication, copied from Gutenberg, with no source specified. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

 Delete - This is pretty pointless content, even compared to an average PG drive-by dumping. Scan at Index:The Colonel's Dream - Chesnutt - 1905.djvu. The dedication is proofread and it can loiter in page space until the book is proofread more. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Creeds of Christendom

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Only one entry is present, and no source file is given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Index initial check

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unused.

This category is empty, and only mentioned in the documentation for Template:Index transcluded. Maybe it was added by a bot in the past, as an initial list of pages to go thru? In any case, that should be clarified, and, assuming it's unused now, maybe deleted? JesseW (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Delete, per this diff the cat is not used any more. I have updated the template docs to match the template (i.e. removed the mention). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

File:The Father Confessor, Stories of Danger and Death.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Simultaneously published in the US and UK (and Australia), so PD in the US. Illustration transwiki'ed to Commons and local copy deleted.

In going through the files, I came across this file, which is marked with {{Do not move to Commons}}; however, the file it is derived from, File:The Father Confessor, Stories of Danger and Death.djvu, is not so marked, and is, in fact, on Commons. One of these is marked incorrectly, and I believe that it is the latter; as such, the file should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation on Commons, and stored locally in the same manner as the image it contains. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: You're right. The Father Confessor (1900) as such was written by Dora Sigerson Shorter (1866–1918), but it was illustrated by Frances Ewan (1870–1965). Both text and images are PD in the US by virtue of having been published before 1925, and the text is PD in the UK because Shorter died before 1950, but the illustrations are in copyright in the UK until 1965 + 70 years = 2035. Since the DjVu contains both images and text, it is in violation of Commons policy and should be transwikied here.

@Charles Matthews and Billinghurst: Frances Ewan (Q21459635) looks like it has been connected to a different artist named "Frances Ewan" (quite possibly a male artist), with different vital years. Any chance one of you are able to untangle the mess? --Xover (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Mostly likely a confusion with floruit dates, I'd say. I've taken out the offending ones. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Charles! --Xover (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back! The book was simultaneously published in the UK and US (and AUS), and the illustrations appear to have been created specifically for this book (Ewan was a book illustrator working for the publisher), so for the purposes of Commons policy the country of origin is the US. Since it is PD in the US there is no policy problem; and, in fact, the illustration hosted here should be transwikied to Commons. --Xover (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Poems by the Way

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This abandoned and barely-started work contains only two things: a table of contents, and a top-level unsourced edition of Pomona, which can be considered redundant since it is also included in The Book of Hallowe'en/IV. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: ^^^^ an oooooooold one of yours. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I will also note here the duplication of The Book of Hallowe'en vs Book of Halloween (the latter is scan backed.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn’t I start that one back when the transition to scans was just beginning? Certainly I’m not going to continue it now -- delete away. Levana Taylor (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Contribution to a Bibliography of Chess Periodicals

The following discussion is closed:

Migrated to a scan, put into proper context in the containing periodical, and replaced with a dated soft redirect.

This is a fraction of a small article from a larger journal that has hung around for over a decade. I've copied what was done to Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 12.djvu/150 and Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 12.djvu/151; I don't see any reason to let this hang around in mainspace any longer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: suggest a subst'd {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just moved this under the Notes and Queries page and completed and transcluded the relevant section. Since it's referred to by Portal:Chess, it seemed worth keeping around. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete the top level mainspace page per nom; but  Keep the scan-backed stuff put into its original context after the fact by Inductiveload. I don't think a link from a Portal should generally weigh very heavily (it's too random what gets added there in the general case). I also would not in general be opposed to maintaining a permanent top level hard redirect for things that have plausible claims to independent "work" status, but I think this bibliography is borderline in that regard. --Xover (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiji and the Fijians: The Islands and Their Inhabitants

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a tiny excerpt with no claim to being a standalone work, and of unknown provenance.

This is actually volume 1 of Fiji and the Fijians; the other volume was written by another author. The only text in this work is the preface to the first volume, which was created in 2006. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

• The Internet Archive has at least 16 scans of this book. Excluding Google scans, there are scans of the following editions:
  • New York, 1859 [4] [5]
  • New York, 1860 [6] [7]
  • Boston, 1871 [8] (extended edition; scan seems to be missing the first page of the preface, which is included in this Google scan (London, 1870)).
• These editions seem to be single volumes including the material from both of the original two volumes. I am not sure which of these scans is best. James500 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• The file is at commons:File:Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, New York, 1860.djvu. It has more pages than the other 1859/60 scans. James500 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete Non-scan-backed / unsourced minimal excerpt sitting untouched for 15 years. The best way to encourage work on this is to upload a scan, set up an index, and link the transcription project from the author page. --Xover (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process. The index page has been at Index:Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, New York, 1860.djvu for some time. James500 (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Notes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is probably a speedy, but in case someone knows what this was for: {{notes}}.

Appears to be unused and has been unchanged since 2012. Looks like some kind of remnant of header template development. There's a (blank) docs subpage and a testcases subpage too. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is an internal template—it has nothing to do with the main namespace. It is used here—it is the small gray bar at the top of the section. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ahhhh, I had missed that one - I thought that was just a mention in passing. #fail. I'll document what (I think) it does.

Then again, it's rather overpowered for "make a blue-ish box" and now I try it, most parameters are broken (eg wikipedia). Is it possible this template is being misused at Wikisource:Tools and scripts based on it's generic name? The id="header_notes" class="noprint" leads me to think that's not it's true purpose. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• The original template looked like this:

{| style="width:100%; border:1px solid #A88; background:#fAfAff;color:#202122;font-size:0.9em;" |- | {{{notes|}}} |}

This certainly reminds me of the {{header}} usage. I believe, like several other templates (I think), User:George Orwell III tried to modify the template, in 2011. The template as it stands now “should” be used within that template, but there is no need for it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Undelete The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire

The following discussion is closed:

Texts requested for undeletion are of too uncertain quality and provenance to undelete, but original scans have been uploaded and they can be proofread from there.

The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire had been deleted in 2007 for Copyright violation. We are now in 2020 and the story was first published in 1924, but © 1923. So I would like to check if it this story could be undeleted. The question is also valid for the following stories :

• The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, deleted in 2007, first published in 1924 ;
• The Adventure of the Three Garridebs, deleted in 2007, first published in 1924 ;
• The Adventure of the Creeping Man, deleted in 2008, first published in 1923 ;

Thanks for your help. Hektor (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think we should undelete these. We can, and I will, provide scans of the original magazines they were published in, and they can be proofread from scans, for a more reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not know the scans were available. Then can you please provide scans of The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone and The Problem of Thor Bridge as well ? Hektor (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sussex Vampire scan appears to be this one, the only one from 1924 at the IA (they do have up to 1922: https://archive.org/details/TheStrandMagazineAnIllustratedMonthly). It also contains articles that are not PD in the UK, e.g. the one by Winston Churchill (d. 1965, so copyright for another 15 years). So, it cannot go to Commons. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

HathiTrust has complete Strand Magazine volumes. Do you want to upload that one; it may be slightly better on the whole than the HathiTrust volumes, but I will be uploading six months at a shot, so it will be slightly duplicate (though quicker).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Three Garridebs was first published in Collier’s I noticed. Hektor (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Collier's is a problem; for some reason, HathiTrust's issues of it aren't visible. (I've communicated with them; they said that's not going to change, with a vague handwave about unclear rights.) The Internet Archive doesn't have scans of that, either. In six months the scans of the Jan. 1925 Strand should be visible (and likely they're PD now, since periodicals are often published before their cover date.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I'll leave it to the six-monthly Hathi scans for simplicity laziness. If the images are better in that one issue at the IA, they can be extracted directly from there as needed. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've sent the first Strand volume to the Internet Archive for processing; https://archive.org/details/strand-volume-65-jan-jun-1923-images , but it's still in derive as of the point when I write this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: If you have scans, I can make you DjVus (page image quality usually better than IA, OCR quality on average roughly on par, but MediaWiki handles text layers in DjVu much better than in PDFs). --Xover (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The first Strand volume is now on IA it seems so you can download the pdf and make one DjVu. Question will be whether it can go on Commons or if there are non PD works in it. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: The 741 MB on IA is the raw material that I had. As for Commons, one name pops out--P. G. Wodehouse, died 1975. Which saves me from the tedious job of checking every author right off, because the odds this is 100% life+70, and provably so, would be pretty low.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: File:The Strand Magazine, vol. 65 (1923).djvu --Xover (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Letters of Queen Victoria Vol. 2, 3 of 1907

The following discussion is closed:

Done.

Due to faulty scans, Letters of Queen Victoria Vol. 2, 3 of 1907 were abandoned and 1908 editions of all 3 volumes were uploaded. No use keeping 1907 edition that confuses editors.

More details can be found here --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete. If somebody finds a difference between the two editions that would make the 1907 edition worth to be added here too and is willing to work on it, it can be replaced by a better scan from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000771087. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• What Tar-ba-gan is too polite to mention is that I should have taken care of this a month ago, but just plum forgot. I'll remedy that presently. :) --Xover (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Force index link

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Completely unused template, and I see no obvious use cases for it currently either. @Inductiveload: This is one of yours (from 2010). --Xover (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Forces a link to an index page from a main namespace page. Now integrated into the source code and now able to be forced differently. Probably can go. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Delete I assume this made sense at the time! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:HideIfEmpty and Template:IfEmptyDo

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Unused templates (the latter exists only to support the former) from 2008, whose function are a hack that there are far better and more robust ways to do now. --Xover (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

They can go, they used to be in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template and disappeared somewhere about 2012. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Targum Onkelos

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope, both as an excerpt and as an out-of-policy annotation.

Three chapters of Genesis from, I believe, a version of the entire Bible; translator not specified, and possibly not copyright-free. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

The Targum Onkelos is an early (as in 2nd century) translation of the Pentaeuch into Aramaic, from Hebrew. The Aramaic appears to be the same as Sefaria, and I assume is basically "original" - Google turns the text up in various places. The English appears to be the same as in Etheridge (v1, v2, 1862–65), so should be fine. The transliteration appears to be custom. At least, the very first word, "Ve'ishtachlalu", is a Google-whack - there is only a single result and it is the Wikisource page, so it's presumably not a simple copy-paste job. It's also presumably not a "standard" tranliteration or someone would have written it on the Internet before.

I'd be comfortable declaring it some kind of PD synthesis, but whether it can ever be usefully complete is another question.

Courtesy ping @יבריב: (last globally active 2018, though). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Keep with the backing of the scan Inductiveload added;  Delete for the transliteration which can probably be safely assumed to be user-generated and thus out of scope, and the Hebrew text which is not included in the published edition and is therefore also out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I certainly believe such a comparison of texts would be helpful, and possibly accepted in an annotated version, they are not present in (this) original scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

• As @TE(æ)A,ea.: says, the comparison is not present in the original text (or, at least, not in the Etheridge scan). A complete, annotated version is not unacceptable according to WS:WWI as I understand it, and, in fact would be a rather excellent value-add of the sort we rarely see (because it's just so much work and requires specialist skills). That said, if it were considered an annotation of Etheridge, the annotations rules say the Etheridge original should be transcribed first.
• Since the contributor is vamoosed, and not many people read/write/speak Aramaic, I'd say the chances of the comparative text being ever completed here are slim-to-none, so I'd lean delete, or at least move to user space and add a link from the index talk page so it's not completely orphaned forever. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete Userifying to an inactive user is just sweeping the trash under the rug. If they return and want to work on it we can undelete at that point. --Xover (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Archaeologia Britannica.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

No ongoing discussion, and no credible claim of copyright violation has been made. Further discussions can take place elsewhere.

This file was marked as a speedy by @ShakespeareFan00: due to the original source (the NLS) using a CC-BY-NC licence on the work (published 1707, digitised 2011) at the Internet Archive. I have moved it here for further discussion. See also my reasoning for doing so at User_talk:Gweduni#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf.

The claim of copyright by the NLS is a tricky one, as the US doesn't recognise sweat-of-the-brow copyright. In the UK it is less clear, and is more to do with a "skill-and-labour" test. It has caused a run-in with the WMF before.

The most recent guidance (not law) I know of, from the UK Intellectual Property Office, dating from late 2015 is:

Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

Therefore, I think it is unlikely (to use the word of the IPO) that the NLS's use of CC-BY-NC is valid, even in the UK. However, I do not think there is any case law to definitively prove this.

The best case (in terms of "we can bring this work into Wikisource/Commons and not start a fight") is that the NLS agrees that a copyright claim of a scan is invalid in light of the IPO guidance and agrees to relicense under some other licence, or declare it PD. Notably, the guidance was issued 4 years after this work was digitised at the IA, and I'd like to be clear that I am not accusing the NLS of copyfraud. I'm hoping this isn't coming across as adversarial, especially in light of the fantastic collaboration so far with the NLS.

So, there are a few points to think about:

• Is the NLS willing to relicense these scans and nullify this discussion for the NLS scans.
• Regardless of that, what do we, the WS community, wish to see done in the case where a sweat-of-the-brow copyright claim is made, in jurisdictions that do or may recognise it, on a work that is otherwise in the PD? Options include:
  • Play it "safe": reject the importation outright
  • Based on the US non-recognition of sweat-of-the-brow, import to enWS.
  • Based on Commons' official guidelines (c.f. Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag), recommend import to Commons.

Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment This is a tempest in a teapot. Commons' policy is remarkably clear: they do not honor the sweat of the brow doctrine due to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. On enWS we do not want to host any work that falls within Commons' policy, which this does, so it should be transferred there. Even were this in conflict with Commons policy, I see no reason why enWS should have a stricter policy on sweat of the brow than Commons. And which is contrary to actual case law in the UK: nobody has sued anybody on these grounds since the NPG for the very simple reason that when they talk to competent lawyers they get told they'll probably lose and it'll be expensive, and when they talk to competent PR people they're told the court of public opinion will throw the book at them and they certainly won't come out of it smelling of roses. Nobody wants to admit this is the case—because UK cultural institutions really are shockingly underfunded and needs every bit of cash they can get—but that's the long and short of it.
  In any case, the NLS can speak for themselves, but I imagine the -NC bit there was a not necessarily deeply thought through decision made in 2011 that there has been no real reason to reassess since. I'd be rather surprised if they'd landed there in 2020, but a decade ago the world was different, and institutions' digital competency was very different. --Xover (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's basically what I think, being naturally a copyright "minimalist" (as, I think, most people here are). However, I am sensitive that it might be more productive in the longer term to ask GLAMs nicely first before jumping to what could be perceived as an adversarial position (and has been in the past, up to and including actual real-life lawyers), and especially when the GLAM in question is actively working together right here and right now on rather good terms. Putting on the eyepatch and swinging the mass-download cutlass might be legal if you have a de-facto letter of marque from Commons, but the targets of the ministrations might not be very impressed. And, fundamentally, WS, Commons, the IA and GLAMs are all on the same side.
• The second bullet (i.e. what do we do if the institution still says "no") is, IMO, basically a foregone conclusion based on the Commons stance. However, since I can see how a GLAM that has said no might "reasonably" (from their side, at least) feel miffed if we storm in mob-handed and "steal" (again, from their side) "their" (ditto) content that they paid good money (objectively probably true) to digitise, I think it's worth being clear that WS agrees with the Commons stance. There are different copyright rules here to Commons, and although they are more relaxed (US only rather than US+origin), that probably means WS should maintain a separate, if similar position. Even if the WS way is simply "on this, we defer to Commons [link to this thread]".
• Tl;dr: foster co-operation where possible, let's not fight potential symbiotic institutions. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and I agree with every word of that. But because this is a difficult balancing act, I think it is better to be painfully, tediously, precise and upfront about this. I certainly wouldn't advocate starting any mass download of that collection at IA without express permission and the blessing of the NLS; but the fact of the matter is that I have no control of the rest of the Wikimedia community (e.g. at Commons) and such a bulk operation can happen at any time, whether we want it to or not. The real answer, of course, is to actually fund UK cultural institutions properly, so that their incentives are to increase the reach of their collections as much as possible, rather than being forced to hoard every little thing for the tiny little cashflow it can provide. --Xover (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Files for speedy deletion

The following discussion is closed:

All listed files speedied. And absent objections or concerns, further such will be handled as speedies.

The following files are eligible for speedy deletion, but it is easier to list them here, rather than marking each page with a speedy deletion template.

Batch #1 deleted --Xover (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-10.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-11.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-21.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-37.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-86.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-91.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-94.png
• File:"N" Rays (Garcin).djvu-98.png
• File:1899 The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century.djvu-12.png
• File:AH Lewis--Wolfville.djvu-1.png
• File:AH Lewis--Wolfville.djvu-8.png
• File:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu-1.png
• File:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu-8.png
• File:A Brief History of South Dakota.djvu-18.png
• File:A Brief History of South Dakota.djvu-184.png
• File:A Brief History of South Dakota.djvu-66.png
• File:A Brief History of South Dakota.djvu-8.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-1.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-10.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-147.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-211.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-333.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-35.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-359.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-441.png
• File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-83.png
• File:A Child of the Jago - Arthur Morrison.djvu-12.png
• File:A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More.djvu-128.png
• File:A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More.djvu-187.png
• File:A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More.djvu-51.png
• File:A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More.djvu-79.png
• File:A Compendium of the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.djvu-8.png
• File:A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, Volume I.djvu-10.png
• File:A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, Volume I.djvu-201.png
• File:A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, Volume I.djvu-43.png
• File:A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, Volume I.djvu-467.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-106.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-110.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-119.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-124.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-127.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-132.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-135.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-137.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-143.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-150.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-172.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-174.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-178.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-180.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-184.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-189.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-191.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-206.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-213.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-220.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-26.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-30.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-40.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-43.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-82.png
• File:A Family History of Venkatagiri Rajas.djvu-95.png
• File:A General Sketch of Political History from the Earlist Times.djvu-326.png
• File:A Hand-book to the Game-Birds (Volume 1).djvu-24.png
• File:A Hand-book to the Game-Birds (Volume 1).djvu-29.png
• File:A Hand-book to the Game-Birds (Volume 1).djvu-54.png
• File:A Hand-book to the Game-Birds (Volume 1).djvu-60.png
• File:A Hand-book to the Game-Birds (Volume 1).djvu-8.png
• File:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu-23.png
• File:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu-28.png
• File:A History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 2.djvu-23.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-100.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-114.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-115.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-127.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-471.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-511.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-87.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 1.djvu-99.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 2.djvu-167.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 2.djvu-23.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 2.djvu-259.png
• File:A History of Art in Ancient Egypt Vol 2.djvu-281.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-334.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-50.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-53.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-55.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-56.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-57.png
• File:A History of British Birds.djvu-694.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-129.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-131.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-138.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-143.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-150.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-173.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-178.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-180.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-181.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-182.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-183.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-184.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-189.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-190.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-191.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-192.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-193.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-194.png
• File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere.djvu-195.png
• File:A History of the Indian Medical Service, 1600-1913 Vol 2.djvu-8.png

There are, of course, many more than those which I have listed here; I will be going through them in the near future. All of the files listed here, and all of the files I intend to list here, were created by a bot in response to the use of {{raw page scan}} or some other template, and the images which they contained have already been created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

I agree these should be speedied. I did pick one at random to validate; I can confirm File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-10.png has been transwikied to File:The White company (1901) -frontispiece.jpg Thanks TEaeE,ea. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Just so I'm sure I haven't misunderstood: you have actually checked these files and verified that they have been made obsolete by a file on Commons, and that they are no longer in use here? (i.e. you've already checked so I don't need to before nuking them) We have somewhere north of 5k of these files (possibly up into 15-20k) sitting around in the list on Special:UnusedFiles so any contribution towards knocking down this backlog is extremely welcome (yes, Pete, I do very much see the irony here :)). --Xover (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the case. The file may not be on Commons, for whatever reason, but all of the files I have listed above have been replaced by a new file that is of improved quality. Some of the files above do not have a replacement image, due to that page not having an image (e. g., File:A C Doyle - The White Company.djvu-1.png). I can add a Wiki-link to the improved file, but such would take a somewhat longer period of time. Should I do so? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC).
• I have removed File:A Child of the Jago - Arthur Morrison.djvu-1.png from the list given above, as it contains an image, although such image is not included on the page currently. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC).

Batch 2

Batch #2 deleted. --Xover (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-101.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-103.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-105.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-107.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-109.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-111.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-113.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-115.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-117.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-119.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-121.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-123.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-125.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-127.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-129.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-131.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-133.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-135.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-137.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-139.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-141.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-143.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-145.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-147.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-149.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-15.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-151.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-153.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-155.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-157.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-159.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-161.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-163.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-165.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-167.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-169.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-17.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-171.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-173.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-175.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-177.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-179.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-181.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-183.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-185.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-187.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-189.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-19.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-191.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-193.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-195.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-197.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-199.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-201.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-203.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-205.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-207.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-209.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-21.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-211.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-213.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-23.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-25.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-27.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-29.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-31.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-33.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-35.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-37.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-39.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-41.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-43.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-45.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-47.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-49.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-51.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-53.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-55.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-57.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-59.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-61.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-63.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-65.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-67.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-69.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-71.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-73.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-75.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-77.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-79.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-8.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-81.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-83.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-85.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-87.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-89.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-91.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-93.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-95.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-97.png
• File:A Hundred Fables of La Fontaine.djvu-99.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-139.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-151.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-163.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-167.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-175.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-179.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-183.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-191.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-197.png
• File:A Legend of Camelot, Pictures and Poems, etc. George du Maurier, 1898.djvu-203.png
• File:A Literary Pilgrim in England.djvu-243.png
• File:A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey (Lichfield).djvu-16.png
• File:A Short History of the World.djvu-259.png
• File:A Short History of the World.djvu-281.png
• File:A Short History of the World.djvu-34.png
• File:A Study of the Manuscript Troano.djvu-268.png
• File:A Supplication for the Beggars.djvu-40.png
• File:A TULIP WITH A RUNNER.djvu-1.png
• File:A Treatise concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed.djvu-12.png
• File:A Treatise concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed.djvu-15.png
• File:A Treatise concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed.djvu-34.png
• File:A Treatise concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed.djvu-59.png
• File:A Treatise concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed.djvu-9.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-479.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-481.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-483.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-485.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-487.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-489.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-491.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-493.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 1.djvu-495.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-112.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-123.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-124.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-140.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-232.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-234.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-487.png
• File:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Volume 2.djvu-489.png
• File:A Voyage in Space (1913).djvu-1.png
• File:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu-109.png
• File:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu-13.png
• File:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu-177.png
• File:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu-241.png
• File:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu-251.png
• File:A bibliography of the works of Robert Louis Stevenson.djvu-10.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 2.djvu-6.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu-15.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu-23.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu-26.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 6.djvu-11.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-11.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-15.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-2.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-6.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-7.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 7.djvu-8.png
• File:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 9.djvu-8.png
• File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-219.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-105.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-139.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-147.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-191.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-201.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-255.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-263.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-283.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-355.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-363.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-369.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-427.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-469.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-478.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-481.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 1.djvu-493.png

Batch 3

Batch #3 deleted. The last chunk of images doesn't refer to a different file: the original file was renamed on Commons but not here, so we're using it through a redirect. It isn't visible because files are treated specially by MeduaWiki. --Xover (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-109.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-127.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-149.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-187.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-205.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-215.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-23.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-271.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-276.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-292.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-301.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-307.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-351.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-379.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-383.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-403.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-415.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-419.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-425.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-441.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-469.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-494.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-536.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-581.png
• File:A cyclopedia of American medical biography vol. 2.djvu-587.png
• File:A fountain sealed by Sedgwick, Anne Douglas.djvu-5.png
• File:A history of architecture on the comparative method for the student, craftsman, and amateur.djvu-9.png
• File:A history of booksellers, the old and the new.djvu-39.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-100.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-118.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-138.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-179.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-21.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-214.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-222.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-315.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-38.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-4.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-43.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-47.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-5.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-53.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-59.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-74.png
• File:A history of the gunpowder plot-The conspiracy and its agents (1904).djvu-84.png
• File:A tour through the northern counties of England, and the borders of Scotland - Volume I.djvu-9.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-10.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-105.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-109.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-115.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-127.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-137.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-153.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-159.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-271.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-291.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-307.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-321.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-333.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-349.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-35.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-361.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-377.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-393.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-403.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-51.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-67.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-79.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-93.png
• File:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu-99.png
• File:Aaron's Rod, Lawrence, New York 1922.djvu-7.png
• File:Acharnians and two other plays (1909).djvu-8.png
• File:Adams - Songs of the Army of the Night.djvu-8.png
• File:Adrift in the Pacific, Sampson Low, 1889.djvu-8.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-101.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-107.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-129.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-155.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-181.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-199.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-213.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-225.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-235.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-259.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-269.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-283.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-299.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-315.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-323.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-345.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-361.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-70.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-71.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-72.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-73.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-76.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-87.png

Note: the following files are not used, but the pages they correspond to use {{raw page scan}} relative to the pages of this separate file.

• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-389.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-399.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-427.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-443.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-453.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-463.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-473.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-491.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-499.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-505.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-509.png
• File:Africa (Volume I).djvu-535.png

Batch 4

Note for the following: the images derived from the pages of File:America's National Game (1911).djvu are of quite varying quality, and should be checked more closely. Some have not been included.

Batch #4 done. The images from File:America's National Game (1911).djvu are indeed of variable quality, but none so bad that they are straight-up unacceptable, nor in such a way that it affects retaining or removing these files. --Xover (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Air Service Boys Flying for France.djvu-1.png
• File:Alibellspanishl00avelgoog.djvu-11.png
• File:Alibellspanishl00avelgoog.djvu-12.png
• File:Alibellspanishl00avelgoog.djvu-21.png
• File:Alibellspanishl00avelgoog.djvu-9.png
• File:Alice Stuyvesant - The Vanity Box.djvu-1.png
• File:Alice Stuyvesant - The Vanity Box.djvu-2.png
• File:Alice Stuyvesant - The Vanity Box.djvu-3.png
• File:Alice Stuyvesant - The Vanity Box.djvu-305.png
• File:Alice Stuyvesant - The Vanity Box.djvu-31.png
• File:Allan Dunn--Dead Man's Gold.djvu-8.png
• File:Allan Octavian Hume, C.B.; Father of the Indian National Congress.djvu-10.png
• File:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 2.djvu-64.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 02.djvu-33.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 02.djvu-41.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 02.djvu-45.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 03.djvu-5.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 03.djvu-51.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-1.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-105.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-121.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-22.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-54.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-64.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 10 Number 13.djvu-93.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-10.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-11.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-147.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-30.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-31.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-6.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-8.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-90.png
• File:Amazing Stories Volume 21 Number 06.djvu-91.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-120.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-124.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-130.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-140.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-162.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-166.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-170.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-172.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-180.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-200.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-208.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-212.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-218.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-228.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-232.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-236.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-246.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-250.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-268.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-276.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-280.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-290.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-298.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-304.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-308.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-312.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-314.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-320.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-324.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-330.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-346.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-360.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-364.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-368.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-372.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-374.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-380.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-430.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-436.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-442.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-443.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-452.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-454.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-456.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-458.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-460.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-462.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-464.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-466.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-470.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-48.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-50.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-506.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-54.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-540.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-562.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-572.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-72.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-76.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-80.png
• File:America's National Game (1911).djvu-98.png
• File:America Fallen!.djvu-183.png
• File:American Anthropologist NS vol. 1.djvu-74.png
• File:American Boys' Life of Theodore Roosevelt.djvu-355.png
• File:American Boys' Life of Theodore Roosevelt.djvu-356.png
• File:American Boys' Life of Theodore Roosevelt.djvu-357.png
• File:American Boys' Life of Theodore Roosevelt.djvu-358.png
• File:American Boys' Life of Theodore Roosevelt.djvu-359.png
• File:American Syndicalism (Brooks 1913).djvu-48.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-1.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-157.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-23.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-27.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-271.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-341.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-347.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-362.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-377.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-431.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-447.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-474.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-52.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-75.png
• File:Among the Himalayas.djvu-80.png
• File:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu-8.png
• File:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament - vol 1.djvu-8.png
• File:An Introduction to the Study of Fishes.djvu-71.png
• File:An account of the natives of the Tonga Islands.djvu-10.png
• File:An account of the natives of the Tonga Islands.djvu-65.png
• File:Andreyev - The Seven Who Were Hanged.djvu-6.png
• File:Andreyev - The Seven Who Were Hanged.djvu-7.png
• File:Anna Karenina.djvu-326.png
• File:Anna Karenina.djvu-680.png
• File:Anna Karenina.djvu-8.png
• File:Anna Katharine Green - Leavenworth Case.djvu-18.png
• File:Anna Katharine Green - Leavenworth Case.djvu-5.png

Batch 5

Another note: whilst going through the files listed here, I have come across a number of independently problematic files; I will list these once I have finished with a few more batches.

Batch #5 deleted. --Xover (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Anthology of Russian Literature (Part II).djvu-12.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-163.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-177.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-275.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-279.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-398.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-44.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-8.png
• File:Anthony Hope - Rupert of Hentzau.djvu-82.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu-12.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu-22.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu-25.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu-346.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-133.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-187.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-206.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-216.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-248.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-25.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-26.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-296.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-306.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-325.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-376.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-440.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-442.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-443.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-445.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-448.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-453.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-52.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-611.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-657.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-66.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-67.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-68.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-77.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1892, volume 3).djvu-95.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-10.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-22.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-268.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-27.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-583.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-684.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-752.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-757.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-785.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-787.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-792.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu-795.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-118.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-12.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-121.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-149.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-172.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-204.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-225.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-23.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-243.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-267.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-321.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-325.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-366.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-386.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-387.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-389.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-390.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-429.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-436.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-437.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-443.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-444.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-479.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-486.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-487.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-548.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-555.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-700.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-717.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-725.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-743.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-747.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-754.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-757.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-758.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-762.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-86.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-90.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 2).djvu-91.png

Batch 6

Batch #6 deleted. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-123.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-250.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-252.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-253.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-256.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-257.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-262.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-288.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-290.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-291.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-310.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-386.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-406.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-470.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-477.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-494.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-495.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-520.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-562.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-59.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-60.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu-62.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 7).djvu-118.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 7).djvu-265.png
• File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 7).djvu-283.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-136.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-180.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-296.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-300.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-305.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-343.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-417.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-432.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-442.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-446.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-45.png
• File:Arabia, Egypt, India - A Narrative of Travel.djvu-97.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-101.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-103.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-108.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-122.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-89.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-9.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-92.png
• File:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu-95.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-113.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-115.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-136.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-140.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-141.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-142.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-143.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-144.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-145.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-146.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-147.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-150.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-374.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-375.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-71.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-91.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-92.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-93.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-94.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-95.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-96.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-97.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 1.djvu-98.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-148.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-149.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-150.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-151.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-217.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu-42.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-16.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-160.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-18.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-19.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-250.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 2.djvu-6.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 29.djvu-42.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 29.djvu-437.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 29.djvu-438.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 29.djvu-447.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-100.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-101.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-102.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-103.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-104.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-105.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-106.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-107.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-6.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-68.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-72.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-87.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-88.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-89.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-91.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-92.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-93.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-94.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-95.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-96.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-97.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-98.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 3.djvu-99.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu-102.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu-62.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 5.djvu-66.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu-104.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu-32.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu-56.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu-94.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 6.djvu-97.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-392.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-394.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-523.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-528.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-530.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-532.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-535.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-539.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-541.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 7.djvu-542.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu-45.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-250.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-252.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-258.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-260.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-267.png
• File:Archaeological Journal, Volume 9.djvu-273.png
• File:Army sanitary administration.djvu-4.png
• File:Arrow of Gold.djvu-10.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-163.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-165.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-167.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-169.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-22.png
• File:Ashorthistoryofwales.djvu-9.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-1.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-101.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-107.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-109.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-110.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-17.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-25.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-35.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-4.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-44.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-53.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-61.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-66.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-7.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-73.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-81.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-89.png
• File:Astounding Science Fiction (1950-01).djvu-96.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-10.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-102.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-103.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-11.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-120.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-34.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-4.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-01).djvu-94.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-135.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-138.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-24.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-25.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-4.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-50.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-68.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-84.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-85.png
• File:Astounding Stories of Super Science (1930-12).djvu-9.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-13.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-15.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-17.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-19.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-35.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-41.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-43.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-45.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-47.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-49.png
• File:Atkinson - The Elements of Dynamic Electricity and Magnetism.djvu-7.png
• File:Auld lang syne by Müller, F. Max (Friedrich Max).djvu-12.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 2.djvu-10.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 2.djvu-13.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 3.djvu-8.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 3.djvu-9.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 4.djvu-11.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 4.djvu-8.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 4.djvu-9.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 5.djvu-11.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 5.djvu-14.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 6.djvu-10.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 6.djvu-11.png
• File:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 6.djvu-13.png
• File:Aunt Phillis's Cabin.djvu-9.png
• File:Aurangzíb and the Decay of the Mughal Empire.djvu-2.png
• File:Australian legendary tales.djvu-158.png
• File:At the gate of dreams.djvu-51.png

Batch 7

It seems that File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-55.png has already been taken.

Batch #7 deleted. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Back to the Republic.djvu-105.png
• File:Back to the Republic.djvu-111.png
• File:Back to the Republic.djvu-115.png
• File:Back to the Republic.djvu-119.png
• File:Back to the Republic.djvu-61.png
• File:Bacons Essays 1908 West.djvu-19.png
• File:Bacons Essays 1908 West.djvu-6.png
• File:Balkan Short Stories.djvu-7.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-10.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-11.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-147.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-209.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-213.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-217.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-227.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-249.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-277.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-321.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-49.png
• File:Barnaby Rudge.djvu-91.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-15.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-25.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-261.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-31.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-312.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-5.png
• File:Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.djvu-8.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-16.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-24.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-33.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-41.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-51.png
• File:Beauty and the Beast (James Lumsden and Son).djvu-6.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-100.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-101.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-102.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-103.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-104.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-105.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-106.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-107.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-108.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-109.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-110.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-111.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-112.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-113.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-114.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-115.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-116.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-117.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-118.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-119.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-120.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-121.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-122.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-123.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-124.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-125.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-126.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-127.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-128.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-129.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-13.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-130.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-131.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-132.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-133.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-134.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-135.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-136.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-137.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-138.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-139.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-140.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-141.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-142.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-143.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-144.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-145.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-146.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-147.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-148.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-149.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-150.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-151.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-152.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-153.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-154.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-155.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-156.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-157.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-158.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-159.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-16.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-160.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-161.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-162.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-163.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-164.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-165.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-166.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-167.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-168.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-169.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-17.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-170.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-171.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-172.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-173.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-174.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-175.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-176.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-177.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-178.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-179.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-180.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-181.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-182.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-183.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-184.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-185.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-186.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-187.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-188.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-189.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-190.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-191.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-192.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-193.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-194.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-195.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-37.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-45.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-47.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-54.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-56.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-57.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-58.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-59.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-60.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-61.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-62.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-63.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-64.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-65.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-66.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-67.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-68.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-69.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-70.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-71.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-72.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-73.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-74.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-75.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-76.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-77.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-78.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-79.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-80.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-81.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-82.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-83.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-84.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-85.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-86.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-87.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-88.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-89.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-90.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-91.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-92.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-93.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-94.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-95.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-96.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-97.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-98.png
• File:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu-99.png

Batch 8

Batch #8 deleted. --Xover (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Benjamin Fisk Barrett, an Autobiography.djvu-8.png
• File:Bent Petrels and Pelicans.djvu-11.png
• File:Bent Petrels and Pelicans.djvu-7.png
• File:Betty Gordon in Washington.djvu-222.png
• File:Between Two Loves.djvu-6.png
• File:Biblical Libraries (Richardson).djvu-6.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 01.djvu-18.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 01.djvu-21.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 04.djvu-13.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 05.djvu-11.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 06.djvu-17.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 07.djvu-13.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 08.djvu-17.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 09.djvu-15.png
• File:Bierce - Collected Works - Volume 12.djvu-15.png
• File:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu-80.png
• File:Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow.djvu-9.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-11.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-123.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-124.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-160.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-161.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-167.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-182.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-194.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-195.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-236.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-237.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-263.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-292.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-294.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-295.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-312.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-64.png
• File:BirdWatchingSelous.djvu-95.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins at Meadow Brook.djvu-177.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins at Meadow Brook.djvu-203.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins at Meadow Brook.djvu-63.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins at the County Fair.djvu-6.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins in a Great City.djvu-145.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins in a Great City.djvu-227.png
• File:Bobbsey Twins in a Great City.djvu-95.png
• File:Book of record of the time capsule of cupaloy (New York World's fair, 1939).djvu-50.png
• File:Botanic drugs, their materia medica, pharmacology, and therapeutics (1917).djvu-5.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-111.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-115.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-117.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-135.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-148.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-155.png
• File:Boys Life of Booker T. Washington.djvu-157.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-1.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-10.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-12.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-15.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-17.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-19.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-21.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-24.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-3.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-5.png
• File:Bradshaw's Railway Timetables (No3.) 1839.djvu-6.png
• File:Bridge of Fire.djvu-3.png
• File:Bridge of Fire.djvu-70.png
• File:British Flowering Plants.djvu-9.png
• File:Browne - The Plain Sailing Cook Book.djvu-1.png
• File:Bush Life of Mohammed.djvu-8.png

Batch 9

Batch #9 deleted. --Xover (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu-219.png
• File:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu-228.png
• File:Cacao by Dahlgren, B. E. (Bror Eric).djvu-10.png
• File:Cacao by Dahlgren, B. E. (Bror Eric).djvu-11.png
• File:Cacao by Dahlgren, B. E. (Bror Eric).djvu-23.png
• File:Cacao by Dahlgren, B. E. (Bror Eric).djvu-8.png
• File:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu-5.png
• File:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu-8.png
• File:Carducci - Poems of Italy.djvu-8.png
• File:Carducci - Poems of Italy.djvu-9.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-113.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-114.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-123.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-125.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-132.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-147.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-151.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-175.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-177.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-180.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-195.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-209.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-39.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-41.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-48.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-51.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-52.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-60.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-62.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-64.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-65.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-66.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-68.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-72.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-78.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-82.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-83.png
• File:Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu-84.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-1.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-105.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-109.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-111.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-117.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-119.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-123.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-127.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-130.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-137.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-143.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-153.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-156.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-171.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-179.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-18.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-184.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-191.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-195.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-199.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-211.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-213.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-215.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-229.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-23.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-236.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-25.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-27.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-29.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-37.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-55.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-63.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-71.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-77.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-79.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-8.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-81.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-85.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-87.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-89.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-91.png
• File:Carroll - Rhyme and Reason.djvu-95.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-124.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-136.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-162.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-204.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-280.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-324.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-76.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno.djvu-8.png
• File:Carroll - Sylvie and Bruno Concluded.djvu-10.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-1.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-25.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-32.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-40.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-46.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-51.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-59.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-65.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-70.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-76.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-8.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-80.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-84.png
• File:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu-94.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-101.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-102.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-104.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-105.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-109.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-110.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-113.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-114.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-62.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-70.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-77.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-81.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-83.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-87.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-98.png
• File:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu-99.png

Batch 10

Batch #10 deleted. Completely corrected image transwikied to Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A note: this file is completely corrected, and should be uploaded under a new name and replaced.

• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 2.djvu-642.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-123.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-129.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-135.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-153.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-165.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-171.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-177.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-189.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-201.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-213.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-422.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-423.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu-8.png
• File:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu-8.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-100.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-115.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-123.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-24.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-244.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-25.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-26.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-265.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-270.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-28.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-37.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-38.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-39.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-396.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-40.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-41.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-51.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-60.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-61.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-67.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-68.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-86.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-87.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-88.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-90.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-91.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-92.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-93.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-97.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-98.png
• File:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu-99.png
• File:Castlemon - Frank the Young Naturalist.djvu-1.png
• File:Castlemon - Frank the Young Naturalist.djvu-6.png
• File:Catalpaexpedition.djvu-101.png
• File:Catalpaexpedition.djvu-117.png
• File:Catalpaexpedition.djvu-151.png
• File:Cather--One of ours.djvu-1.png
• File:Cather--One of ours.djvu-7.png
• File:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu-41.png
• File:Cats; their Points and Characteristics.djvu-1.png
• File:Cats; their Points and Characteristics.djvu-8.png
• File:Cats; their Points and Characteristics.djvu-9.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-30.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-34.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-35.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-36.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-37.png
• File:Charles Moore--Development and Character of Gothic Architecture.djvu-38.png
• File:Charlotte Teller - The Cage (1907).djvu-7.png
• File:Chernyshevsky.whatistobedone.djvu-10.png
• File:Chesterton - Twelve Types (Humphreys, 1902).djvu-1.png

Batch 11

Batch #11 deleted. --Xover (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:China- Its State and Prospects.djvu-215.png
• File:China- Its State and Prospects.djvu-437.png
• File:China and the Manchus.djvu-165.png
• File:China historical and descriptive.djvu-11.png
• File:Chinese Characteristics.djvu-1.png
• File:Chinese Characteristics.djvu-9.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-1.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-113.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-163.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-183.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-2.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-3.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-75.png
• File:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu-9.png
• File:Chitra.djvu-12.png
• File:Chitra.djvu-9.png
• File:Chronicles of Clovis - Saki.djvu-1.png
• File:Clarence Mulford - Man from Bar-20.djvu-1.png
• File:Cliff Castles and Cave Dwellings of Europe.djvu-8.png
• File:Clotelle.djvu-30.png
• File:Clotelle.djvu-59.png
• File:Clotelle.djvu-6.png
• File:Clotelle.djvu-66.png
• File:Clotelle.djvu-70.png
• File:Coin's Financial School.djvu-11.png
• File:Coin's Financial School.djvu-13.png
• File:Coin's Financial School.djvu-16.png
• File:Coin's Financial School.djvu-83.png
• File:Collected poems Robinson, Edwin Arlington.djvu-7.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-122.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-126.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-199.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-200.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-201.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-312.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-316.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-521.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-94.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 01.djvu-95.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 02.djvu-334.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 02.djvu-377.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 02.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-146.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-202.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-203.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-374.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-60.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 03.djvu-96.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-185.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-196.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-308.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-344.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-565.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 04.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-138.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-146.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-184.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-226.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-378.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-400.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-430.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 05.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-112.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-182.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-188.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-262.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-296.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-306.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-310.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-314.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-315.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-316.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-317.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-348.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-36.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-438.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-439.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-470.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-496.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-516.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-522.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-526.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-538.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-547.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-548.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-549.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-550.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-551.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-552.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-553.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-554.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-556.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-588.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-592.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-598.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 06.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-224.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-26.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-280.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-289.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-290.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-293.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-32.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 07.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-205.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-206.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-207.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-208.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-328.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-38.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-580.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-584.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 08.djvu-75.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 09.djvu-376.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 09.djvu-386.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 09.djvu-6.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-100.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-105.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-106.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-107.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-108.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-109.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-110.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-111.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-112.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-172.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-213.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-216.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-270.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-323.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-324.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-348.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-360.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-361.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-362.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-363.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-364.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-365.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-366.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-449.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-450.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-451.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-452.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-453.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-454.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-455.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-456.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-462.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-530.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-541.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-542.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-543.png
• File:Collier's New Encyclopedia v. 10.djvu-6.png

Batch 12

Batch #12 deleted. --Xover (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 24.djvu-233.png
• File:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 24.djvu-8.png
• File:Completepoetical1848sout.djvu-5.png
• File:Comus.djvu-21.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-1086.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-1138.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-1256.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-1324.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-1365.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-155.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-369.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-381.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-451.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-477.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-621.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-657.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-675.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-693.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-797.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-869.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-932.png
• File:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 3.djvu-980.png
• File:Confederate Portraits.djvu-13.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-101.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-103.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-57.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-59.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-61.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-63.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-65.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-67.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-69.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-71.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-73.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-75.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-77.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-79.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-81.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-83.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-85.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-87.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-89.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-91.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-93.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-95.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-97.png
• File:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu-99.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-10.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-100.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-103.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-104.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-106.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-107.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-109.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-111.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-112.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-115.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-117.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-120.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-121.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-122.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-123.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-125.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-127.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-13.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-131.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-137.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-139.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-140.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-141.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-15.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-159.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-163.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-164.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-165.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-167.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-169.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-170.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-184.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-186.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-190.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-196.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-197.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-203.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-204.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-205.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-209.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-225.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-227.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-229.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-232.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-233.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-273.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-28.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-287.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-289.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-295.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-297.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-299.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-30.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-301.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-303.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-305.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-307.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-309.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-32.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-33.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-37.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-39.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-41.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-42.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-43.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-44.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-46.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-48.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-49.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-51.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-59.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-65.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-68.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-69.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-70.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-72.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-73.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-75.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-77.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-78.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-79.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-80.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-81.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-88.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-91.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-92.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-94.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-95.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-96.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-97.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-98.png
• File:Costume, fanciful, historical, and theatrical (1906).djvu-99.png
• File:Cox - Sappho and the Sapphic Metre in English, 1916.djvu-10.png
• File:Cox - Sappho and the Sapphic Metre in English, 1916.djvu-7.png
• File:Cox - Sappho and the Sapphic Metre in English, 1916.djvu-9.png
• File:Craven-Grey - Hindustani manual.djvu-5.png
• File:Crawford W. Long and the discovery of ether anesthesia - Frances Taylor.djvu-245.png
• File:Crawford W. Long and the discovery of ether anesthesia - Frances Taylor.djvu-6.png
• File:Curwood--The Courage of Captain Plum.djvu-1.png
• File:Curwood--The Courage of Captain Plum.djvu-8.png
• File:Cy Warman--The express messenger and other tales of the rail.djvu-1.png

Batch 13

Batch #13 deleted. --Xover (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-1.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-121.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-167.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-219.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-235.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-26.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-271.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-289.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-31.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-317.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-331.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-353.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-405.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-415.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-451.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-493.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-519.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-543.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-559.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-59.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-7.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-79.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-8.png
• File:Daughters of Genius.djvu-87.png
• File:David Alden's Daughter.djvu-8.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-193.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-319.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-411.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-531.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-8.png
• File:David Copperfield (Volume 1).djvu-9.png
• File:Dawson - Australian aborigines (1900).djvu-129.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-14.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-24.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-28.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-4.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-5.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-6.png
• File:Day-a-pastoral.djvu-7.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-125.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-129.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-155.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-165.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-207.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-225.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-25.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-313.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-51.png
• File:De Amicis - Heart, translation Hapgood, 1922.djvu-83.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-310.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-355.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-396.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-401.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-403.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-468.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-469.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-482.png
• File:De re metallica (1912).djvu-662.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-10.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-102.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-139.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-167.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-45.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-57.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-66.png
• File:Deccan Nursery Tales.djvu-97.png
• File:Demosthenes (Brodribb).djvu-189.png
• File:Dickens - Edwin Drood (Chapman and Hall, 1870).djvu-1.png
• File:Dickens - Edwin Drood (Chapman and Hall, 1870).djvu-284.png
• File:Disciplina Clericalis (English translation) from the fifteenth century Worcester Cathedral Manuscript F. 172.djvu-5.png
• File:Doctor Syn - A Smuggler Tale of the Romney Marsh.djvu-9.png
• File:Don Coronado through Kansas.djvu-3.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-263.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-303.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-353.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-407.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-423.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-439.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-487.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-503.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-531.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 1.djvu-563.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-119.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-171.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-187.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-227.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-235.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-247.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-259.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-345.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-385.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-411.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-427.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-445.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-463.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-501.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-551.png
• File:Don Quixote (Cervantes, Ormsby) Volume 2.djvu-87.png
• File:Dr. Heidegger's experiment. The birthmark, Ethan Brand, Wakefield, Drowne's wooden image, The ambitious guest, The great stone face, The gray champion.djvu-12.png
• File:Dumas - Tales of Strange adventure (Methuen, 1907).djvu-142.png
• File:Dumas - Tales of Strange adventure (Methuen, 1907).djvu-7.png

Batch 14

Batch #14 deleted. --Xover (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-366.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-375.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-583.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-584.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-585.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-586.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-587.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-588.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-589.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-590.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-592.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-593.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-594.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-597.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-598.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-599.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-605.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-622.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-623.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-624.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-626.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-627.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-628.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-633.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-634.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-639.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-640.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-642.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-643.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-647.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-648.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-658.png
• File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu-931.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu-834.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-725.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-727.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-728.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-729.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-730.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-731.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-733.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-734.png
• File:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu-896.png
• File:Earl Canning.djvu-234.png
• File:Earl Derr Biggers - Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913).djvu-10.png
• File:Earl Derr Biggers - Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913).djvu-113.png
• File:Earl Derr Biggers - Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913).djvu-211.png
• File:Earl Derr Biggers - Seven Keys to Baldpate (1913).djvu-341.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-101.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-108.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-109.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-110.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-112.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-113.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-114.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-119.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-125.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-128.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-133.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-136.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-139.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-155.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-158.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-164.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-166.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-168.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-169.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-178.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-185.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-187.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-188.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-189.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-193.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-198.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-199.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-203.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-206.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-208.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-209.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-210.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-211.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-212.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-213.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-214.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-216.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-221.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-222.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-223.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-224.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-228.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-229.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-234.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-235.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-239.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-240.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-241.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-242.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-243.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-244.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-245.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-246.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-247.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-248.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-249.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-251.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-254.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-264.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-265.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-266.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-267.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-282.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-295.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-297.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-301.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-302.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-305.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-307.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-312.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-313.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-314.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-316.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-333.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-340.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-346.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-354.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-373.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-378.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-379.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-384.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-385.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-386.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-388.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-389.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-390.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-392.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-393.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-394.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-395.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-396.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-397.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-398.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-40.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-400.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-401.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-402.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-403.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-406.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-417.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-418.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-419.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-420.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-421.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-422.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-423.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-43.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-432.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-455.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-456.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-457.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-46.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-460.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-463.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-470.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-471.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-472.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-495.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-57.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-61.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-69.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-73.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-84.png
• File:Early Man in Britain and His Place in the Tertiary Period.djvu-88.png

Batch 15

Batch #15 deleted. --Xover (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• File:Earth-Hunger and Other Essays.djvu-14.png
• File:Edgar Wallace--The book of all-power.djvu-1.png
• File:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvu-6.png
• File:Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier.djvu-34.png
• File:Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier.djvu-49.png
• File:Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier.djvu-92.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-1.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-115.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-128.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-132.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-142.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-165.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-172.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-178.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-189.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-19.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-193.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-199.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-203.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-210.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-214.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-217.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-225.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-23.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-230.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-235.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-239.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-244.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-256.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-259.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-269.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-275.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-279.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-283.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-287.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-300.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-304.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-322.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-335.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-350.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-364.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-371.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-379.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-50.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-63.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-71.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-8.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-81.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-86.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-91.png
• File:Eliot - Silas Marner, 1907.djvu-97.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-1.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-101.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-104.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-105.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-109.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-110.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-123.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-131.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-133.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-137.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-143.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-145.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-167.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-171.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-179.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-187.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-21.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-229.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-235.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-247.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-264.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-278.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-279.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-280.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-281.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-286.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-304.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-321.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-33.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-333.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-340.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-363.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-46.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-71.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-8.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-83.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-87.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-91.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-98.png
• File:Eliza Scidmore--Jinrikisha days in Japan.djvu-99.png
• File:Eminent Victorians.djvu-259.png

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

History of the Arians

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as excerpt.

Four excerpted sections (one from Part V. and three from Part VIII.)—the three from Part VIII. in 2007, the one from Part V. in 2008. The source listed on the talk page is not a scan, and does not specify an edition. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

•  Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope as an unlabelled annotated text without an unannotated original available.

An amalgamation of two texts (highlighting differences), so an unlabelled annotation without clean versions of the originals. --Xover (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Transcluded chapters of The Dorrington Deed-Box

The following discussion is closed:

appropriate deletions done of the duplicate transclusions Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I came across The Dorrington Deed-Box, which had a table of contents, but it wasn't set up properly (i.e. it didn't link to chapters, just to individual pages). In correcting this, I created transcluded chapters as 'Chapter 1', Chapter 2', etc. but subsequently realised that the chapters were there all along, using the chapter titles. Consequently, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 1, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 2, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 3, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 4, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 5, The Dorrington Deed-Box/Chapter 6 and The Dorrington Deed-Box/Front matter need to be deleted. The last one wasn't me, but it's not required. I've updated the ToC to point at the original chapters. Should have checked first! Chrisguise (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have just been shot

The following discussion is closed:

Redirect kept.

The page for I have just been shot should be removed. It really has no relevance to anything and was probably created in good faith by the original user. It's not the real title of the speech and is just a lift of a quote from the opening of the speech. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 KeepIt's just a redirect now (after your 2017 change). A g-search for the phrase indicates that it is considered by some to be the title of the speech. This suggests that it is a reasonable title to have as a redirect, as it may well be the target of a search. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Agreed: the redirect is ok to keep. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Author redirects

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Not sure why we have the category. It doesn't performance any maintenance, and it doesn't particularly contain many of the vast number of redirects. The category doesn't seem to present any particular value. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment @Billinghurst: The cat should have been removed subsequent to WS:PD#Redirect tagging templates, cf. also this discussion, but were left out because the category was added manually to the redirects by Iain Bell (vs. automatically added by the various "R from …" templates). The category serves no obvious purpose (it would if we actually used redirect templates for this), and being dramatically incomplete is actually actively misleading. I'd say "Kill it with fire!". --Xover (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Undelete deprecated templates

The following discussion is closed:

Partially fulfilled / partially withdrawn due to (nominator's) time constraints.

Back in 2016, a set of deprecated templates was deleted, making it unnecessarily hard to find out what they used to do, or why they were deprecated. This seems like a bad idea to me, so I am proposing they be undeleted and either given explanatory text, or just redirected to a central page -- but in either case, that the previous history be visible, for research purposes. JesseW (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm not particularly sympathetic to unspecified "research" as a reason for retaining deprecated templates, but if you explain which specific templates you have in mind and why I'm willing to entertain the notion. PS. if it's ct and friends you're looking for you won't find what you're after in the edit history; those discussions happened on WS:S, over multiple threads, and were not particularly structured (I spent some time looking for those around that time). --Xover (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's in the edit history, because I can't see it. :-) The specific templates whose history I would like to have made visible are:

• Template:Bot auth and Template:Botanist -- these were obsoleted in favor of wikidata:Property:P428 and contained a microformat implementation; I'd like to compare it with the current implementation and make sure there haven't been any regressions in functionality.
• Template:Commons, Template:Commonscat, Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikipedia, Template:Wikipedia-inline, Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikispecies, Template:Wikivoyage, Template:Meta, Template:Meta-inline, Template:Sisterlinks -- these are various cross-wiki-standardized sister project linking templates, now obsoleted in favor of {{plain sister}}; I'd like to see what differences there were between the versions at Wikisource (over time) and those at the other projects, to observe how various styles of writing wikitext diffused across the projects as people learned more about writing templates and settled on style conventions
• Template:Ct -- still has a (single) transclusion on a talk page, so would be preferable to undelete merely for that; but as for the research -- the ligature debate is still fraught, and making it harder to see exactly what the templates actually did doesn't improve matters.
• Template:Ligature Latin ct lowercase -- this is cited on multiple pages (check the WhatLinksHere) as having contained an explanation of why it was deprecated; I'd like to read that explanation.
• Template:Endofpage -- this seems to have been subtly different from {{page break}}; I'd like to know how exactly it differed. Also, the deletion comment doesn't link to {{page break}} making it harder for people to find the replacement.
• Template:Page contains sheet music -- I can't actually think of a reason to see the history of this, but having it be a redirect to {{missing score}} seems obvious (and doesn't require discussion), so I've done that, at least.
• Template:Portal -- no research relevant to this comes to mind, so I'll withdraw this request
• Template:Sister -- similar to {{Page contains sheet music}} this is an obvious opportunity for a redirect to its replacement ({{plain sister}} in this case), so I've done so. Reinstating the deleted revisions is optional, but likely harmless.
• Template:TOC, 30 chapters roman -- I am deeply curious who had the bizarre idea of creating a template with a comma in the name, and what other wonders they may have perpetrated; but while the history is deleted, I can't find this out.

If the discussion about them is scattered, all the more reason to restore the page history, as at least that will give more hints about where to look. And their talk pages can be used to link to other discussions, if/when someone wants to take the time to look into them. JesseW (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: I am not going to undelete these on the general principle that you think that maybe possibly the edit history can be relevant for some kind of unspecified research that someone may possibly decide to do at some indeterminate point in the future. I also see no commonality between these beyond happening to have been deleted in the same batch discussion of unused and outdated templates. If there is something specific you are looking for then please explain what it is and why all these templates are relevant to that. --Xover (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I've added more detailed explanations of my interest in each one; let me know if that helps to clarify. JesseW (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: Ok, in the first pass I've grabbed the templates where you just need the contents and put them in subpages in your user space.

The ones I have retrieved so far are:

• User:JesseW/Template-bot auth, User:JesseW/Template-bot auth/doc
• User:JesseW/Template-botanist, User:JesseW/Template-botanist/doc
• User:JesseW/Template-Ligature Latin ct lowercase, User:JesseW/Template-Ligature Latin ct lowercase/doc (Template:ct was just a redirect)
• User:JesseW/Template-Endofpage (no docs for this one)
• User:JesseW/Template-TOC, 30 chapters roman, User:JesseW/Template-TOC, 30 chapters roman/doc (both template and docs were created by Billinghurst, and have no revision history: they were created as you see them)

For the ones where you need the revision history I need to dig a bit to find a sensible way to do it. I can undelete them and move them to your userspace, but that also moves the revision history and I would like to preserve that in place so that it is findable for future requests like this. I'm assuming you want to see the actual diffs and not just the log, so just copying that as text won't work. Possibly we could move it temporarily and then move it back, if you have any definite timeframe for your research (no real rush, but just so it doesn't get forgotten about). --Xover (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I still think putting them back in their normal places (replaced with prominent deprecation notices) would have been better, but this does enable the research I asked about, so I appreciate that.

I don't have time to do the microformat investigation of bot auth and botanist right now, but I'll summarize it here when I do.

For Ligature Latin ct lowercase the "explanation" is sadly rather brief: "The community reached a consensus to deprecate this template due to it simply being a typographic artefact and one that cannot be interpreted by search engines." I was hoping for more, but it's good to have confirmation that (at least in the last revision) that was all there was.

For endofpage -- the difference appears to be that it displayed two page numbers, above and below a horizontal rule, with the second being generated via #expr from the first (so it didn't support roman, although it did support negative numbers, amusingly).

For TOC, 30 chapters roman -- huh. That's oddly specific. I wonder which work it was intended for.

Regarding the others -- there's no hurry. If/when we figure out a sensible way to preserve the history (maybe by figuring out sensible redirect targets for the original names), we can make the history visible then. JesseW (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: I'm failing to come up with any technical facility to do what we want here; so in the interest of cutting down a little on the quickly snowballing backlog on this page, can we just do the undelete+move to user space+move back dance? I'll need some kind of timeframe for when you expect to be done (which can be extended if needed), just so I can make a note to follow up. And it would be preferable if you did not make any edits to them while in your userspace (so the edit history doesn't confuse the heck out of future archeologists). --Xover (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll have time to do that research, so I think it's fine to close this request for now, and I can open a new one if/when I get the time to do so. JesseW (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: Feel free to just drop a note on my talk page for that. --Xover (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment If the templates were undeleted only for historical purposes, it would probably not be enough just to pronounce and categorize them as deprecated, but it would also be necessary to disable their usage in the main namespace somehow so that some contributors, unaware of their deprecating, did not start using them in good faith. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's easily enough done by making the current versions blank, or better, contain a prominent warning like: This template is deprecated!. JesseW (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletions

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

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

The lack of discussion of some of these pages is due to a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: I'm a little too backlogged to get into the complicated cases just now (trying to clear out the simpler ones first); and especially the ones where, as James500 says, there is a possibility discussion is just stalled due to the usual summer slump or similar. There are a lot of complicated proposed deletion threads open just now so it will take some time to untangle them. If anybody wants to make life easier for the admins trying to process these they can try to summarise the issue and its current status / consensus resolution, and double check that participants in the thread agree. At least for myself, trying to understand these long complicated discussions to figure out what, if anything, was agreed is the most time-consuming part of it. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Below, the redirection pages A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, and The life of Mohammed should be kept, as they have not been properly marked; OTHER POEMS AND THE REMEMBERED GODS, Parodies and Songs, and THREE BATTLES TO THE FIFTY-FIRST DIVISION should be deleted, as they would not be useful as redirection pages; Portal:John Burgoyne should be deleted in the same manner as normal redirection pages, with the use of the proper template; and the objections given to Auction Prices of Books, Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide, Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish history, and The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages are the same as those given above, to, e. g., American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1, that, despite the existence of a scan, and the creation of an Index:-space page for the same, a sufficient amount of work has not been completed in the month since the pages were here listed to indicate that the pages will ever be completed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

• You obstructed the proofreading by demanding a mass upload at the Scriptorium. James500 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I've closed the four redirects (A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, The life of Mohammed) as those appeared uncontroversial (keep). The rest are not so clear-cut, and on several of them James500 has expressed an interest; and they have above indicated that the lack of further comments is due to external constraints rather than lack of further input. On several of them I would also prefer to see more community input before closing. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that editors are being ground down by unlimited demands and walls of text. I literally cannot !vote at all in many of these nominations, let alone address the walls of text. How am I supposed to perform the mass upload that certain people have demanded, and address walls of text both here and elsewhere, and perform demands for massive proofreading and transclusion, all at the same time, in a miniscule amount of time within an unreasonably short strict deadline that is no time at all? The problem is that a perfect storm has been created. The sheer number and scale of the demands, and the refusal to allow time to carry out those demands, and the walls of text advancing every conceivable (poor) argument for the demands, has itself become an obstacle to carrying out those demands and creates a sort of catch-22 situation where the demands can never be met within the miniscule amount of time permitted. James500 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• @James500: 2+ weeks later and I am just now getting to this comment; and the thread has been open for a month. In other words, while I understand that having pages you care about proposed for deletion can be stressful, I don't think there is much actual cause for stress here. Even were we inclined to do so, we do not have the admin capacity to close out and delete complicated cases like this quickly. Nobody actually expects you to bring all these works fully up to standards and complete while the discussion is happening, so while striving to do so is laudable, I would suggest you rather prioritise the discussions. If you feel you need more time for something, say so so that we know that is the case. We have historically left discussions open for months when needed.
  That all being said, I am having real trouble figuring out what it is you are proposing to do, and why you are rushing so to save these pages. Are you seriously planning to completely proofread all these works in the near future? That sounds like an improbably large task for a single contributor no matter how dedicated and skilled. Why is it that you cannot proofread them one at a time in the Index:/Page: namespace, and then transclude each as they get towards a more or less ready (finished) state? In the Index: and Page: namespace there is absolutely no rush and you can work at whatever order, interval, and pace suits you, and it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will propose anything for deletion (short of copyright violations). Even if the result of these current discussions are all to delete, nothing would actually be deleted in the Index: and Page: namespaces, and nothing would prevent recreating the deleted pages (if that is the most appropriate page title) once the work is actually proofread and ready for transclusion. And if something is deleted, it is always possible to request that it be undeleted: nothing is permanently lost. Is it possible that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved here?
  In short, I think you may be doing a little too much stressing and too little explaining what your plans, aims, and goals are. If we understood that better we might be able to advice better on how to achieve your goals, or at the very minimum be clear about what the points are on which we disagree. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• To begin with, there is proofread text in the mainspace that needs to be migrated to the page namespace. I do not support the delete and then undelete and then re-delete approach because, to begin with, it increases the amount of effort needed to perform the transfer. I am also in real danger of losing track of what needs to be uploaded and migrated if discussions are archived. James500 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) The proposal to delete bibliographic information (such as external scan links) is even more problematic. If put into effect it would make uploading scans virtually impossible. James500 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @James500: Discussions here aren't archived until they are actually closed (the archive bot archives threads two weeks after the date in the {{section resolved}} template, which we add manually), and we normally do not formally close these threads if there is either ongoing discussions or if there is someone who needs more time to complete work related to it. If for some reason we felt a thread had to be closed in spite of there being such tasks remaining, I am sure we could temporarily move the page to a subpage in your userspace instead of deleting it right away. For example (picking a page at random) we could move Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide to User:James500/Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide until you had completed extracting what you needed from it. In situations like that you can pretty much always just say "I need more time in order to …" and we'll hold off. And as a safety-valve, if something is deleted (for whatever reason) before you'd finished we'll always be happy to temporarily undelete (unless there's copyright violation or other "hard" delete reason involved) so you can get what you need.
  Regarding bibliographic information and scan links, we're not really talking about "deleting" that; it's just that that kind of data belong on either Author: pages or Portal: pages. Any activity to remove such from wikipages in mainspace would implicitly include copying that information to an Author: or Portal: page. There may be individual exceptions for various reasons, but as a main rule of thumb this is information that we generally want to preserve. It's just a matter of where and how. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A chambermaid's diary

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

• As we are no longer using CSD to consider deleting this, M2 is irrelevant., Regarding deleting it, it has been a valid way to link to this work for over six years, plenty of time for random external sites to have linked to it. Deleting it merely breaks such links for no purpose. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  The criteria for speedy deletion are still criteria for deletion. This page, and the other redirection pages listed here, are improper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  Fair enough on the applicability of CSDs -- but M2 does not apply to these, as they are are neither new, nor have been tagged for two months. And "improper" is not an argument. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep (weak/neutral in terms of do I actually want to keep the redirect, firmer in terms of process). There's not much real harm in these redirects. This one is pretty old, so it's not impossible there are incoming links. JesseW is right that these are not speedy candidates, unless they've been soft redirects for at least two months. If you really want to delete them, that's how to do it. While I don't think we should encourage proliferation of such redirects, I'm also not overly keen to start aggressively culling the older top-level ones. Recent ones, no problem, and indeed CSD-M2 has a carve-out for such cases.

  Also let's centralise discussion of redirects on this item rather than copy-pasting to all below items? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I attempted to figure out the new system, and failed. Please link (here) to the new location, and I'll see if a sensible soft-redirect is feasible. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The system is being set up through alternate sub-pages of the base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
  • It looks like only the pages for the first two sections have been created -- so unless I've missed something (most likely!) deleting this now would simply make existing data inaccessible until the new pages are created. That seems like a bad thing. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep (for now) The content is not scan-backed yet. Not a single hymn has been proofread in that scan. I don't think G4 applies until the scan version is at least at a equal state of completion as the work it replaces. A soft-redirect to the new location of the equivalent item in the scan would be appropriate when scan-backed content is ready. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no content on this page—the hymns which are given on that page are actually taken from here, here, and here, via {{:Jesu, my God and King}} and the like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
    • That would have been useful to have been mentioned in the proposal, no? I still question the utility of storming in an deleting the old subpages before any content has been moved to the scans. I maintain that a soft redirect to the new content, when it exists, would be a way forward and will allow the issue to resolve naturally after a few months. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep Until the equivalent hymns are ready in the scan-backed version, at which point these are speediable as redundant. Soft redirects are just pointless bureaucracy at that point. But I agree that putting them up for deletion before the new pages are proofread is inappropriate: hence why I didn't delete them while processing the CSD queue, and waiting would have avoided this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Portal:John Burgoyne

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

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

Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

Nollekens and his Times

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

The life of Mohammed

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as duplicate —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Same edition as Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (2) which is complete and has a better scan. Could be eligible for speedy deletion as a redundant copy, but it was suggested to me that it would be better handled as a deletion proposal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Note Notifications of this discussion have been posted on the uploader's talk page (diff) and on the talk page of WikiProject NLS (diff). --Xover (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Xover:,

Yes it is fine to delete this - we have it marked at our end that (1) is a duplicate but that it was already transcluded. Thanks! LilacRoses (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as duplicate —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Same edition as Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (2) which is complete and has a better scan. Could be eligible for speedy deletion as a redundant copy, but it was suggested to me that it would be better handled as a deletion proposal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Note Notifications of this discussion have been posted on the uploader's talk page (diff) and on the talk page of WikiProject NLS (diff). --Xover (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Xover:,

Yes it is fine to delete this - we have it marked at our end that (1) is a duplicate but that it was already transcluded. Thanks! LilacRoses (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Index:Duke University Libraries (IA carysnewitinerar01cary).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Migrated to newly generated DjVu of the same scan at: Index:Cary's New Itinerary (1819).djvu.

(And associated pages)

Deletion proposed for technical reasons. In places the scans are not reliably intelligible and attempts to regenerate this file from the JP2 scans on Internet Archive are blocked because the PDF already exists on Commons.

I am proposing deletion of the Index and pages, so that the file on Commons can be replaced, without affecting any efforts here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

History of Delaware County

The following discussion is closed:

kept; now scan-backed, and within general scope

The preface of the work of the same name, with no other work done. Incomplete since 2010 “extraction.” As there is no impetus for the completion of this abandoned work, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC).

•  Keep As usual, I move to migrate this to a scan-backed edition of the full work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Scan is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete I am afraid that this work is going to follow the following typical scenario: an abandoned work is nominated for deletion, then at least the scan is uploaded and title and contents pages (which were not even proofread) are transcluded, and after this the work is quickly abandoned again. Unless sombedy declares that they are going to work on it, I vote for deletion of the abandoned work from the main namespace while keeping it in the index namespace. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete mainspace as abandoned extract and per Jan above. Index: and Pages: can stay. --Xover (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to hold off on closing this for a bit in case anyone else would like to chime in, but based on the above the outcome here looks like deleting the excerpt/incomplete mainspace transclusion and keeping the Index:/Page:-pages/scan. --Xover (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep I would be glad to work on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's excellent news! I see Beleg Tâl has already uploaded a scan and set up an index and basic transclusion structure for it. Do you need any other help getting started? I see a lot of your work recently has been on non-scan-backed texts. Are you familiar with the whole scan→index→page→transclude setup we use here? --Xover (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  I have not, and need help! I have been transcribing single articles from newspapers. I would love to contribute to larger projects. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'll follow this up on your talk page. --Xover (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Daughter of Heaven

The following discussion is closed:

kept; now scan-backed and within general scope — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned transcription, which is incomplete..

Closest edition I could find on a quick serach is - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47218

Scans of a near identical edition at - https://archive.org/details/daughterofheaven00gaut/mode/2up

Suggest deletion of the unsourced version, and upload of the actual scans instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The contributor added the text very short time ago and had already had some other non-scan additions before. It may be a good chance to show them the preferred scan-backed way of contributing, so if you were able to upload the scan and match the current work to the scanned pages, there is IMO a good chance that the original contributor may continue with proofreading. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is now scan backed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I note that no progress has been made since Beleg Tâl scan-backed it and am inclined (as should be no surprise) to question whether we need the excerpt sitting in mainspace under those circumstances. That being said I have not yet formed an opinion on how best to deal with this specific case. --Xover (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep work in progress —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Senator Paul on Impeachment of President Trump

The following discussion is closed:

kept the speech, though I have redacted what I guess is the contentious quote in section, firstly it isn't his quote, and we have previously redacted components of other people's works submitted to US Congress. I have also deleted the earlier edits. I have left the citation of source. If anyone believes that this is too far, or not far enough, then please make a note below and the closure and that can be addressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

correcting statement, I misread the text, and the quote was indeed the author's a compromise of redacting names has been made. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for deletion because Xover would rather eternally bitch about how it should have been nominated, than just nominate it themselves. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. We are not censors. Hesperian 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong keep For the same reasons I wrote above, but please don't use language like this @Hesperian:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This is a public domain speech published in the Congressional Record and viewable on C-SPAN as I noted on the talk page for the document. Objections to this are that the speech allegedly includes the name of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment of Donald Trump. Nowhere in the speech is any specific name alleged to be that of the whistleblower. Even if it alleged that a specific name was that of the whistleblower, I do not see any local policy that this would violate nor any part of the Terms of Use that this would violate. Claims about "privacy" do not seem valid given the widespread media coverage of this name as that of the whistleblower, including social media posts by the President of the United States, and numerous fact-checking organizations and media outlets have found no law prohibits identifying the alleged whistleblower. Again, this speech does not identify anyone as the whistleblower, but even if it did it would not change the fact there is no policy grounds to remove the document.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I just feel gamed here, especially with The Devil's Advocate explaining how there's absolutely no reason at all for him to have transcribed this text, no, not one, it was totally random. If we want to transcribe the Congressional Record, let's transcribe the Congressional Record, not one excerpt from it that is a hot potato in some political game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it was random. Not every part of the Congressional Record is of such historical significance that we would have any reason to copy it over. One might be inclined to copy over every Senator's comments from the Congressional Record on impeachment, though a lot of it would be redundant talking points. Either way, I think it is pretty clear Paul's speech on impeachment is of historical significance and it is in large part because of the political controversy surrounding it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Hesperian, proposed deletions is not a space to play games. See above: "This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy". When somebody asks me to consider deleting something, I expect them to explain me the point in detail, especially which rule has been violated and in what manner and extent it has been violated. I have learnt nothing of that kind, your "resoning" shows only some frustration which I know nothing about and you are misusing this site to cure it. So I am suggesting to speedy close the proposal and if somebody really thinks that the work should be deleted, they can open a new proposal with proper rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems unfair to the person who just voted delete.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jan: I have opened this discussion in good faith. Allegations have been made that community discussion on this is being stifled; this will not stand, man. Hesperian 03:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• fairly ambivalent about the work, though  Keep as it is within scope, and that I don't personally agree with the politics of our RW contributors, that is not the discussion. I would also be completely comfortable redacting the works in question, and./or having them reappear at some into the future, and we could apply the template logic per {{copyright until}} to redact the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. This serves only one purpose, and it's not a good one. There is a reason why no mainstream media carry the full text. As to policy, that goes back to the Foundation, which has mandated policy on the protection of biographical information about living people. This selectively chosen transcript furthers the agenda that Rand Paul pursued when he gave the speech, which is to intimidate and endanger those who dare to speak truth to power. JzG (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG, you've just revealed yourself as politically motivated: as concerned with the welfare of "those who dare to speak truth to power" rather than with the welfare of English Wikisource. In any other venue, I'd applaud you. Hesperian 23:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I love the irony there. You think TDA is motivated by pure dedication to free knowledge, when choosing to transcribe just this one speech that no mainstream source transcribes? JzG (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Hesperian 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• • @JzG: I am wondering whether you could address your argument with respect WS:WWI. Every person here contributes based on a place of interest, and that is why we manage to usually escape the enWP issues of conflicted interest. If it has been published, then documents of all views are within scope, whether I personally welcome them or not. We have upsetting racist works here; we have works for and against the right to vote. As a library we host it, not determine its value. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep this work appears to be clearly in scope and compliant with policy, (despite being problematically annotated with wikilinks) so I see no reason to delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• delete do not feed the paul trolls. text dump without a side by side scan. upload the congressional record and build the index first. minor historical footnote of interest to only ideologues, like his foray to Howard University. speeches on the floor are a dime a dozen, more suitable to a blog. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 01:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think any Senator's floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history could be considered a "minor historical footnote" and the only real question should be distinctiveness. Paul's speech is obviously distinctive among the various speeches due to the political controversy alone. No doubt there are other Senate floor speeches on this matter of note beyond Paul's and Romney's speeches. Would have no problem with those going up and may put some of them up myself. Doubt the Congressional Record in general is going to be as noteworthy historically as these speeches, but if people think differently they can address that by making their own contributions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • i find your escalating english wikipedia drama here is inappropriate. clearly you have a POV to push. the effusive praise for a junior senator, over and above the actual source material gives the game away. "floor speech on the third presidential impeachment trial in history", and all the floor speeches on the second presidential impeachment in history, are not here either. if you are going to drive by text dump, you should understand, those "not scan backed" get deleted, if no one steps up and does the work. see also Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-08#IN_THE_MATTER_OF:_STEPHEN_GLOVER_ROWE,_D.M.D._License_No.:_4121 Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 15:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

      @Slowking4: Whilst I recognise your expertise in WP dramaz, you have been in a few, can I suggest that you keep your personal opinion about what and why people contribute out of a DR. Truly inappropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

      what's inappropriate is repeatedly pushing outing material of private people upon every project; you have a precedent about libelous material that may happen to be published somewhere; and have The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster/The Reply to Hayne - when he publishes his great speeches we can transcribe them also. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

      "Within scope" is within scope. Our motives have never been judgement previously for what we contribute for works within scope. I don't judge yours or others for what they bring within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

      • Obviously, I published this here because it just happened. Wikisource didn't even exist during the Second Presidential Impeachment Trial. If you think there are some significant Senate floor speeches from the Clinton Impeachment Trial then please point them out for us or publish them. No one is stopping you. As far as being "not scan-backed" I looked at the policy beforehand and there is no suggestion lacking a scan is worthy of deletion. The Featured Text guidelines says a scan is ideal, but that an online source satisfies the criteria. If linking the relevant source material on the talk page is appropriate sourcing for a document appearing on the front page, then it is obviously appropriate for inclusion. Only reason for requiring sources is to authenticate the contents and I don't think anyone here seriously doubts the authenticity of what has been written. I copied this directly from the online PDF of the Congressional Record available at the official government site for Congress.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Neutral First of all, it is very irresponsible of us to not delete and salt (prevent recreation through page protection) this text until the community makes a proper determination of whether we should host it at all. A plausible concern has been raised that it may contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to a third party, and until that risk has been properly assessed against other factors by the community our first priority should have been to prevent or mitigate that risk. Our failure to do so does not speak well of us; and I still urge that we should do so until the community's conclusion is ultimately determined.
  There are several issues that should be addressed for this text.
  Starting with the simplest, as a speech published in Congressional Record , Vol. 166, No. 23 (February 4, 2020) it would seem to be obviously within scope. It is an excerpt of that publication, which would put it outside scope, but it can easily be argued that the speech constitutes a separable work in its own right, so I do not think this is of particular concern in terms of scope.
  That it is an excerpt does bear on quality though, as does also its lack of scan-backing. The work is certainly not up to modern standards, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, our actual policies are old and do not reflect those standards. Neither does the community generally tend to delete texts on this basis. I do not think this issue constitutes more than a quibble.
  Also related to the quality are the use of links in the text, which violate our annotations policy. However, this is a matter easily remedied; has not historically been considered grounds for deletion on its own; and, personally, I think our annotations policy is too strict (and confusingly written) to start with.
  The obvious issues being addressed, we get into more complicated aspects: are there any factors that stem from the law that we need to take into account?
  The first and most basic is copyright. Speeches are often iffy, and speeches by elected officials (i.e. those who sometimes speak in their role, and sometimes as a candidate trying to be elected to that role) doubly so. I had to do quite a bit of reading to make sure I could even sensibly address this. However, on that basis, in this particular case I cannot see that there is any question that the work is covered by {{PD-USGov}}. Representatives are considered to be officers of the US federal government for copyright purposes, and a speech on the House floor is unequivocally made in that capacity (regardless of whether one suspects the motives of it to be posturing for the benefit of future voters). To the degree there was any lingering doubt, its publication in Congressional Record should put that to rest.
  Then there's the issue central to its controversy: would hosting this transcript violate any law with regard to protection of whistleblowers or protection of personal information, or other related law?
  Serious media organizations have refused to publish the identity of the whistleblower that Paul is trying to out here, which should definitely give us pause. However, as far as I can tell, they are doing this out of concern for journalistic standards and media ethics. Wikisource is not a newspaper, and we are not journalists; those standards would be an ill fit for most of what we do. We certainly can and should learn from them, but we cannot reasonably apply them here directly. I have not been able to find any law that would directly prohibit journalists from revealing the identity of the whistleblower. There are any number of laws that prohibit many different entities from doing so (as a form of "retaliation"), but none that I can see that would apply to journalists or to Wikisource. There are arguments being made that various laws that do not address this directly have the practical effect of making its publication illegal (think "criminal negligence" or "endangerment" and similar), but I cannot see that these are obviously correct or can obviously be said to apply here absent case law or a legal analysis addressing our situation directly. Whether these arguments represent an actual liability for the WMF or contributors is, in other words, something WMF Legal will have to determine.
  Beyond the law, there is however an argument that hosting this text would be irresponsible and unethical of us. Any claim that Paul does not here deliberately identify the whistleblower is either hopelessly naïve or deliberately obtuse. Any argument that hosting this will not contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to the whistleblower is not reality-based.
  However, one can certainly argue that our contribution to that risk is small. The identity is published in the Congressional Record, and has been published in several places that do not apply mainstream journalistic standards. In particular, sites whose primary demographic are the very groups that are most likely to engage in harassment or violence toward the whistleblower have already published their identity.
  The biggest additional factor that I can identify is that by hosting it we lend it the imprimatur of the Wikimedia movement in general, including the borrowed authority of Wikipedia, and whatever weight Wikisource on its own carries. By hosting just the speech, and not the entire Congressional Record, we afford it an implication of notability and importance it would not otherwise have; and by hosting it at all we contribute to giving it an authority likewise. We are also a lot more findable than many other sources of this information.
  I acknowledge those factors, and certainly think we should weigh them, but I do not see that they carry a very large weight. We are not Wikipedia, and our contribution to those factors is very small in the big picture. Judging solely by those factors we host several texts that are far more problematic.
  In addition, it is as fundamental to Wikisource that we are not censored, as things like verifiability and neutral point of view are to Wikipedia. The nominator put it succinctly and forcefully in their original discussion, and I encourage everyone to read that argument rather than the… let's call it an "expression of frustration"… on display in this nomination. Our starting point must be, I would argue, that we cannot judge of the contents of a work by standards that will shift with the seasons and fashions. I have personally proofread texts that contain horrible anti-semitic propaganda; works putting on display the systematic male chauvinism and casual racism that historical works are rife with. Eventually Vladimir Nabokov's best known work will become available to us, and we will need to deal with its controversial subject matter. If we were to censor all texts whose proofreading I need to hold my nose to get through, we would have very little left. If we were to censor all texts that offended someone's olfactory sense we might as well just shut down the project.
  However, even with that basic stance, I think we should exercise caution with texts that are specifically intended as some form of propaganda, that for other reasons carry some actual potential for harm, or where there is significant gaming the system surrounding it. Here the concern is harm to others and harm to the project. That's not to say the presence of those factors are automatically exclusionary; but when those obtain we need to treat the situation with caution, wisdom, sensitivity, and nuance.
  And the bottom line for me is that in this instance we have failed in this. Based on the observable evidence of the handling of this text, I am very concerned that our processes are neither mature enough nor robust enough to deal responsibly with such texts. And if we cannot deal with them responsibly then we must simply not deal with them at all, with all the downsides that implies. I am currently leaning towards delete for that reason, but I am very much torn on this issue and absent the current mess I would very likely have landed on keep.
  I strongly urge all community members to think carefully on this issue and express their opinion (for either outcome, obviously). --Xover (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The point about Paul not identifying the whistleblower in his speech is a factual one. In this context, his discussion of the whistleblower is because his question was publicly rejected by the Chief Justice during the impeachment proceedings on the grounds it named the whistleblower. His question was, in fact, the only one rejected in such a public fashion. Given his question did not identify anyone as the whistleblower, it seems the Chief Justice's conclusion is that the name itself could not be read regardless of context. At the same time, that question cuts to the heart of certain concerns driving those opposed to the impeachment, which is that this was a long-running aim and was more about ending Trump's policies by any means necessary than addressing real or perceived misconduct.

  It is also worth considering that if the whistleblower were one of the people named in that question, then it goes to the heart of the proceeding itself as suggesting the motivations of the whistleblower were also more about politics than integrity. Eventually, the whistleblower's identity will be an established part of history and if the person alleged is the whistleblower, it will inform a lot of the historical understanding about the impeachment. This would still be true, though somewhat less so, if it turns out Paul never actually named the whistleblower. One way or another, I don't think anyone could credibly argue that this speech would not be relevant to a historical understanding of the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history.

  As far as the "reality" of whether someone will be harassed or face physical violence, I think the former is so vague and broad as to be a certainty when any person is named as part of a controversy and using it as an excuse to not discuss or document allegations of misconduct is more about censoring damaging information than about protecting others. With the latter the prospects for violence remain remote as with most cases. There is also an inappropriate imputation about motive here that somehow the purpose is to expose that person to harassment and violence so as to silence that individual. In reality, the reverse is true as those accused of outing the whistleblower want him to testify and be cross-examined. Rather, those arguing for protecting the whistleblower are the ones who do not want that to occur.

  Part of the issue here is there is a lot of consideration for near-term issues with regards to this speech. I do not believe any Senator's speech on impeachment would be a "minor historical footnote" or somehow be less significant or important than the rest of the Congressional Record. Numerous major media outlets have covered Paul's speech, though not transcribed it, and not all Senator speeches on impeachment have been covered as extensively. The random routine procedural orders and communications about D.C. city bond issues stand little chance of being more important or significant. No issue with publishing more of the Senate speeches on impeachment or the complete public record of the trial proceedings to include Senate speeches, but the Congressional Record itself would be a bit excessive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  "Near-term issues" are the important ones here. There will be no problem in uploading this text in five or ten years. I don't believe there's value in Wikisource hosting one item out of a set, seemingly chosen only because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, mainstream media, and Wikipedia have decided that it's inappropriate to mention the name of someone that Rand Paul had no qualms about mentioning. It's disruptive to the Wikimedia community.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I don't have a problem with even more speeches being put up and I don't think anyone else would have a problem. I put this up after seeing the speech from Romney here and can imagine several other speeches noteworthy enough. Technically, as I argued previously, all the speeches could be put up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I see valid arguments on both sides, and I don't wish to weigh in at this time on the final decision. However, I strongly agree with @Xover: that this should be deleted and salted -- or at least redacted and revdeleted -- pending the outcome of the discussion. It reflects poorly on us if we cannot create an environment for reasonable deliberation pending a clear outcome. -Pete (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  The fundamental problem with that approach is it demands everyone here to discuss the propriety of the work without all being able to review the ostensibly objectionable material. Given it has been up for over two weeks without incident, there is no clear reason why it needs to be deleted or redacted before a decision is reached.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  That is absolutely not true. (a) Redacting a name in no way impacts the ability to assess the merits of the argument above, and (b) redacting the entire document doesn't have that much impact either, since there is plenty of news coverage describing what happened. Either approach would (obviously) better serve the interest of reaching a decision without making the point moot, or pre-supposing a certain outcome. -Pete (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  A source document and video are linked on the talk page. Is it your position those should also be deleted from view? How do you expect regular contributors to discuss this if it is made impossible to review the material here? The reporting about the speech is easy enough to find, but the speech itself takes a little more effort and a lot of the reporting mischaracterizes the speech in a way that prejudices discussion in favor of the "delete" argument. I don't see how deleting and salting the page is somehow not pre-supposing an outcome as it suggests there is something here so horrible that it requires such extreme measures.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  I never said anything about removing links, you're arguing against a straw man here. Also, deleting and salting the page was only one of my suggestions; the most straightforward would be to simply redact and revdelete the individual's name. Simple, not horrible, and no imposition on reasoned discourse. You're being obtuse, and my sense is that you're "winning" this argument by tenacity and attrition. I don't approve. Carry on if you must, but I'm not impressed. -Pete (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Efn

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Unused, non-functional, outdated cut&paste copy from enwp, that is incompatible with enWS style guide. If we ever get a legitimate use for it we can do a real import (with all revision history) from enwp. --Xover (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete it with my glad support. :-) JesseW (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• delete, per nom — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Unknown Mr. Kent and Roy Norton--The unknown Mr Kent

The following discussion is closed:

Consolidated under proper title with redirect from the other title (root page only) BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

These are both about the same book, transcluding the same index.

The first is the proper title, but the chapters are hosted under subpages of the second. The first links to these chapters in its TOC, so navigation from the header of the first doesn't work.

I believe the chapters should be moved from under the second to under the first, and fixed to allow navigation. However, given that these pages are of long standing, I'm wondering whether they should be made redirects or just deleted. Same question for the second root page. BethNaught (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Retain the one we should retain, and convert the other root page to a redirect. Reckon just fix it. Happy to do it and run a bot through if required to fix any smaller bits that may need tidying. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance :) Everything is now under the first title, with a redirect from the root page of the second, but not the chapters. It sure is convenient having move-subpages. BethNaught (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Micrographia and Micrographia - or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon

The following discussion is closed:

Consolidated under short title with redirect from the title+subtitle (root page only) BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Same issue as #The Unknown Mr. Kent and Roy Norton--The unknown Mr Kent above, except that you could argue the long title is the correct one in this instance. BethNaught (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Reckon just fix it. Give us the direction you think that we should take. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Trawling discussion archives suggests people are ambivalent on this issue, or favour not including the subtitle unless there is a need for disambiguation, which there doesn't seem to be in this case. As the subtitle is awfully long, and the current primary name is Micrographia, the one which is linked to Wikidata and has a ToC etc., I'll pick that and consolidate the chapters under it. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Author:Aladdin Malikov

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, per previous community consensus

He's a modern author, which makes free works unlikely. Just as concerning is the fact this was started without a single work proposed for proofreading; it doesn't look in scope for Wikisource at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Community has already determined that we delete pages of modern authors where they have no work in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Index:Boswell - Life of Johnson - Volume 6.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as different editions (though the 1904 date is not evident on the scan, so it may be mislabelled or an identical reprint).

One volume of a seemingly identical edition to that of this scan. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

• keep Published at different times by different publishers. No guarantee that they are not different editions. No need to deleted, maybe just point to a more completed version, especially if we have a comp;ete set. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Council of Europe Report Submitted by Azerbaijan Per Framework Convention For the Protection of National Minorities

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

2008 cut&paste dump with zero effort at formatting, nor even adding a header and license, and tagged as such for 12 years. The original is available on the web at the COE website (so no access is lost if we delete it), and given it's a cut&paste dump anybody starting from scratch from the PDF will have an easier time than trying to match&split it. Note that there is also some question as to its copyright status, but that can be addressed separately if necessary (and is moot if deleted for other reasons).--Xover (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I could proofread from the scan, but I have some questions about the nature of the work. This is the “State Report” of the “First Cycle” (2002); there are four cycles. Each has numerous separate items, but I am unaware of the copyright status. If this work is to be kept, if it is eligible to be kept, there should be a framework for adding the other pages, if possible; a standard name system, as the current name is both too long and not specific enough; and a portal, either for the FCNM or Azerbaijan in relation to the same. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC).

  There are in principle infinite cycles: we're currently in the fifth cycle, whatever that means. And Azerbaijan is just one of ~28 countries participating in this framework, each of whom are submitting State Reports and various other documents for each cycle, that are then republished by the COE (who claim restrictive copyright, but may not in all cases have the right to do so). That means there's already on the order of several hundred documents in this series. I would suggest that unless there's a small group of people motivated to work on the whole of this collection of documents (based on a portal and custom navigation templates, probably), this is not where we should be expending our volunteer resources. Someone thought this one document was significant enough to dump it here, but not important enough to put any actual effort into (they literally just pressed "Ctrl+V" and clicked the "Publish" button: it took them five seconds, tops, but will eat up weeks worth of volunteer resources to save!). Unless it occurs that this particular document has some historical significance concomitant with the expenditure of volunteer effort (our most limited and dearest resource) required to scan-back and proofread it, we should just let readers find it at the source, where it will be in the original format and in the context of the other several hundred documents in the framework. --Xover (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure Vol 1.djvu and Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure Vol 2.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Different editions (possibly just a second printing from the same year with a new title page).

There is already a version of this two volume work on Wikisource (Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749, vol. 1).pdf) and (Index:Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749, vol. 2).pdf). Volume 1 has been proofread, volume 2 is nearly complete. The djvu versions can be deleted. Chrisguise (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The scans appear to be two different editions, so I do not see cause for deletion here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pages created by User:Paris91

The following discussion is closed:

Redundant and mislabelled copies deleted and redirects created.

The following pages are requested to be deleted for the reason "General 4: Redundant" according to WS:CSD.

These pages, in fact, are original translations (by Frank Maloy Anderson), not Wikisource translations, and should thus be in the Main namespace, not the Translation namespace. But, in the Main namespace, there already are pages with sourced texts which have the same contents. So, these pages are requested to be deleted. --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

{

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Two transclusions from the same proofreading

The following discussion is closed:

Redundant transclusion converted to redirect.

There are two transclusions from the proofreading of Index:British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act 1960.djvu: British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960 and British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act 1960, only difference in title being the comma. There is also a redirect: The British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960. The comma is justified in an Indian Act (index title is wrong, my mistake in long past), but I am not seeing the justification of multiple mainspace transclusions. Hrishikes (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: I would hazard a guess that it is someone filling a redlink, and not realising the existence of the other transclusion. Pick the one that you wish to retain and convert the other to a redirect. Please also check that the works are fully transcluded and label the index page. Neither has a WD item, so that saves some work. 14:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Comp3-pre-0415.pdf and File:Compendium3-draft.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

These are excerpts of the early ("beta") versions of the Copyright Office's Compendium of Copyright Practices, uploaded by GOIII to experiment and facilitate discussion prior to the actual release of the compendium back in 2014. What discussion there was is at WS:AN#Need input for critical work (and side note).

In essence they are GOIII's test files for an abortive project and no longer serve any purpose. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Neutral Shrug, but can they not just go to Commons as PD-USgov works? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Commons isn't a dumping ground for stuff other projects don't want. These are test files—and GOIII seems to have been testing their copyright.gov->PDF toolchain more than anything—that they specifically asked people not to proofread. If anybody were to tackle the Compendium they would never start from these files. And, incidentally, they contain copyrighted Windows screenshots that we'd need to doctor out if we were to keep them (so the cost—benefit is a negative number). --Xover (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  If there is cost associated with them for copyright reasons, then delete.

  If that were not true, since they're actual formal US government drafts, there is (theoretically) some (rather small) value to them as snapshots of the document in its development process, even if they're unlikely to ever be used at Wikisource source documents. But not enough that it's worth redacting them. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Letter of request regarding Gangwon Fire Headquarters Delegation Visit to Washington DC Fire & EMS Training Academy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope. There is no assertion of notability of any kind, and not even the uploader could muster an argument in favour of its retention.

Hello sir. I want to keep the article but I was curious to know whether it fits the wikisource article criteria. My decision to make a contribution was by below wikisource introduction in wikipedia and also [9]. Please delete or keep it by admins' and people's judgement. thank you. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The project's aim is to host all forms of free text, in many languages, and translations. Originally conceived as an archive to store useful or important historical texts (its first text was the Déclaration universelle des Droits de l'Homme), it has expanded to become a general-content library. The project officially began in November 24, 2003 under the name Project Sourceberg, a play on the famous Project Gutenberg. The name Wikisource was adopted later that year and it received its own domain name seven months later.

@Choikwangmo9: This document does appear to satisfy our copyright policy. It would fall under the "documentary sources" part of our inclusion policy. It appears to be missing some information: where can other editors get a copy of the original to compare this copy against? If you have a hard copy or a PDF, you should scan and upload it to Wikimedia Commons for this purpose. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the original letter. thank you sir. Choikwangmo9 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep I see no reason for this work to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Beleg Tâl: We have usually required documentary sources to be related to notability, and I don't see that this rates for notability for any article at the Wikipedias, it is simply a general piece of correspondence. We have previously deleted other documentary sources for non-notable people. How do you see that this is different? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Our definition of notability has nothing to do with articles on the Wikipedias or not-notable people, but is instead based on editorial control and publication. If you are suggesting that this be deleted as a self-published document, then I am open to hearing your arguments to that effect. However, documentary sources that are issued by organizations are frequently hosted and kept regardless, so I am not sure what precedent you are basing this on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Beleg Tâl: We are a library, not an archive, and that is how we wrote the WWI to have a component of (historical) documents relating to notability. The notability aspect around documents is that around manageability of our scope. How many 18th century wills of insignificant people do you think that we should have? How many non-descript process letters of any government or organisations do we collect—unless they are supporting something like a WP article, something of notability. Random letters from fire fighters inviting themselves to visit other fire fighters are archival in nature, what is our purpose of hosting. That this is self-published adds to my issues with it living here, what purpose does it have? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I am inclined to say this document is out of scope as having no independent notability per Billinghurst above. But perhaps Choikwangmo9 could explain why they believe this text is worth retaining? Is there some special significance to the visit this text refers to? Are any of the persons involved notable for some reason? A century from now, will historians refer to this letter or this visit even in a footnote or an appendix? What separates this letter from literally billions of other such documents sitting in public records around the world? What was the story behind how you came to add it here? --Xover (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

   Delete Ok, absent a response from the uploader I am landing on delete per Billinghurst. --Xover (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't know there was a discussion like this. First of all.. it is not the same as this, but a similar official document has been deleted from koWS(I'm an admin on koWS). As you may know, thousands of government documents are produced by hundreds of institutions a day. WS is not a government document archive system. Also, official documents of the Korean government are not assigned a single designated license. Basically, it is not PD, and there must be a separate designation by the institution. However, this document is an interagency liaison letter, and such license designations cannot be confirmed. I recommend deleting it for reasons, out the scope and copyright. It seems like a stagnant discussion, excuse me, but I ping you, billinghurst. --Sotiale (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Something I haven't mentioned, this is not a special/notable/worth preserving official document. If it's an official document with a very special preservation value, I agree with posting, but this is not. It is just an inter-agency liaison letter. --Sotiale (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Iliad of Homer (Macpherson)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an excerpt.

A small excerpt, with no specified edition. Created in 2008, with no later additions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC).

• This would appear to be "The Illiad of Homer" translated by James Macpherson. Google has the following scans:
  • 1773 edition:
    • Volume 1 [10] [11]
    • Volume 2 [12] [13]
  • 1818 edition:
    • Volume 1 [14]
• James500 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep and migrate to Index:The Iliad of Homer. Translated by James Macpherson, Esq. Volumes 1 to 3. 1818 to 1819.pdf —unsigned comment by James500 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020.

  Agree with moving the text into the index namespace (which you have already done). Unfortunately, this has not solved the problem that there is only a tiny excerpt in the main namespace and so the main namespace page should be deleted anyway. It is easy to return it after somebody proofreads the whole book or at least a significant part of it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  It is easy to restore one deleted page of this type. It is not easy to restore large numbers of deleted pages. This is not the only nomination. James500 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Has it ever happened that there was a need to restore large numbers of deleted pages? I am afraid it has not and will not because it happens extremely rarely that somebody returns to life an abandoned page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  This group of pages is not abandoned because I am trying to fix them right now. James500 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Compared to the effort to proofread a text, creating the resulting mainspace transclusion pages is trivial, no matter how many or few works are being discussed. I'm not sure what the concern is here! JesseW (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  It is why we have the Index:/Page: namespace, and why we designate them the workspace. We have no issues with incomplete works in those namespaces, they are there and can be worked on ever so incrementally and exposed when ready. We don't like garbage in our presentation space, especially unlabelled and misrepresenting itself as a complete work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Creating new transclusions is indeed trivial in most cases. And in a pinch we can use a bot to batch undelete any number of previously deleted pages. While not entirely trivial, Pywikibot has direct support for batch undelete so it's not a huge problem either. --Xover (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:PageFile

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Template created in 2009 that is used all of two times (on two Index: talk pages, which can be subst'ed to preserve the history). Its function is to display a grid of thumbnails of page images for a PDF/DjVu, which given its non-use over the last decade does not appear to be a great need. It also doesn't work particularly well since MediaWiki/Thumbor can't handle that many thumbnail requests for PDF/DjVu pages concurrently.

The code in itself isn't particularly problematic (unlike some other older templates), but every bit of code is something that takes maintenance resources, contributes to filling up backlogs and maintenance lists, adds to complexity, and the cognitive load on contributors. --Xover (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support subst'ing the uses & replacing it with a prominent DEPRECATED warning. Oppose making it back into a redlink, there's no reason to hide the revision history from non-admins. JesseW (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  @JesseW: Can I assume you realise that "not hiding the revision history" has never been a recognised factor in deletion discussions on the project? Not that you shouldn't feel free to make novel arguments, but the logic of this particular one leads us to never being able to delete anything, ever. One can certainly disagree on where to draw various lines and the weighting of tradeoffs, but I don't think either of the extreme positions on the scale are tenable as practice. --Xover (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do realize it's a novel argument at Wikisource (or at least, I do now). It is not a novel argument on other wikis -- and it doesn't lead to never deleting anything; it merely leads towards not deleting anything you don't have a reason to hide (reasons to hide include avoiding promoting unwelcome things, hiding private or seriously deceptive claims, etc.) Certainly few of those come up on Wikisource (as compared with other projects), but that's a reason to not delete very much, not a reason to reject the argument. JesseW (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Most relevantly here -- deleting things for copyright reasons is absolutely a relevant cause, and is totally unaffected by this argument. JesseW (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I certainly agree with Xover—this argument should only motivate a decision to keep and force-deprecate in the most exceptional of circumstances. I certainly don’t believe that we need to keep this obscure, not particularly useful, and rarely used template for any greater period of time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC).

  What "exceptional" circumstances are you thinking of? I'm not sure how a guideline of "don't hide stuff without need" would apply only in a narrow range of circumstances. Rather, it seems like Xover's view, as I understand it, is that even considering "the value of hiding these revision history entries" would excessively interfere with some other goal (it's not clear to me what it is -- the presence of a redlink, maybe?) such that it (having a purpose in hiding them) should never be seen as a requirement before hiding revision history. I may have misunderstood, though! JesseW (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I believe what limiting circumstances may be taken into account is a matter of the individual page, but for templates, widespread use by multiple users would qualify the template for force-deprecation only—Template:Wikilivres (above) would qualify for this, in my opinion. Template:PageFile would not qualify on account of its highly limited use. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

  @JesseW: I am surprised to hear that there are projects where "not hiding the revision history" is a common and heeded argument in deletion discussions. Are these Wikimedia projects, and if so which ones?

  In any case, your casting of it as "hiding the revision history" is a bit disingenuous: the goal is obviously not to hide the revision history (we have RevDel for that when it's necessary), the goal is to remove the page itself and making the revision history inaccessible to non-admins is purely a side-effect of that. As illustrated elsewhere, modulo a few technical limitations, we are perfectly happy to make that revision history available to anyone with an interest. Had we the technical capability to make the revision history for deleted pages available to non-admins I would have no objections to doing that by default.

  The issue, however, with your argument is that things like templates that are not in current use do not contribute to the goals of Wikisource. We are not a software repository, nor a historical data source for compsci researchers. Our goal is to make public domain or compatibly licensed texts available to the world. Anything that does not contribute towards that goal is overhead. Any template or other technical doodah or geegaw merits its existence here only to the degree it contributes towards the project's goals.

  In this particular case, the dead and unused and unmaintained code sitting in Template:PageFile does not meaningfully contribute to those goals (it is unused). But it does raise the cognitive load on contributors who may stumble on it. And who may end up trying to use it despite any deprecation warning (trust me, it happens). And even if neither occurs, it will make it harder for them to find what they were actually looking for because old unused and unmaintained templates clutter up the lists of templates that they do want to use. And it hampers the maintenance of the site: I ran across it because it uses an old and deprecated CSS class in the global stylesheet. Meaning it is loaded unconditionally for all users on all pages, at a scary cumulative cost in bandwidth, CPU cycles, and RAM usage over time; even though it is only actually used on two talk pages as one user's personal experiment. Because it existed I had to spend a not insignificant amount of my own time dealing with it before we could remove that global CSS. Now multiply that by every single time we need to do a similar operation, and multiply that by the number of such old abandoned templates we have. It eats up volunteer resources that could be much better spent elsewhere (restoring other old templates so someone interested can see their revision history, for example).

  I am absolutely not saying you cannot make that argument, or that you are wrong to make it (we each value different factors and care about different aspects; that's a good thing and entirely as expected). But it is an argument that is orthogonal to the actual goals and purpose of Wikisource, and you are the first and only person I have seen make that argument in my ~15 years, on and off, bumming around the Wikimedia movement. --Xover (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Read, need to take longer to make sense of the text and decide how to respond. In brief -- I don't understand how someone would end up using a template whose only effect is to display the text: This is a deprecated template.. Such a template would not clutter up any lists, as it would be only listed in a Category:Deprecated templates. Could you say more about how someone would end up using that by mistake? JesseW (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I want to clarify that I am vehemently in agreement with the importance of cleaning up deprecated and obsolete Templates and other junk that is sitting around -- that's important, and useful, and a good idea for all the reasons you eloquently stated (and other reasons as well). I just think doing what I've (now) already done (subst'ing the current uses, making the current version into a simple "deprecated" notice, and removing it from any categories other than a deprecated templates category) is sufficient to achieve the goals of cleanup, and avoids excessive process and as a (very minor) beneficial side-effect, avoids hiding stuff we don't actually have any reason to hide. JesseW (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  (quick response; up past my bedtime ;D) @JesseW: You forget about the search function, and underestimate the confusion new users suffer. Or how much time we'd have to spend helping users who are mystified at why their page now has a big red "This thingy is deprecated" on it, and what's a thingy by the way? And even a dedicated deprecated category is still a category; and will show up in automated maintenance categories; and will still be subject to various forms of vandalism; and will show up in the linter log (see Special:LintErrors) when Parsoid lands and deprecates inline style attributes (or whatever); and will show up in searches when we try to find pages in the Template: namespace that use inline style attributes in order to convert them to TemplateStyles; or… Nothing is free, and a thousand papercuts may still kill you, even if every single instance looks cheap and harmless enough in isolation. --Xover (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  The search function will merely show "this page name was previously used" (which is harmless). If new users keep using a name even when it's not referred to anywhere, that's a valuable signal that we should redirect that name to somewhere relevant, or at least put a note on it explaining the right way to do whatever they were trying to do (and it's a signal we'll still get, whether or not the previous revisions at the page are hidden or not). As for vandalism -- I can't see any way that an existing (unused) page is any more at risk for vandalism than a non-existing (unused) page name would be. Either one can be vandalized at any time, and neither would have much effect if/when they were (since they are unused).

  I do want to make a subtle improvement to my deprecation process proposal -- don't make multiple versions of the notice; instead, #REDIRECT each deprecated page to a central page that explains what happened (deprecation). That avoids duplication (so there's no increase in weight if we have to change the deprecation notice, or anything like that.) And I never claimed this process was "free" -- instead, I'm claiming it's cheaper (both initially and over time) than deletion, and achieves the same ends. So it's fewer papercuts, and will therefore let us survive them longer. JesseW (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Dictionary of the Sunda language/All

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This appears to be a combination of all transcluded pages of this work, in no succinct order. (I have noticed additionally a number of broken Wiki-links in this work, which should also be fixed.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Stenograma sedintei de audiere din 14 decembrie 1994

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as out of scope, unlicensed, unclear copyright, etc.

This is a Romanian language work with interspersed English translation. It is out of scope in its form and there is no information that relates to the copyright of the original. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Irish Builder/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

construct Portal:Irish Builder

One page of unedited OCR; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 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) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Delete There's no value to this in mainspace as it stands and it's not under active work. No prejudice to having volumes set up in Index/Page space and even single articles of interest transcluded piece-wise, but uncorrected OCR is pointless, and non-scan-backed uncorrected OCR even more so.

Aside, IA has a few nicer scans, but not a full set. In traditional IA style, they are not catalogued very well at all and the metadata is rubbish. Making a list of known scans at Irish Builder would be a good idea. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Inductiveload: This is not uncorrected OCR. James500 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh, sorry, it's just totally unformatted, which makes it look like just another OCR dump. Either way, there's not much point having just a title page without a scan in place to let people add new articles. If we had scans, I'd be OK with it if it was formatted properly: at least there's a remote chance people can then dip in an do and article here and there. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:57, 17 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) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Index:Irish Builder - Volume 1-3.pdf. It appears complete, and the OCR is "OK"; the plates are scanned pretty terribly (as expected from Google). Enjoy :). ~~

Thank you. James500 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Since it's now at least a functional collective work with a scan behind it. A pity the plates are so trashed by the scanning process, or it'd be a really nice item. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: It is still just an excerpt with no claim to independent work status (it's just the title page), and no ongoing work to proofread it. Are you sure about that !vote? Let me put it a different way: it'll take me less effort to retransclude what's there if anybody ever proofreads this work than it will take me to delete the page and clean up afterwards. --Xover (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: this thread pre-dates the Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_on_substantially_empty_works by a week or two, so my !vote here is kind of pending what the outcome of that is (since it's been stalled for some time, with no further input forthcoming that I can tell, I should probably get around to writing up an actual proposal there).

It's a bit disappointing that no further work has occurred after the scan was set up. It was the first in what started as a pair and grew to a list of many "Volume 1"'s on this page (the !vote predates all but the Irish Law Times nominations). I was hoping it would get some work done on it in fairly short order once the ground-work was in place.

I'm not going to change the !vote just yet, as it'll follow the outcome of the WS:S discussion, assuming there is ever any kind of consensus. As this work stands today, still with only a title page and no content, it would fail to meet my personal standards I outlined there (i.e. a scan, a TOC and at least one substantial article). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete I see no actual content here, only a little bit of structure; and neither do I see any ongoing efforts to proofread that would lead to any appreciable chance of completion before the heat death of the universe. --Xover (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process. James500 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• comment we should be helping editors by uploading scanned texts, setting up indexes, and TOC. these are not trivial tasks that we should editors to be able to do, as a precondition. we should not be greeting editors with a deletion nomination. if you want to behave like that go over to commons. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If there was only one instance, and it a small one, that would be an acceptable recourse. (If I had not inundated myself with so much other work,) I would be willing to work on proofreading some or all of the pages I have proposed for deletion; what prevents me from doing this is the lack of a framework for me to proofread and transclude articles or sections. Again, if this problem existed on only one page, it would be less objectionable; but the existence of this problem on a large scale is what prevents a sensible, reasonable (time-relative) method of proofreading these works. That is my primary objection to these works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

Moved to portal: ns, when substantial text to transclude, then can be created. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Irish Law Times/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Portal:Irish Law Times

Three pages of unedited OCR; no table of contents; no other content. Scans listed on main page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

• Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one), 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) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Scan at Index:Irish Law Times - Volume 1.pdf, but the pages are unordered (eg. 54-55 are repeated three times). There might be missing pages, Google scans often do. I haven't got time to deal with that right now, so I'll leave the pagelisting fun to you. It's a Google scan, so it naturally has further defects, for example half the pages are "zoomed out" with the content in one corner, but the OCR seems "OK". I tried to use BUB2, but the Internet Archive choked on the file as it's too big for their derivation process. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete I see no actual content here, only a little bit of structure; and neither do I see any ongoing efforts to proofread that would lead to any appreciable chance of completion before the heat death of the universe. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep per WS:SCOPE which states that when an entire work is available as a file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process. James500 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can be created with transcluded text. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Marvin's Legal Bibliography

The following discussion is closed:

kept

A few pages of unedited OCR, with no indicated source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:07, 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) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Internet Archive has this scan, which I suspect may be better than the Google Books scans originally consulted. The Google Books scan are this one and this one and this one. I think they are all the same. James500 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• @User:Inductiveload: If I have a choice of scans, how do I decide which one to upload? James500 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @James500:: Generally, I pick scans in this order: most complete in terms of missing pages and images then nicest scan quality (generally leads to better OCR). The two usually go togther, and usually if you have a choice between a Google scan (black and white) and a non-Google scan (usually in colour, so easy to spot at IA), go for the non-Google scan. Google scans are notoriously low-quality, often totally omit images, have scanning defects like blurred, missing or folded pages, hands in scans, etc. If the IA ID ends in "ala", "uoft" or "rich", for example, it's a good bet it will be quite nice. If it ends "goog", look for alternatives. Digital Library of India scans (start with "in.ernet" are also generally low quality).
• If there's only one, then you have no choice. If you discover missing or duplicate pages when doing the page list, use {{missing pages}} or {{Remove pages}} as needed, which puts the index in a backlog of works needing attention.
• If you have two scans and both are missing bits, and in total they make a complete work, make a note in the missing page template and someone can synthesise a complete scan. You can still proofread if the scan is incomplete, pages can be moved around by admins if you need.
• It's also allowed to proofread a page from another scan if the page is illegible, but make a note on the Index talk page to say so.
• In your case, the [15] one looks a better bet. The good news is that as it is an IA work, you can use the IA-Upload tool, which saves you downloading to your device first. In your case, the ID is "legalbibliograph00marv". Sadly it can fail, and in that case, you have to download the file yourself and upload it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @User:Inductiveload: The file is at commons:File:Marvin, Legal Bibliography, 1847.djvu. James500 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @James500:: Looks good! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept, though it needs work to have any basic navigation or any suitable entry point for other transcribers. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Albany Law Journal/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Portal:Albany Law Journal curated pages

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

• Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one or this one), 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) 22:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

James, if you'd like scans of works like this uploaded, I'm willing to help. Where are you stuck? The Google PDF is available here. (The direct link can be hard to find, it's hidden in the "Free eBook" menu on the Google Books page.) Keep and get it scan-backed. Again, I'll help as needed. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Peteforsyth: Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf is missing pages 1 and 2, and was created by mistake. commons:File:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf has pages 1 and 2. I am unable to upload the djvu from the Internet Archive with the IA upload tool, as I get messages saying an error has occurred. I do not know which of the three scans has the best OCR or image quality. It might be preferable to either delete or move Index:The Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf and create Index:Albany Law Journal, Volume 1, 1870.pdf, or upload the IA djvu instead, but I am not sure.James500 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I created the Index for the one with pages 1 and 2 (the third one in your list above). This appears the same as the second one, but the second one is missing the pages where the text isn't black - some strange Google processing has presumably happened. While replacing the scan, I also removed the Google page. I deleted the other Index page to keep things simple, as it's redundant if the current Index is complete, as it appears to be. The IA DjVu also lacks pages 1 & 2.

The OCR isn't great on any of them as far as I can tell, as Google OCR does seem to often miss the fact that there are two columns (I suppose they don't really care as it still feeds into their search corpus well enough). The IA OCR is a bit better, and we could patch that in perhaps, if the OCR button doesn't do a good job (it's currently timing out >_<). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Pages can be created with substantial transcluded text. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

American Law Review/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

curated construct moved to Portal:American Law Review

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

• Upload the scan for this volume (either this one or this one), 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) 22:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• The file is at commons:File:The American Law Review, Volume 1, 1867.pdf. James500 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Can be created when there is substantial pages to transclude. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Central Law Journal/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Portal:Central Law Journal, construct, not transcluded text

A few pages of largely unedited OCR; scan information should be removed to base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

• Upload the scan for this volume (either this one (also on IA here) or this one), 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) 22:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• The file is at commons:File:The Central Law Journal, Volume 1, 1874.pdf

Can be recreated when there is transcluded text — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

curated content moved to Portal:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal

One page of unedited OCR; see above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:31, 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) 22:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Internet Archive has this scan and this scan, which I suspect may be better than the Google Books scans originally consulted. The Google Books scan are this one and this one. James500 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• @User:Inductiveload: There are now scans at commons:File:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu and commons:File:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.pdf. I suspect the djvu has much better OCR, but it might also be missing pages (it has 974 pages instead of 988). I suspect it might be better go for the best OCR and add any missing pages from the other. Or perhaps put the better text layer in the more complete file. This is far beyond my technical abilities. James500 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@James500: because the plates break up the pagination, it's tricky to tell at a glance which scan is more complete. I would start with the DjVu (the OCR does look a bit better) and do an Index and a pagelist. Then, if any important pages turn out to be missing, they can be inserted from another scan, if present in that other scan. I can probably help with that, but not for a couple of days. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Can be created with substantial transcluded text. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Del, merge to template:strikethrough

The following discussion is closed:

merge to template:strikethrough

I am proposing that we merge {{del}} into {{strikethrough}} as both are visual representations of the same thing and we again don't need unnecessary template bloat.

I would argue that for the purposes of are presentations it is not accurate to describe any of our productions as requiring the tag <del>, which would be interpretative, and they are stylistic alone for the purposes of our reproductions. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep It is clear that many documents have deleted or inserted text and that is the function of striking it. In fact, that is almost always the reason why. We shouldn't make it harder to have semantically proper content on our site. Additionally, deleted text may be struck but not necessarily, so how it really appears is up to browsers and individual CSS files. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Not our job to interpret or annotate, ours is to replicate. This is not a mark-up conversation about a version of a document. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have scans to replicate. How much interpretation we do is something we can discuss, but one goal of transcription is to make versions computer-readable for the blind, and using del makes that easier and the result more useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: this is the same situation as Template:Kbd, above; it is entirely superfluous to Template:Strikethrough. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC).
• Comment: arguably, nearly all of the users of {{strikethrough}} should, semantically speaking, be using {{del}}. The DEL HTML tag happens to have the same default styling as strikethrough, but this is a browser default. If we wanted to use del, we should probably provide an explicit CSS styling for it, perhaps by TemplateStyles, so that we're not relying on an implicit browser style.

I can't really think of a place where strikethrough is directly used purely stylistically, though it is used internally by other templates, e.g. {{ditto bar}}. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Delete Text struck through in a work should never be marked up with <del>…</del>: if the semantics intended by the author was to delete the text it would have simply been removed. Text included with strikethrough formatting has been deliberately included in that way. Markup like <del>…</del> carries semantics that are interpretative and therefore inappropriate here; makes no sense technically because re-styling the tag with CSS would change the formatting of our reproduction; and would mislead and confuse vision-impaired readers by hiding part of the work from them. HTML on the web has been in a long, slow, and tortuous road towards more semantic markup for going on three decades now, which has led to some strongly ingrained reflexes to eschew physical markup. I know, I've been jumping up and down on that soapbox with my bullhorn for most of that time! But that reflex collides squarely with our purpose and goals here: we are not creating original web content, but reproducing (primarily) old printed content. The definitional authority for the semantics rests not with us, and appropriating it would be a disservice to our readers and reusers. --Xover (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Also, this template has all of 6 mainspaces uses, all of them added by Justin over the last ~12 months since they created the template. All of them instances where they modified an already Proofread or Validated page using <s>…</s> to add this template (modulo three uses by SF00 that were clearly in error). As such its existence does not appear to be based on a concrete need for it so much as an expression of how they feel this ought to have been done on a technical level.

  If any specific case crops up where it is warranted (i.e. where the associated semantics are applicable), raw HTML <del>…</del> tags can be used to meet the immediate need, and if a more widespread use case is identified we can revisit a template-based solution at that time. --Xover (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Proposing to close and implement. Any other comment? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Author:Richard Dawkins

The following discussion is closed:

kept; marked {{copyvio author}}

No works listed. Are any works by this author really uncopyrighted? I wouldn't think any would be, especially of one who's alive and still so well-known. I cast my doubt, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I am new here and not familiar with deletion procedures in this wmf-wiki. However I noticed the sister-projects ikon on the page (which btw is missing a commons and wikiquote link). I believe those links may provide useful information to casual reaaders who happen to see this page. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: We normally delete author pages for authors where they have no works in the public domain. For this author, while it is not likely to hold works, it was presumably left to stop re-creation like some other modern popular authors. It is also possible that they may have works that are creative commons ND hosted at other sites, and they can be added from our author pages. @Ottawahitech: re links, if there are sister pages missing then add them to the person item at Wikidata, as the author pages will add those links. — billinghurst sDrewth

'Kept one of the few pages that we have of modern authors as people kept recreating, so marked with text to dissuade additions.

All works by this author are thought to be under copyright. No works, or external links to works, should be added until the copyright has expired (see the Copyright policy), or you are absolutely sure the work in question is veritably under a license compatible with the copyright policy. If you wish to discuss this author, please do so at Wikisource:Copyright discussions.

— billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages

The following discussion is closed:

deleted without prejudice; can be recreated when something substantial is transcribed

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

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

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

•  Delete per Inductiveload. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Scan available at Index:The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages.djvu — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:Multilingual texts

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete. It is emphasised by all commenters that the page as it stands has no authority as policy or guideline, and should be updated or replaced to be useful.

Page has long existed and is neither policy or procedure. It should quietly disappear. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Parallel texts described on that page do exist in English Wikisource. An example of the interlinear variant is Bhagavad-Gita (Besant 4th). An example of the side-by-side variant is Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (tr. Whinfield, 1883). There are more. Hrishikes (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose deletion per Hrishikes.--Piznajko (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Comment the existence of the works have nothing particularly to do with the existence of the page. It is neither policy nor procedure, it shouldn't be masquerading as such. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• This page has multiple warnings saying it's a proposal, a placeholder, so it's not masquerading as anything.
• Not being a policy is not a reason for deletion.
• It's not not procedure—I don't think any of it is controversial. The first section just copies some relevant verbiage from WS:WWI. The second is purely informational, defining terms without advancing any policy or guidance.

So the proposer's rationale isn't great, but this page as it stands isn't useful. If there is a settled consensus on multilingual works, it would be good to document it; if not, it could be helpful to repurpose this page as an essay describing the facts on the ground. BethNaught (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Auction Prices of Books

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Portal:.

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

There is visible content on the page, providing a start to someone who wants to transcribe this work. What purpose is served in making that harder? JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The content on this page, (and on the other pages marked in a similar fashion below,) is available on the relevant Author: page, and it is generally held that pages with no content should not be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Er, as James500 said, the links to the external scans do not seem to appear on the author page. Please be more careful to verify the facts before making such claims in the future. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The content on this page is not available on the author page. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I think we need some clarity on policy here. This is a work that's somewhat "encyclopaedic", in that it is made up of thousands of lists of books by individual authors. So I imagine it could have some of the lists transcribed and some not and be like that for a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero actual content. It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical^†. Do we want:
  1. Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
  2. Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.
• Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical (probably not here). Dumping scan-less works is not particularly helpful. It's fair to not wish to transcribe the entire work, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.
• I'm not specifically talking about this work, mind, so the question stands even if this particular work sprouts a set of Indexes in the near future.
• We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no content", and, furthermore, every single periodical can fall into this situation, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here.
• ^†If it's a periodical, I think a top-level list of as many volumes as you can figure out, ideally with dates and scan links is helpful. But creating empty volume subpages doesn't seem particular constructive. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If so, then all of the deletion discussions relevant to this discussion should be put on hold, and the policy discussion should happen elsewhere. I have come across more works than just the ones already listed here, so it would be beneficial to have this discussion as soon as possible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
    • @TE(æ),ea.:, moved and made a bit more generic at: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_on_substantially_empty_works. Inductiveload—talk/contribs
• The scan for volume 1 is at commons:File:Livingston, Auction Prices of Books, 1905, Volume 1.djvu. James500 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Portal:.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

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

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

•  Delete per Inductiveload. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Geography

The following discussion is closed:

Transwikied to c:Geography (Ptolemy) and local copy deleted as out of scope.

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

A quick look makes me think maybe this could be a page (or just a category) at Commons.

As for a version we could have: maybe https://archive.org/details/1_20191225_20191225_2206 - it's 1991 reprint of a 1932 book that appears not to have been renewed for copyright (from an extremely cursory glance). Is that OK for copyright? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

With or without copyright notice the 1932 publication would have had to be renewed in 1959–1961, of which I can find no trace. The 1991 republication also appears to contain no or almost no new copyrightable material. So from a copyright perspective it would seem to be ok. But this is also a black and white scan of what appear to be colour maps and legends (~80 pages worth), and with some pages cut off and crooked. So we should definitely look for a better scan of this work. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any other obvious PD English editions available with really good images. The Stevenson translation mostly reproduces maps from Codex Ebnerianus (not the Biblical one, the other one), which is a manuscript now at the NY Public Library. There might be a proper high-res scan of that entire manuscript and we could use those? Even the very best scan of Stevenson would still be a scan of a copy. Annoyingly, I can't immediately see a source of good scans of the Codex Ebnerianus. Or find an English translation that uses maps that Commons actually has. They have quite a few though: commons:Category:Editions of Ptolemy's Geography. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Twist

The following discussion is closed:

Individual volumes moved under the main page, replacing the unsourced edition.

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

• The standard method of dealing with these pages is to proofread the new edition over the old edition, and delete ({{sdelete}}) the old version once finished, like The Republic. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is exactly what I have proposed. We have a proofread edition of three parts of Oliver Twists (see the links I provided above). I suggest to delete the old unsourced version by a page linking to the three proofread parts. These parts should then be moved to its subpages. However, such a case is not mentioned among the speedy deletion criteria and so I am proposing the deletion here. Somebody might want to search for the source of the old version and keep both versions (now I see that there are some differences in the number of chapters). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I thought those were Index: references. Certainly, I support this move. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

• Standard approach when you don't know it's the same edition is to move the unsourced version to XX (unsourced); and then create a versions page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have changed “Unsourced” to “unsourced,” Beeswaxcandle, as I believe that is the common usage; I have also seen (unsourced edition). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

  Do we need to have unsourced editions? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  What is wrong with unsourced editions? Can you come up with a better argument? We have the means to manage. If we see something that is an exact duplicate then we have removed them, though for something like this multi-edition work, there is not really the point. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  What's the value of unsourced editions? We can't verify that the text reflects a previously published edition, much less how accurately. We can't verify that it hasn't been altered, nor even that it is complete. And any value derived from having multiple editions of the same work depend on actually knowing with precision which edition it is from, and being able to compare the differences between them. Likewise we can't link it to wikidata because we don't know what edition it is.

  When there is no other sourced edition here there is an argument to be made for the value of having access to the text at all; but even that goes out the window when an actual sourced edition is available. For those reasons (and for various other more secondary reasons) I have arrived at the opinion that we should start to require scan backing for all new texts added, and actively work to replace existing unsourced texts with scan-backed versions. There are some common-sense exceptions for born-digital texts and such, but otherwise the only caveats are relative priority and amount of effort expended. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Xover. Why would we recommend someone read the unsourced version instead of the sourced version? If there's a real reason, it sounds like there might be a copyrightable difference in the unsourced version, which is problematic, and in those (fairly rare) cases, we should find scans with the modernized spelling or whatever makes the unsourced version distinct. In other cases, there's no value in having the unsourced version at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Who says recommend them? They are labelled and clearly are what they are. There is no value in adding further, but what is the value in deleting? I have no issue in pushing harder on requiring harder on source-backed works, where it is reasonable to do so. I just don't see value in deleting old, complete works. We are not stuck for space; they can be clearly identified for what they are. They identify a history of what was, and at what time, and a person's edits. There is no need for a purity and a cleansing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  The value in deleting is that Oliver Twist goes straight to the book, instead of a disambiguation page, and that no one looking for Oliver Twist has to wonder which edition to read or what the differences are between the two. They're labelled, but that label is not really clear if you're just looking to read something and don't have an understanding of the Wikisource process. Disambiguation pages may be a necessary cost, but not in this situation. Also, they're potentially problematic in a copyright sense; not a huge risk, but it's possible that editorial changes like abridgment or bowlerdization make it a new copyrighted work. I don't really see the counter balancing advantage to keeping it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should delete this, and replace it with a disambiguation page listing out the versions of Oliver Twist. There are also copies of Oliver Twist in the PD that are collected into one single book rather than split into volumes. The original version, which was split into volumes, should take priority over any potential others. On another note, we really really should split the chapters of each volume in our current transclusions into subpages; having each volume on one page is really excessive. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OTHER POEMS AND THE REMEMBERED GODS

The following discussion is closed:

Duplicate.

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

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

  replace with substituted {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Parodies and Songs

The following discussion is closed:

Duplicate.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

THREE BATTLES TO THE FIFTY-FIRST DIVISION

The following discussion is closed:

Duplicate.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletions

The following discussion is closed:

Ok, this particular multi-nom seems like it can finally be closed (after 9 months). Outcomes for the pages involved were "various".

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

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

The lack of discussion of some of these pages is due to a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: I'm a little too backlogged to get into the complicated cases just now (trying to clear out the simpler ones first); and especially the ones where, as James500 says, there is a possibility discussion is just stalled due to the usual summer slump or similar. There are a lot of complicated proposed deletion threads open just now so it will take some time to untangle them. If anybody wants to make life easier for the admins trying to process these they can try to summarise the issue and its current status / consensus resolution, and double check that participants in the thread agree. At least for myself, trying to understand these long complicated discussions to figure out what, if anything, was agreed is the most time-consuming part of it. --Xover (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Below, the redirection pages A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, and The life of Mohammed should be kept, as they have not been properly marked; OTHER POEMS AND THE REMEMBERED GODS, Parodies and Songs, and THREE BATTLES TO THE FIFTY-FIRST DIVISION should be deleted, as they would not be useful as redirection pages; Portal:John Burgoyne should be deleted in the same manner as normal redirection pages, with the use of the proper template; and the objections given to Auction Prices of Books, Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide, Chronicles of the Picts, chronicles of the Scots, and other early memorials of Scottish history, and The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages are the same as those given above, to, e. g., American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1, that, despite the existence of a scan, and the creation of an Index:-space page for the same, a sufficient amount of work has not been completed in the month since the pages were here listed to indicate that the pages will ever be completed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

• You obstructed the proofreading by demanding a mass upload at the Scriptorium. James500 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I've closed the four redirects (A chambermaid's diary, Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution, Nollekens and his Times, The life of Mohammed) as those appeared uncontroversial (keep). The rest are not so clear-cut, and on several of them James500 has expressed an interest; and they have above indicated that the lack of further comments is due to external constraints rather than lack of further input. On several of them I would also prefer to see more community input before closing. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that editors are being ground down by unlimited demands and walls of text. I literally cannot !vote at all in many of these nominations, let alone address the walls of text. How am I supposed to perform the mass upload that certain people have demanded, and address walls of text both here and elsewhere, and perform demands for massive proofreading and transclusion, all at the same time, in a miniscule amount of time within an unreasonably short strict deadline that is no time at all? The problem is that a perfect storm has been created. The sheer number and scale of the demands, and the refusal to allow time to carry out those demands, and the walls of text advancing every conceivable (poor) argument for the demands, has itself become an obstacle to carrying out those demands and creates a sort of catch-22 situation where the demands can never be met within the miniscule amount of time permitted. James500 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• @James500: 2+ weeks later and I am just now getting to this comment; and the thread has been open for a month. In other words, while I understand that having pages you care about proposed for deletion can be stressful, I don't think there is much actual cause for stress here. Even were we inclined to do so, we do not have the admin capacity to close out and delete complicated cases like this quickly. Nobody actually expects you to bring all these works fully up to standards and complete while the discussion is happening, so while striving to do so is laudable, I would suggest you rather prioritise the discussions. If you feel you need more time for something, say so so that we know that is the case. We have historically left discussions open for months when needed.
  That all being said, I am having real trouble figuring out what it is you are proposing to do, and why you are rushing so to save these pages. Are you seriously planning to completely proofread all these works in the near future? That sounds like an improbably large task for a single contributor no matter how dedicated and skilled. Why is it that you cannot proofread them one at a time in the Index:/Page: namespace, and then transclude each as they get towards a more or less ready (finished) state? In the Index: and Page: namespace there is absolutely no rush and you can work at whatever order, interval, and pace suits you, and it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will propose anything for deletion (short of copyright violations). Even if the result of these current discussions are all to delete, nothing would actually be deleted in the Index: and Page: namespaces, and nothing would prevent recreating the deleted pages (if that is the most appropriate page title) once the work is actually proofread and ready for transclusion. And if something is deleted, it is always possible to request that it be undeleted: nothing is permanently lost. Is it possible that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved here?
  In short, I think you may be doing a little too much stressing and too little explaining what your plans, aims, and goals are. If we understood that better we might be able to advice better on how to achieve your goals, or at the very minimum be clear about what the points are on which we disagree. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• To begin with, there is proofread text in the mainspace that needs to be migrated to the page namespace. I do not support the delete and then undelete and then re-delete approach because, to begin with, it increases the amount of effort needed to perform the transfer. I am also in real danger of losing track of what needs to be uploaded and migrated if discussions are archived. James500 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) The proposal to delete bibliographic information (such as external scan links) is even more problematic. If put into effect it would make uploading scans virtually impossible. James500 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @James500: Discussions here aren't archived until they are actually closed (the archive bot archives threads two weeks after the date in the {{section resolved}} template, which we add manually), and we normally do not formally close these threads if there is either ongoing discussions or if there is someone who needs more time to complete work related to it. If for some reason we felt a thread had to be closed in spite of there being such tasks remaining, I am sure we could temporarily move the page to a subpage in your userspace instead of deleting it right away. For example (picking a page at random) we could move Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide to User:James500/Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide until you had completed extracting what you needed from it. In situations like that you can pretty much always just say "I need more time in order to …" and we'll hold off. And as a safety-valve, if something is deleted (for whatever reason) before you'd finished we'll always be happy to temporarily undelete (unless there's copyright violation or other "hard" delete reason involved) so you can get what you need.
  Regarding bibliographic information and scan links, we're not really talking about "deleting" that; it's just that that kind of data belong on either Author: pages or Portal: pages. Any activity to remove such from wikipages in mainspace would implicitly include copying that information to an Author: or Portal: page. There may be individual exceptions for various reasons, but as a main rule of thumb this is information that we generally want to preserve. It's just a matter of where and how. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A chambermaid's diary

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

• As we are no longer using CSD to consider deleting this, M2 is irrelevant., Regarding deleting it, it has been a valid way to link to this work for over six years, plenty of time for random external sites to have linked to it. Deleting it merely breaks such links for no purpose. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  The criteria for speedy deletion are still criteria for deletion. This page, and the other redirection pages listed here, are improper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

  Fair enough on the applicability of CSDs -- but M2 does not apply to these, as they are are neither new, nor have been tagged for two months. And "improper" is not an argument. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep (weak/neutral in terms of do I actually want to keep the redirect, firmer in terms of process). There's not much real harm in these redirects. This one is pretty old, so it's not impossible there are incoming links. JesseW is right that these are not speedy candidates, unless they've been soft redirects for at least two months. If you really want to delete them, that's how to do it. While I don't think we should encourage proliferation of such redirects, I'm also not overly keen to start aggressively culling the older top-level ones. Recent ones, no problem, and indeed CSD-M2 has a carve-out for such cases.

  Also let's centralise discussion of redirects on this item rather than copy-pasting to all below items? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep Redirects are cheap, and I think redirects from alternate spellings, capitalisation, and variants, are generally a good idea. Not that we should proactively be creating every possible permutation, but having a few common and obvious ones definitely does not hurt. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I attempted to figure out the new system, and failed. Please link (here) to the new location, and I'll see if a sensible soft-redirect is feasible. JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The system is being set up through alternate sub-pages of the base page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
  • It looks like only the pages for the first two sections have been created -- so unless I've missed something (most likely!) deleting this now would simply make existing data inaccessible until the new pages are created. That seems like a bad thing. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep (for now) The content is not scan-backed yet. Not a single hymn has been proofread in that scan. I don't think G4 applies until the scan version is at least at a equal state of completion as the work it replaces. A soft-redirect to the new location of the equivalent item in the scan would be appropriate when scan-backed content is ready. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no content on this page—the hymns which are given on that page are actually taken from here, here, and here, via {{:Jesu, my God and King}} and the like. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC).
    • That would have been useful to have been mentioned in the proposal, no? I still question the utility of storming in an deleting the old subpages before any content has been moved to the scans. I maintain that a soft redirect to the new content, when it exists, would be a way forward and will allow the issue to resolve naturally after a few months. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep Until the equivalent hymns are ready in the scan-backed version, at which point these are speediable as redundant. Soft redirects are just pointless bureaucracy at that point. But I agree that putting them up for deletion before the new pages are proofread is inappropriate: hence why I didn't delete them while processing the CSD queue, and waiting would have avoided this discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:

merged with A Collection of Hymns, for the Use of the People Called Methodists/Supplement without redirect —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Auction Prices of Books

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Portal:Auction Prices of Books as a curated construct

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

There is visible content on the page, providing a start to someone who wants to transcribe this work. What purpose is served in making that harder? JesseW (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• The content on this page, (and on the other pages marked in a similar fashion below,) is available on the relevant Author: page, and it is generally held that pages with no content should not be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Er, as James500 said, the links to the external scans do not seem to appear on the author page. Please be more careful to verify the facts before making such claims in the future. JesseW (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The content on this page is not available on the author page. James500 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I think we need some clarity on policy here. This is a work that's somewhat "encyclopaedic", in that it is made up of thousands of lists of books by individual authors. So I imagine it could have some of the lists transcribed and some not and be like that for a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero actual content. It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical^†. Do we want:
  1. Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
  2. Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.
• Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical (probably not here). Dumping scan-less works is not particularly helpful. It's fair to not wish to transcribe the entire work, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.
• I'm not specifically talking about this work, mind, so the question stands even if this particular work sprouts a set of Indexes in the near future.
• We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no content", and, furthermore, every single periodical can fall into this situation, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here.
• ^†If it's a periodical, I think a top-level list of as many volumes as you can figure out, ideally with dates and scan links is helpful. But creating empty volume subpages doesn't seem particular constructive. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If so, then all of the deletion discussions relevant to this discussion should be put on hold, and the policy discussion should happen elsewhere. I have come across more works than just the ones already listed here, so it would be beneficial to have this discussion as soon as possible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
    • @TE(æ),ea.:, moved and made a bit more generic at: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Policy_on_substantially_empty_works. Inductiveload—talk/contribs
• The scan for volume 1 is at commons:File:Livingston, Auction Prices of Books, 1905, Volume 1.djvu. James500 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide

The following discussion is closed:

deleted / moved to Portal:Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide

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

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

Keep Moved to a Portal per comments by an experienced user elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

work not out of scope, though text on pages insubstantial for current retention

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

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

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

•  Delete per Inductiveload. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, actioned at later proposal

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

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

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

•  Delete per Inductiveload. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Portal:John Burgoyne

The following discussion is closed:

deleted via dated soft redirect and other resolution

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

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

Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

Nollekens and his Times

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

OTHER POEMS AND THE REMEMBERED GODS

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

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

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

Parodies and Songs

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

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

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

THREE BATTLES TO THE FIFTY-FIRST DIVISION

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect.

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

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

The life of Mohammed

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. All those commenting were in favour of keeping this redirect.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Fantasia original

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted (and incidentally also transwikied to mulWS, where it may or may not be in scope).

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

• What language is it in? I would not consider this to be separate from the English language, as it is simply music, but if it is in a language, it should be moved to that specific language version of Wikisource. I oppose this, and would rather have the foreign text translated, and the work moved to the Translation namespace. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is completely instrumental, it is not in any language (English or otherwise), which is why I said it should be moved the the Multilingual Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •  Delete It's in three languages: Italian, Catalan, and Music. So, from that perspective alone it belongs on Multilingual. It is unsourced, unlicensed, and uncategorised. There is no indication of instrumentation (I assume guitar). In addition, the Lilypond code obviously has errors in it (based on bars 59, 62 being cut off). However, finding those errors in the wall of uncommented, unbarred, badly laid out code would be too difficult to pursue. I would also note that IMSLP hosts two editions of this piece, including one modern reproduction. There is no need for us to host a poor derivative copy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That is false: the error is in the rendering, not the code. “Music” is not a language, and, for the purposes of music, Italian is also not being used. There are some notes which are not written in the Italian; those could be translated from the original, but I do not believe such action to be necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
        • I agree with this, music notation and the fact that some music notation consists of Italian words is largely irrelevant; this is more like a book that consists of pictures only with no text (which I would also suggest to move to Multilingual). It would be good to fix it up against a scan though once it is moved. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note that we have no authority to decide whether or not something is imported at mulWS. The correct procedure for this would be to request import there and then propose deletion here, both projects operating autonomously but things obviously needing to happen in order. I have now requested import of this work on mulWS and will follow up here when that has been resolved. --Xover (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I imported it. If the community at mul.ws wants it deleted there, then it can be discussed at that wiki. I have also tagged the work here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Templates in Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates

The following discussion is closed:

No consensus to delete, but possibly only because the templates are still in use. A discussion elsewhere might conceivably come to any number of other conclusions.

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

•  Keep It gains nothing. They are what they. Sleeping dogs! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Each of these have a very low number of transclusions (by nature), and are not significantly easier to type than any generic template (since they have the "DNB" prefix). They are also somewhat different than the other DNB templates in that they are rather specific to a very few entries. And finally they are eminently bot-replaceable, both in the pages transcluding them and, once done, to redirect the templates themselves to {{DNB footer initials}}.
  Having all of them in a single template would also provide some nice advantages, both for general maintainability and for secondary stuff like adding metadata to all contributor signatures or making it trackable (check for consistency between signature and info in header? check for consistency between articles signed N.N. and what Wikidata thinks that author wrote? it gives us some options for stuff like that.), and so on. We could even make the implementation reasonably clean by way of a Lua module that uses a /config submodule so that all the author names, initials, and associated links (Wikidata IDs?) can be edited separately from template logic and presentation markup.
  While in no way critical, I think we should give some serious thought to whether we ought to do something akin to what TE(æ)A,ea. proposes. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Keep Since we do not have a replacement template, nomination for deletion is premature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I think the conclusion to draw here is that WS:PD is the wrong venue for this issue. If you'd like to pursue it WS:S is probably better. As I outlined above there's things we could do here, but I'd be loath to embark on this without a community discussion backing it. Xover (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

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

• Noticing the edit history, it seems that it always been that. Here’s what I can find:
  • The first (unlabeled) section is “Letter to B—,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 501–503. The portion provided here appears to be incomplete.
  • The section labelled “ALNWICK CASTLE, AND OTHER POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Drake—Halleck,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 326–336.
  • The section labelled “BRYANT'S POEMS” is taken from “Critical Notices,” “Bryant,” printed in the Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41–49.
  • The section labelled “EXORDIUM” is taken from a “Review of New Books,” printed in Graham’s Magazine, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 68–69.
  • The section labelled “THE AMERICAN DRAMA” is taken from “The American Drama,” printed in The American Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 117–131.
• The sections should be moved to the pages, and Criticism redirected to Author:Edgar Allan Poe. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

 Keep and improve by splitting and scan-backing where possible. A good candidate for referral to a hypothetical scan-backing WikiProject IMO.

In terms of what this is, it appears to be some kind of ebook collection from the year 2000: https://www.worldcat.org/title/criticism/oclc/842285218.

Also, Criticism is the title of actual books like this one by WC Brownell and PP Howe, so the mainspace page may eventually be a disambiguation. No objections to a redirect for now, but there should be a comment that that's a courtesy until such time that actual works with that title come along. If this collection fails WS:WWI, at that time it won't have an entry on the page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Indeed, it would be very nice to migrate these to scans, and if there was a WikiProject of volunteers we could ping to do that when needed. In fact, I would love nothing better! But to put this in "How sharper than a serpent's tooth" terms: meanwhile, back in the real world, I don't see anybody volunteering to do that job. And it's a big job, because tracking down scans of all these issues of periodicals is a lot of work, iff they are available at all; and periodicals are often a mess to set up indices for because you have to research the periodical itself so that further additions of issues from that periodical can slot in nicely; and because the text we have (mediated through at least two intermediary steps) is guaranteed to be subtly different from the original, making proofreading from scratch potentially easier than migrating and correcting them. I have several thousand pages worth of such "migrate to scan" tasks to do for other people's works (nevermind my own proofreading projects that I would like to get to at some point) so I'm not adding any more to my backlog unless it's something I really want to retain, and certainly not anything that's complicated by hard to come by scans and complex periodical structure. --Xover (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, Xover, a scan could be created exclusively for scan-backing these sections. In this example, all of the periodicals I referenced were found on Google Books, and I could gather hyper-links, if necessary. Proceeding in that manner seems more likely to induce more universal scan-backing of works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC).

•  Delete Unsource. Delete it or move it to a subpage of the author. In its current form it is just silly and of no value to anyone. Rather than split it, the works could just as easily and appropriately be proper reproduced works with sources. Where is the quality control in this presentation? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Source, from the online composite collection Edgar Allan Poe: Tales, Sketches and Selected Criticism. Based on the colophon it appears they intended to eventually standardize against this 1984 edition as their single source edition. Since this edition contains copyrighted editorial content, I !vote  Delete and replace each criticism with a copy from another edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

All migrated to scan and fully proofread.

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

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

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

• Conspectus of the history of political parties and the federal government - Houghton - 1860.djvu Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• The work is now fully proofread and transcluded. I have hidden the list above, because it now includes all created sub-pages. Could this discussion be closed, please? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Great job, and thank you! Xover (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

special:prefixindex/Proletarskaya

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, for now, but moved to Translation:. The framework is patchy, but is a partial framework for a periodical, with two articles from different issues wholly or partly reproduced (translated). The original confusion that led to the nomination appears to be resolved, and there is no obvious consensus to delete, but the work is very partial so there is no guarantee it would survive a future deletion discussion.

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

• It appears that this user has added at least one section of this work, Essays in Organisation Science; I presume that this is an original translation, but I am not sure. If this is the only work which is added from Proletarskaya Kul'tura, I propose that all of the organisational structure be moved to a portal, and the main page be kept for a reference to this work, and any other individual works this user would like to add, or has already added; in addition, these works should be moved so as to be sub-pages of the main page. If the user intends to add more—perhaps all from one issue, or some number from several issues—than it would be appropriate to maintain the navigational structure without a portal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC).

   Comment I am comfortable with there being a parent page in the portal namespace, though I don't think that we should be having that many. There does not seem to be the need for a page in the main namespace as these will be non-English works, so anything that we do with them would be in the Translation: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• PDFs are easily available at National Library of Russia, but since it's 1918-1921, uploading at Commons will need a decent copyright check as Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed's 120 year limit isn't reached. Since they're Russian-language, uploading here is also not right. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Kbd

The following discussion is closed:

To the degree it's possible to follow this discussion at all, the only possible conclusion is "no consensus". However, the template has all of three more or less legitimate uses, so it seems likely the lack of consensus is more a product of participants riding principles than actual need. As such the issue may perhaps fruitfully be reopened at some future date when actual need can be assessed.

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

Keep It's not superfluous, as {{Teletype}} is just a span of monospace font and {{kbd}} is semantically meaningful for keyboard inputs. @TE(æ)A,ea.: why are you saying these are the same as they are not? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Replace both. I personally do not see any difference among them. When I tried them in Firefox, they both gave absolutely the same results. When I tried them in Chrome, they both did not do anything. This imo means that they are both bad if they do not work in all browsers and so they both should probably be replaced by one template that would work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: works in both browsers for me, check The Gospel of Wealth — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I tried them both in my sandbox and still I cannot see any difference in comparison with plain text in Chrome :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: in your file, for me in both Chrome and Firefox the lines 2 and 3 look the same, and different to line 1. Working as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I see the lines 2 and 3 different from line 1 only in FF, in Chrome they are all three the same :-/ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Even if they render the same, they don't do the same thing: one has semantic value and the other doesn't. See also {{code}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A semantic difference is not sufficient for two templates where there is no visible difference; if they “render the same,” they therefore “do the same thing.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

1.) they may not render the same (e.g. CSS exists) and 2.) there are data models on a page that make semantics useful (e.g. just making text big and bold is not the same thing as having a heading that can be parsed by a search engine). Why are you opposed to proper semantics on the web? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not “opposed to proper semantics;” I merely oppose the duplication of a perfectly functional template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Then how do you propose using proper semantics with one template? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Not sure what you mean by semantic difference. When I apply the template to a piece of text, it (quite logically) does not seem to influence its meaning (semantics), only the shape of letters, so my understanding of the term "semantics" is probably different from what you mean. So I went through the documentation of the template and unfortunately it did not explain me what makes the template useful from the semantics point of view either. Imo it should be compulsory to explain all important features of every template in its documentation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics are meaning applied to data and style is just how it looks. If two things look the same but have a different underlying structure, that is a meaningful difference. Agreed that the documentation is insufficient. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Semantics always refers to meaning, but in certain contexts the reference has implied specificity.

In the context of a "Manual of Style" for a publisher, for example, it is implicit that the meaning we are discussing lies in distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word). These uses are all typically formatted the same, but have different meanings; and which is intended is usually inferred from context. It is our facility for language combined with our experience with these conventions that let us pick up on the relatively subtle hint that the meaning of the word "émigré" has been modified slightly in the particular instance.

However, in the context of electronic information, in general, and in web design (of which a wiki is a sub-sub-specialty) especially, when we discuss semantics it is implicit that what we're really discussing is the aspect semantic signalling (how does the information—in this case textual, but could be sound or images or …—indicate or label meaning?) and semantic extraction (how does the computer extract the meaning from the information). Computers, and software, are bone stupid in general. A computer program faced with interpreting … distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction), émigré (emphasis), Émigré (title of work), and émigré (foreign loan-word) is only going to be able to observe that the rendered text is in italic type, and that the HTML source used the <em>émigré</em> markup, whose semantics (defined in the HTML standard) is "emphasis". All our subtle semantic hints from the "Manual of Style" example are gone.

In this particular thread we are discussing the difference in meaning, as distinct from presentation, of the different templates in a technical sense (humans infer the meaning from visual rendering and context; it's computers that need specific labelling). {{kbd}} uses <kbd>…</kbd> HTML tags under the hood, which have the defined meaning "Text entered on a keyboard" and with its example of usage a software manual needing to show an example of user input. {{teletype}} just uses a <span>…</span> with some styling to make it show in a monospaced font, so it has no semantics to a computer. There is a <tt>…</tt> element (tt=teletype here), but it has no inherent semantics: its meaning was specifically "format this the same text was formatted on a teletype display". That is, like <b>…</b> and <i>…</i> it describes how this should look rather than what this means.

"Semantic markup" is important in order to let computers treat information intelligently. For example, with correct semantic markup a computer can automatically extract a citation, or an address, or a phone number from a web page. The infoboxes used on biographical articles on Wikipedia use semantic markup that lets a search engine (like Google) show a precis of the information (occupation, date of birth and death, a portrait, etc.). Voice browsers and other accessibility aides (not just for those with a visual impairment; people with cognitive and motor impairments also benefit from these technologies) can do things like skip reading the navigation menus at the top of a web page (they are peripheral content, not the main content of the page), skip to the next section, select or copy text, or call a phone number (the contact number for the business owning the web site in question, say). Purely physical markup—of the kind that was typical in the 1990s—was hopeless for accessibility tools and there was a real risk that web technology, with all its potential for giving people with disabilities equal access to information and services, would shut out the very people that could most benefit from it. The push for semantic over physical markup (which these days is actually mandated by law in several jurisdictions!) stems from these concerns.

However, all that being said, computers have actually gotten a lot smarter since the 1990s, and are able to infer a lot more from context without explicit semantic markup. Voice browsers and other accessibility tools have learned to cope with and compensate for poor markup and other web issues. When you view the mobile version of Wikipedia, you are shown a stripped down version of the information in the lead of the article: MediaWiki (the Mobile Frontend) understands the Wikipedia conventions and strips out hatnotes, maintenance templates, the IPA pronunciation guides in parenthesis after the article title, the infobox, disambiguastion notices, etc. Some of this is marked up semantically (the infobox), but other parts are simply that MediaWiki understands Wikipedia's conventions and style manual. Articles start with a bolded word or phrase, followed optionally by a phrase in parenthesis containing vital years and pronunciation guides, and we know we can omit the parenthesised phrase the same way a human usually skips over it when reading.

At the same time, almost all the formatting we do with templates here on Wikisource is visual (aka. "physical") formatting. We don't label text as a heading, we label it as being centered ({{c}}), extra large ({{x-larger}}), and with extra inter-letter spacing ({{sp}}. This is impenetrable semantics to a computer, but perfectly clear to humans. It is also a consequence of the kind of project we are: since Wikisource reproduces old books, a physical and visual medium, we can't escape mostly physical or visual formatting. A lot of the semantics of our source works are also inconsistent, contradictory, and unclear; so we couldn't produce pure semantics if we wanted to.

In other (briefer) words, what we're discussing here isn't a simplistic right—wrong issue. It's about nuances such as whether we need to make the relevant semantic distinction, in a limited set of circumstances (only in project-space, and even then very rarely), and whether that need and its benefits outweigh the maintenance cost (small, but non-zero) and user confusion and cognitive load ("Which template should I use for this again?"), and risk of misuse (it might easily be used inappropriately in mainspace for example). The argument Billinghurst (iirc) made was that the costs of having the template outweigh the benefits, and especially because we can use the <kbd>…</kbd> HTML element directly in the few cases where we do need it. However, the opposite argument is equally valid: the cost of having the template is small; using raw HTML tags has a cost too; and having the template gives us a richer vocabulary to express meaning that is consistent with how we usually do things (just templates rather than raw HTML). --Xover (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks for the detailed explanation very much, now I understand the point better. If I got it right, the Teletype template makes text look like from a typewriter, while the Kbd template makes it look the same way+carries the meaning of a text written on a keyboard. In such a case I would suggest to delete Teletype and keep Kbd, as Kbd seems to have some extra value to Teletype, while Teletype does not have any extra value to Kbd. Am I right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: That would be a valid and reasonable position to take, yes. {{teletype}} doesn't actually use it, but the <tt>…</tt> element is actually even deprecated in the latest HTML standard, which is an argument to delete {{teletype}} on its own. My problem is more that I don't see a clear use case for either variant that seems worth having two more templates sitting around. *shrug* --Xover (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: I think teletype has it's occasional place when a scan has typewritten sections (e.g. Page:19521104 No187 1.jpg) or when original uses monospaced font (e.g. a software manual referring to a variable name, I don't mean we should use it for all typewritten documents). That said, teletype is a poor name and a holdover from the TT tag; I think moving it to "monospace" would be more correct and drop the "teletype"/"tt" aliases, keeping "mono" if wanted. Say what we mean: the text is formatted with font-family:monospace;, with no further semantic content. Teletype/monospace, unlike kdb, can be useful in the content spaces. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Sensible. I would support that. I wouldn't even object to keeping {{teletype}} as an alias (redirects are cheap), if anybody wanted that, provided everything else is clearly updated to be "monospace". --Xover (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• The templates should produce “typewriter” text (e. g., this page). On any given browser, the two templates should produce an identical result; and, as Template:Teletype is older and more widely used than Template:Kbd, I believe that the latter template should be deleted in favour of the former template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: "two templates should produce an identical result" no, they shouldn't. Where are you getting this information about how browsers are supposed to style particular HTML elements? Did you also see {{Code}}? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am thinking convert to a redirect if it matches similar template names at other sites. We don't need numerous templates that just do the same thing, it confuses the punters. Convert it to a redirect as we are unlikely to have KBD for a large multiparagraph div. No need to replace it. I am happy to hear how and why the long-existing template does not meet needs. If the semantics are truly needed, they just use the tags, no requirement to template them, and little to no difference to code. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst: Why would it be better to have HTML in the page instead of templates? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would you be applying KBD semantics to reproduced works? I hate this argument about semantics when you cannot justify a use. Then when you can just use the tags for the semantics you desire you talk about it should be in a template. This needs to be looked at holistically, and a new template that simply represents a look that is no different to another look is problematic. Please tell us how it is better, how it helps the site, and why the alternatives presented are not suitable? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A source certainly could ask someone to perform keyboard entry--e.g. source documents for software. Even if it's not used in Main: it's very easy to imagine it being used in Wikisource: or Project: namespaces. But I think the case that it's not helpful to replace semantically meaningful differences with the same thing is pretty obvious to me: they mean different things. This is also true of typography: we wouldn't replace an endash in a source with a hyphen just because it's easier to input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Neutral it is not the same as {{tt}}, the semantic difference is real. That said, there are very few places it can be used to any effect, under 10 cases in all our documentation by a quick look. It's not useful in the content spaces, which have a limit on semantic content imposed by the source material.

If we keep it, I'd recommend giving the tag some CSS (a box outline is conventional) to evoke "Keyness". It's pretty pointless if it just looks like the code tag. And also say that it's only intended for the auxiliary namespaces. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Koavf has just changed the documentation. As the template stands now, it is obviously superfluous to Template:Code, and that template is thoroughly used for the same purpose. As this template is just <kbd /> within a template, it should not be used—there is not, e. g., Template:I, for <i />. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: It is not superfluous to {{code}} because that is for code snippets, not keyboard entry. Those are two different things. See also https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/kbd and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/code, since you seem to not know that these two things are different even if some browsers choose similar styling. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The two templates display differently on my browser—as they should. However, any use of Template:Kbd would be superfluous to Template:Code—i. e., anything that could be displayed with Template:Kbd could with equal effect be displayed with Template:Code. By User:Inductiveload’s comment above, there would be such a limited use of <kbd /> as to have no value as an independent template with which to call that function. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC).
      • @TE(æ)A,ea.: How would that be accomplished, when the elements are two different things that have two different meanings in HTML? I asked you this question above and you ignored it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think that's a poor example. The I tag doesn't have a template (actually {{italic}} does exist) because Wikicode provides the double apostrophe syntax. Which actually produces an EM tag, which is technically wrong in our content space, where we really do often mean "font-style:italic;", not just "emphasised, whatever that means, that's a problem for the browser and CSS". We just studiously ignore that uncomfortable fact because it's incredibly convenient to have the double apostrophes and we don't need EM for anything else.
• The advantage of a template over a tag in this case (and I'm certainly not an anti-HTML crusader) is the template can invoke TemplateStyles (or just online CSS) and the tag would need an entry in the global CSS to get non default styling. As I said, this template doesn't feel useful unless it has a distinct style. But that can be done easily.
• An argument based on the templates being the same is, IMO, ill-founded. The real question is, is it actually useful? Plenty of templates critical at other wikis aren't needed here. And certainly, I don't see it having any practical use outside of internal documentation. Maybe a software manual, but even then we follow t source formatting and I really can't see what KBD would bring to that table, since it would need to have its style overridden for the work in question. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Keep There are good reasons to want to highlight something as a key command, and now that the style looks different to {{tt}} and {{code}} I think this template is fine. I agree that it should probably only be used in project namespaces. —Sam Wilson 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward delete Delete—I am not convinced we have any non-negligible need for this particular template, and I am currently prioritising cleaning up and pruning templates (and their associated confusion and maintenance cost) over enriching our expressive power. Willing to entertain the notion that the need for and benefit of it is greater than I currently see, but the keep arguments so far have not supported that. --Xover (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  A regular, and forever, task over the years as we have the next great idea about a need for a template that already exists. We should have a good reason for a template to exist, not just "because it can". Keep it as simple s reasonably practical has always been our goal. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Landing on  Delete because in addition to the arguments above the template is also currently unused outside the template's own documentation. If we ever have an actual need to semantically indicate keyboard input we can revisit it at that time. --Xover (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres

The following discussion is closed:

See WS:CV#An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

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

• Note There is a related discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikilivres is gone. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment As I mentioned in the other discussion, my initial take is that removal of Wikilivres links cannot be reliably automated, so if we delete this template we will also have to manually go through all transclusions and manually remove them. There's around a thousand of them so a bit of work, but entirely doable. --Xover (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, also, this affects {{wikilivres page}} too. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment OK, I propose Template:Wikilivres page for deletion too. Unfortunately, that means that all the pages on which it appears will have to be deleted as well. I understand that most of the links to Wikilivres will have to be removed by hand. I will try to help by removing as many as I can. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  We should be really careful with deleting pages with Template:Wikilivres page, because some of them may have meanwhile slipped into PD and so should be restored instead. For example The Poems of Sappho were deleted here as a copyvio and moved to Wikilivres in 2013, but now it should be in public domain, as the work was published in 1924 (see Author:Edwin Marion Cox). There can be many cases like this and other may follow in the near future too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's more complicated than that. I've checked, and our Poems of Sappho was an extract from that book, and nowhere near the complete text. It extracted the Greek text and English translations of a few poems without the text of the book that Cox wrote, leaving us with less than 2% of the actual book. So, for that work, it would be better to start from scratch with a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I agree with Poems of Sappho. However, we should be cautious before we delete all the mentioned pages and no mass delete without checking should be performed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: Just to be clear: there is no proposal here to delete any actual works. All that's proposed is to delete the (now dead) links to works on Wikilivres. The reason I caution against automation above is because the templates and links are used in very variable ways on Author: pages etc., so automated removal would be likely to leave such pages with various forms of breakage.

  Regarding undeletion: we certainly have the technical means to undelete any page we've previously deleted, and pages that were deleted only due to a now-expired copyright should be undeleted. Sadly we have no good system to track these and rely entirely on users requesting undeletion at the right --Xover (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)time.

•  Keep for Help:Wikilivres, as an archived page tagged with the {{historical}} notice.  Delete for Template:Wikilivres and Template:Wikilivres page, but we should check every use of the latter for cases like Poems of Sappho and localize or delete as appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, why not take advantage of the Wayback Machine? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiples of works about Granville

The following discussion is closed:

Summarising this discussion is a bit of a nightmare, but here goes…

There is a general leaning that works should be scan-backed and situated within its context, and that disconnected single entries from dictionaries and encyclopaedias are out of scope. In particular, any such entry should have an existing and complete parent page as a minimum requirement. All participants in the discussion were willing to hold off deletion while the necessary work was undertaken (hence this ~18 month discussion), and a massive effort was expended bringing the works up to minimum standard (some are almost finished, others are at bare minimum and still borderline).

Some participants !voted in favour of someone else doing a lot of work and then extrapolating whether the text should be kept or deleted based on this hypothetical future state. This approach received pushback in the discussion and such !votes have been disregarded.

Ultimately, all nominated works have been kept. If there are any that still fail to meet minimum requirements they may be nominated individually.

Overall this has been a challenging discussion to manage because, although the pages nominated had several aspects in common, each work is also very different in aspects that are relevant to the discussion. For example, one was part of a relatively short single-volume work which has now been almost completely proofread; while another was part of a 17+-volume work in which only the pages corresponding to the single entry nominated have been proofread. This suggests that for this kind of issue it is preferable to raise it as a policy-type discussion at WS:S whose conclusion can subsequently be applied to the works here; or each work needs to be considered individually here at WS:PD. Our processes and available resources do not allow us to manage large, complex, multiple-work discussions as deletion discussions.

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

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. Inductiveload—talk/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 Granville

The following discussion is closed:

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)

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

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)

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

General Dictionary/Lansdowne, George Granville, Lord

The following discussion is closed:

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)

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Biographia Dramatica/Granville, George, Lord Lansdown

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)

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not yet scan-backed, that is the wrong work — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

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)

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

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, George

The following discussion is closed:

kept now transcluded and within scope

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

•  Keep Now scan-backed, thus should be closed. ミラP 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

General Biographical Dictionary/Volume 16/Granville, George

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

Response of TE(æ)A,ea. to nominations

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)

List

• 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 works

• 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:
    • The Works of the British Poets, for which some work has been started at the top level, but not for volume 17, from which this originates;
    • Biographia Dramatica, for which objection was raised on account of the poor quality of the scans in question; and
    • General Biographical Dictionary, which I believe was not begun because of confusion between this work and another of a similar title.
  • 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).

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1

The following discussion is closed:

Mainspace artefacts with no or trivial proofread content deleted; those with at least minimal proofread content retained. Some pages that had proofread subpages, but were not themselves proofread, have been replaced with an auxtoc pointing at the subpages. All pages containing noting but a header template have been deleted.

Remaining pages can be renominated individually if someone disagrees with their retention.

All deleted pages appear to represent works that are in scope for enWS, so if their content is actually proofread it can be safely retranscluded over the deleted pages.

All Index:- and Page:-namespace artefact have been kept (nominate separately if anyone objects).

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. Inductiveload—talk/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|https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false}} produces .

  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 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=false 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=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ}} (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 https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=. 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.". Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  @User:Inductiveload: The only link that I could find is https://books.google.co.uk/books/download/The_American_Jurist_and_Law_Magazine.pdf?id=5rimAAAAIAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2Lgdvo_iMGMbaRIddj9z4u3YHs8g . 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 https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=. Then you will be taken to the PDF. Inductiveload—talk/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. Inductiveload—talk/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. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• James500: I have noticed the following pages, as well; you may wish to work on these.
  • Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology/Volume 1
  • Solicitors Journal/Volume 1
  • The Accountant/Volume 1
  • The Architect/Volume 1
  • The British Architect/Volume 1
  • The Builder/Volume 3
  • The Building News/Volume 22
  • The Canada Law Journal/Volume 4 (New Series)
  • The Jurist/Volume 1
  • The Justice of the Peace/Volume 1
  • The Law Journal/Volume 1
  • The Law Magazine/Volume 1 (Second Edition)
  • The Law Reports/Appeal Cases/Volume 1
  • The Law Review/Volume 1
  • The Law Times/Volume 146
  • The Law Times/Volume 56
  • The Legal Observer/Volume 1
  • The Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn/Volume 1
• 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).
  • I will put scans behind those pages and complete the volumes in question. But I would be grateful if you would stop behaving in a manner that systematically obstructs me from completing the works you say you want me to complete. James500 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I must take issue with "My objections to the above are the same as my objections to the other pages". It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that these pages are not OCR. Either strike out the references to OCR in these nominations, or modify your preceding comment. James500 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (transcription project)
  • Solicitors Journal (transcription project)
  • The Accountant (transcription project)
  • The Architect (transcription project)
  • The British Architect (transcription project)
  • The Builder (transcription project)
  • The Building News (transcription project)
  • The Canada Law Journal (transcription project)
  • The Jurist (transcription project)
  • The Justice of the Peace (transcription project)
  • The Law Journal (transcription project)
  • The Law Magazine (transcription project)
  • The Law Reports (transcription project)
  • The Law Review (transcription project)
  • The Law Times (transcription project)
  • The Legal Observer (transcription project)
  • The Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn (transcription project)

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. Inductiveload—talk/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)

• One last list of files, I hope—the following volumes of the Harvard Law Review:
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 10
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 11
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 12
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 13
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 14
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 15
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 16
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 17
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 18
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 19
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 20
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 21
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 22
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 23
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 24
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 25
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 26
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 27
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 28
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 29
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 3
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 30
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 31
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 32
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 4
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 5
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 6
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 7
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 8
  • Harvard Law Review/Volume 9
• The volumes listed above have no text, although scans do exist. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Enough is enough. This deletion spree is creating a toxic editing environment. Many editors would refuse to edit, or leave the project altogether, in the face of this kind of behaviour. Slowking4 said as much at the Scriptorium. Even I find it deeply upsetting. The 'bludgeoning of the process' ought to stop. I and others know exactly which scans need to be uploaded, and do not need to be repeatedly poked over and over and over again at regular short intervals. James500 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I would appreciate your not always assuming bad faith on the part of my actions. The lists I have provided above are of pages which share the same problems as the other pages which I have here listed; it is not to flood this page with “discussions,” as I believe your fait accompli comment below to reference. I have found these pages individually, whilst searching through maintenance categories and the like, and would have marked them for deletion regardless of who had created the pages. Whether or not I had discovered the pages, or I had listed them here, the problems inherent in them would have remained. I do not object, in any way, to the content which these pages should contain, but the fact that these pages contain little content, if any at all, and there is no indication of their being readily completed. This is my primary objections to the pages of your creation which I have listed here—not that the pages were unedited OCR, or text devoid of formatting, but that there was very little content, and as much indication of any additional content being added. As it appears that the discussions I have prompted elsewhere on this page have led to the addition of content, via scans, &c., I sought to list more pages which have the same kinds of errors, so that all pages which share these problems may have the problems corrected and the pages improved as quickly as possible. I had intended to list more pages, as I had come across an additional selection, but I will refrain from such action. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
      • I'm a latecomer to this discussion, and I've only skimmed it. I have enjoyed working with both of you, it seems that both of you have at times brought work forward here in good faith that has been nominated for deletion, so I'm a little sad to see this conflict. For whatever it's worth, it does not seem to me that James is accusing Tea of bad faith; rather, it seems that James is bringing up bad consequences, which can often accompany good faith actions. -Pete (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest that it would be a good idea for all involved to read w:WP:FAITACCOMPLI. It is not policy here, but it is instructive. James500 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • An excellent page and a short read, thank you for the suggestion. -Pete (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep pending some discussion about what it would take to bring these items up to a minimum standard which would make them uncontroversially worth keeping. For my part, I would think that an edit like this one on each of the volumes would be enough. That edit gives the reader a "Source" link, which makes it possible to navigate to the DJVU or even the Internet Archive page, to find more information. In my view, if each of these volumes had a basic OCR'd transclusion of the first few pages, with an accompanying "Source" link, that would be enough to justify "keep."

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)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)