Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2021

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Anne of Green Gables (ex Gutenberg)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as a conflated text.

I've recently worked with 4 transcriptions of Anne of Green Gables : Anne of Green Gables from Wikisource (the non-Gutenberg one), Project Gutenberg, Digital Proofreaders of Canada, and my own.

The PG text is definitely an outlier in this set. The PG text has over 900 diffs with my transcription, and my transcription is now very close to that of Wikisource. About 50% of those diffs are due to Americanization and modernization.

The remaining differences are concerning, given their number and character. Here's a listing of its diffs with my own transcription (which, again, is very close to Wikisource's non-Gutenberg transcription). You shouldn't use the github default UI; just download the raw file; it's easier to do horizontal scrolling that way.

In this listing, I have gone through a few chapters and inserted summary notes here and there (incomplete; I didn't do the whole file). You can scroll through and judge for yourself, to get a sense of what's going on with the PG text (look for the + - signs).

I see issues with:

  • word changes
  • italics missing
  • punctuation changes
  • extra spaces

The PG text is unsourced. It doesn't state its source copy-text. I've tried to do some detective work on the likely copy-text. The result is inconclusive. This PG text has attributes from different sources. More details here.

Overall, I would say that the source copy-text is a rather random US mass-market book, which has been edited a bit aggressively. It's definitely not close to the original text from 1908, even factoring in Americanization/modernization.

Should this PG text be kept on wikisource? If yes, shouldn't readers be informed somehow of the above facts, which make the text somewhat questionable? As it stands now, on the launch page which shows the two versions, the user sees no difference between the two transcriptions. My feeling is that does a bit of a disservice to the reader. John O'Hanley (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting it, personally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
yeah, we need a process to migrate old gutenberg to scan backed, and if they cannot be sourced, then regretfully delete the old web1.0 that we have displaced with a web2.0 version. this will be a continuing problem, as first scanned later editions conflict with first editions. Slowking4Rama's revenge 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree in the future; there's no reason to delete properly scan-backed editions. Once the work has been done on an edition, there's no reason to delete it, but a Gutenberg edition of unknown origin that we can't effectively improve is not valuable to us. First editions are not sacrosanct.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It's great we can have a theoretical deletion discussion of future imaginary edge cases. speaking theoretically, in this case, if we found a 2000 paperback edition scan, i would be tempted to vote delete, anyway. first editions tend to go to the author's intent, rather than the editorial decisions of corporate aggregators decades after the author's death. there is nothing sacrosanct about the first scanned edition, or the sunk labor of past transcribers. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about tendency--I certainly hesitate to summarize given huge policy differences across genre and publisher--but I can come up with numerous exceptions to that rule, and there are some major examples, like the Hobbit, where second and further editions reflect corrections and changes made by the author to the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of Gutenberg texts are composite editions, drawing from several published editions. If we have a scan-backed alternative, and cannot identify a single published edition that the Gutenberg text is based on, then I am all for deleting the Gutenberg edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think John O'Hanley neatly demonstrates why all Gutenberg imports are at best suspect, and generally aren't even good starting points for match and split: when they are not composite texts (such as this one is) they have been subjected to editorial judgement (as this one has), or more commonly both (ditto). Gutenberg texts, as a general rule, are simply not faithful to any particular edition at all and should be aggressively purged when we have a scan-backed alternative. No rule without exceptions, of course, but that should definitely be our base stance on the issue. --Xover (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  Comment We determined back in about 2010 that Gutenberg versions should not be matched and split as we never had edition information. Re deletion, why? What harm is it doing? Mark it for what it is and move on. You are not saving space, what are you achieving. De-emphasise them, and emphasise why our scan-backed methodology is preferred. They are not out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that nothing at WS:SCOPE approves of a work first published in the 1990s or 2000s without peer review or editorial controls. There's no reason to treat non-notable modern editions of works any differently from any other recently published work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
^ this exactly. Some of the newer Gutenberg editions are taken from one single published edition, but when they are not then they violate WS:OR and should only be kept as a stop-gap until a scan-backed edition is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
yeah, i kinda agree. intelligent readers will know, looking at an author page, to pick the earliest. but new readers might well be confused. lots of warning templates in the future "de-emphasising". and we need a process to notice uploads of works already done. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes and Beleg Tâl—unverifiable texts are not in scope.
Also, re "what harm is it doing?" Everything has a maintenance burden, as I'm sure you're acutely aware of after replacing all those Pd/1923 license tags. When an unverifiable Gutenberg edition duplicates a verified, reputable published edition, it adds no value, so it is a net negative and should go. The harm is made worse by reader confusion, or alternatively by the extra work necessary to ward off reader confusion, and to maintain that messaging. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If it has significant errors, then I would say it harms the reader.... De-emphasize sounds interesting: how is that implemented? John O'Hanley (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this discussion be moved to WS:PD? BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That seems logical, yes. John O'Hanley (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
kept and renamed to match template for which it is paired at Commons

Unused template. If kept, it should probably be renamed, but I do not think we need it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  •   Keep Template can be used with files migrated from Commons; they use for their files to be migrated prior to being deleted there—there process of marking. Files should not be retained here with tag—why it would be unused here. It serves a purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: In such a case, it should at least be renamed e.g. for PD-US-expired-abroad (which is how the template is called in Commons). The year 1923 in its name is confusing, as the text speaks about works published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1926 (and the date is going to change every year). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sure   Done , wasn't aware that they had renamed at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The King's EnglishEdit

The following discussion is closed:
superfluous, replacement with transcluded proofread version

The King's English (1906) by author:Henry Watson Fowler. While the work itself is not out of scope, this is a very incomplete and abandoned copy and paste version that does not add value to our collection in its current state. Best to blow it away, and make a scan available from the author page and restart. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete but redo. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  Delete PDF already existed (a Fae-ism): (transcription project) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  Keep I am editing The King's English by transcluding Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf. It will take me probably several months. But please trust me that I will finish it. Several months seems not too long if we consider the fact that The King's English was created more than 14 years ago (on 17 October 2006‎). --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems fair. Thank you for doing this btw. In that case keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete @Neo-Jay: Sigh. What you are doing is jumping the gun on this deletion discussion before it has concluded and, despite your apparent intent to vote keep, deleting the text Billinghurst proposed for deletion. You are doing this through overwriting the text of the 1931 third edition with the text of a 1906 printing of the second edition. There are (reportedly) significant differences between editions and printings of this work, and we would normally host multiple editions side by side.
    In fact, by cut&pasting the text of a different edition over your OCR you've added subtle differences that are hard to spot while proofreading and so made your own work harder.
    Now, as it happens, I agree with your actions (not your vote) and with Billinghurst: the old text that used to be there should be deleted, and when someone proofreads it from a scan the new text should replace the old deleted page (whether now or later down the line). That's what delete means in this discussion.
    Keep in this discussions means that we revert all the changes you have made to transclude the 1906 text, and move it to The King's English (1906) instead. We'd then move the existing text to The King's English (1931), and convert The King's English into a versions page linking to both editions. --Xover (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    By Keep, I mean overwriting the old abandoned work with a new complete version. I don't know why that is inappropriate. The old abandoned work has only 18 pages (see this and this), while Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf has 370 pages. Sorry that my cutting and pasting the 18 pages causes some (maybe a large number of) errors. I will proofread them and will add the rest 352 pages. I don't think that we must delete The King's English, erase all its edit history, and then create a new page with the same name. Frankly speaking, my main motivation for proofreading Index:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf is to save the long edit history of The King's English. If this page must be deleted, I am not sure that I will be still interested in taking time to proofread it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Now I have proofread all the 18 pages (1 to 18) that I cut and pasted from The King's English/Chapter 1/General Principles and The King's English/Chapter 1/Malaprops, and made 8 corrections (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). And thank you for your help (e.g., this and this). --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Neo-Jay: "Inappropriate" only insofar as you've done so before this discussion has concluded (there's a mandatory minimum of one week for discussion, and the outcome is not fixed before the discussion is actually closed). If the outcome of the discussion was eventually "keep", that would mean we keep the old (poor quality, incomplete) text. It doesn't look like that will be the outcome, so "no harm, no foul", but it's generally bad form to preempt a community discussion.
    Nobody is arguing in favour of deleting the old page revisions: we're discussing the (old) text that was on the page(s). If the outcome of the discussion was eventually "delete" there are any number of ways that result could be implemented. One of those ways is using the "delete" command in MediaWiki to completely remove the page from the site (which would have the side effect of also hiding its revision history, but that's not the goal of the exercise). Another is to overwrite it with a better text, which is what you're in the process of doing. In some cases (not this one) we might also turn the page into a redirect. And in other cases we might delete the page now, but undelete it later if the circumstances merited it. All these are mere technicalities, ways of removing the old undesirable text from view: the primary purpose of the discussion here is deciding whether we want to keep the text on that page or not. The method of doing that is a mere detail.
    In any case, from the discussion so far it looks like everyone will be happy with the approach you've already started on (by my read, everyone commenting, including the proposer, agrees with you), so please don't fret too much about my harping on formalities. But in future, trust the process to get a good outcome, and let it runs its course. --Xover (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Neo-Jay Yes, we are saying that we wish to delete the existing text as it stands—as I noted the work itself is not out of scope. Xover is saying that you can always proofread text of any fresh edition of a work, and in this situation we then make the decision whether it replaces or sits beside an existing work as a version. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Xover, @Billinghurst: Thank you for your explanation. I think that my vote Keep should be changed to Overwrite. Sorry for my misunderstanding.--Neo-Jay (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    No probs. Sometimes we do have a little bureaucracy. With these nominations we often have someone stick their hand up to improve the work, and it is fantastic that you did it on this occasion. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:
Not done. Work is still in copyright in the US, and the old text is not a suitable starting point in any case.

Please check whether there's any content in the deleted pages here that would justify undeletion. The book 1984 by George Orwell is now in the public domain. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

At least in Orwell's native U.K., along with the EU et al. (Already PD in Australia, with such an edition causing an uproar back in the late 2000s when Amazon USA deleted it from customers' Kindles--or so I once heard the story.) Stateside, though--not until 2045. --Slgrandson (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  Not done published in 1949, so not out of US-copyright as indicated above. It is not a good copy anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the relevant copyright terms in the US. Commons says For works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication, and is therefore currently expired unless the owner filed for renewal during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication. I can't find that there was a renewal for any of Orwells books. Therefore, it should already be in the PD in the US. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@PaterMcFly: That is for US-published works, and does not apply for foreign works. We are generally in "1925 through 1977 >> Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal) >> 95 years after publication date". If we can find a US-published edition that was within 28 days of the UK publishing, then we can reproduce. The evidence is going to need to be dug up to get that work, and it does not lie with what was deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
How did you look for renewals for Orwell's books? Stanford's renewal's search brings up 26 of them, including one for 1984, which seems to have published at the same time in the US as the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I used this link. It brought a lot of hits, but none that seem to match anything related. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't have any records before 1978. It may turn renewals for works first published in 1950 and later, but not anything earlier. The Stanford renewals lacks a bunch of non-book renewals, but is generally the best first source to look at.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this classic novel in particular has been talked about so much here just goes to show how sad it is that we have to wait 24 whole years for it to go PD. Orwell is dead and has been for a long time, so keeping a copyright on this is completely pointless—the rights-holders ought to just release the rights worldwide already. (We know they won't, though, as was the case with The Great Gatsby until this year, when its "rights"-holders have been forced to accept that its copyright just expired.) PseudoSkull (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Latin for beginnersEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Converted to a redirect for the scan-backed version. The redirect can be changed into a versions page later if needed, or we can move the ~100 (sub)pages of the scan-backed version to Latin for Beginners if anybody feels up for the task.

Latin for beginners (1909) by Benjamin Leonard D'Ooge. This work has preface and some of the first chapter and is then abandoned. It is not backed by scans.

To also note that we have Latin for beginners (1911) by the same author that is complete, and back by scans.

Essentially we have an incomplete earlier without ready means or desire to complete.

In reality, we should consider converting this to a disambiguation page that links to our edition, and lists other editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  •   Delete - This copy is backed only by a Gutenberg copy, but has almost none of that content. As noted, we have a complete copy of a specific edition backed by a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete, abandoned 14 years ago. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Year by categoryEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  •   Delete Kill it with fire! --Xover (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Catalog raisonnéEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

  •   Delete Nuke under the "zero-content mainspace pages" policy. :) --Xover (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A Text-book of Sex EducationEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  • Delete: I may mention also that this copy is incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Famine or Not FamineEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In the Midst of the StarvingEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted (no redirect target available).

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

  • This work was written by Tolstoy. Wikisource has a few incomplete editions of his works; this page should be turned into a redirection page to a scan-backed copy of the same, if one is available. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four GospelsEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  •   Delete, will be easier to proofread from scratch than to try and fix this OCR —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Kronstadt RebellionEdit

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

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

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

Index:Cowardly Lion of Oz.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

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

  •   Delete But note I have no objection (in general) to real redirects from mainspace to Translation:. I don't want (undated) soft redirects there, and these old ones should go in any case, but hard redirects are fine by me for future cases. Unlike other cross-namespace redirects, I mean. --Xover (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bible and IslamEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  • Oppose. The first chapter sways my vote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
  •   Delete the work itself would be in scope, however, this rendition is predominantly one chapter of corrected text (no scan) and OCR text. We can do better. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Golden Bowl (mixed source edition)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

Hesperian 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  •   Delete for the mixed-source edition. How hard would it be to add the 1904 and 1905 editions? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have preferred to have transcribed one of those first editions rather than the 1909 NYE, but at the time there wasn't a nice clean scan of either. Hesperian 04:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete mixed source, when better exists. Do what you want for earlier pure editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

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

  Delete I can imagine that this template could be used in annotated versions of works which are allowed, but since nobody has used it in that way throughout its existence, I agree with its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete we don't need non-standard means to link. One standard methodology is sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:VIAF not on WikisourceEdit

The following discussion is closed:

This is a junk category for us. We haven't added that data locally, for many years, and its use is redundant to all the positive categorisation. We need to remove it from Module:Authority control and delete the category. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  •   Delete Just a couple days ago I was looking at this category when I noticed that an author was placed there although the authority control box listed the author’s VIAF ID, which did not make sense to me at first. Then I realized that the AC box takes it from Wikidata and that the category contains also authors who have VIAF in Wikidata but not directly in Wikisource, and I wondered what it could be useful for. So I agree with the deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete Not having VIAF data stored locally is now the normal state and not something that needs to be tracked. The tracking code has been removed from the template so the category should empty out as the category tables are updated. --Xover (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Raven - Coleridge (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

There is a sourced edition available.Languageseeker (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

Now-unused (was only ever used in two templates as best I can tell) and now-broken experimental meta-template (a 2014 GOIII experiment), with attendant Lua modules, whose functionality is now provided by {{namespace detect}}. In addition to being inadvisable for use it contains some code that puts it into a global maintenance category in a way that makes it too much hassle to figure out how to defang it. --Xover (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Coming of the White Men OCR textEdit

The following discussion is closed:

This work, while not apparently out of scope, is just a copy and paste of OCR text without correction and still containing page headers. If it is to be retained it should be corrected or replaced with transcluded text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Critique of JudgementEdit

The following discussion is closed:

A long unfinished work that would appear to be abandoned. The work itself would not be out of scope, however, no scans provided to complete the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Dreamer: A Romantic Drama In Three Acts (Mary R.P. Hatch)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

Incomplete, unsourced work that has been abandoned. Work itself is not out of scope, however, no indications of veracity nor capacity to continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary The Tale of Gha-nim ibn AyyubEdit

The following discussion is closed:

Unsourced copypasted text, probably from . I did not manage to find the date of translation, so there are some copyright doubts too. However, it should imo be deleted for reasons of quality regardless of whether copyright is OK or not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Delete A trifecta: an extract/raw OCR/maybe dodgy copyright. We also have The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Ghanim Ben Eyoub the Slave of Love, so a definitely-PD, scan-backed and proofread translation of this already exists. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (text)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

The_Jungle_Book_(text) is an unsourced text for which a sourced text exists The Jungle Book (Century edition). Languageseeker (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Delete — we need to clean out the unsourced cruft here for sure. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oliver TwistEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn by proposer.

Scan-backed first edition exists. This edition has no authoritative value. Languageseeker (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought this issue was just fixed before? This is a scan-backed edition, it's just an index linking to each scan-backed volume. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It still say unsourced on the author’s page and there are links to the three separate volumes. Perhaps, this is a case for cleanup rather than deletion?
Withdrawn Languageseeker (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights (unsourced edition)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed edition.

Delete Wuthering Heights (unsourced edition). Sourced alternative exists. Languageseeker (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Delete, sourced edition exists, and this edition is of spurious origin —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Tristram ShandyEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an excerpt and copydump.

Incomplete, poorly formatted work from an uncertain edition. Languageseeker (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

David Copperfield (1869)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

Has no authoritative value and a proofread version of the 1860 first edition exists. Languageseeker (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity and main ns subpagesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an excerpt / premature transclusion.

The work is in scope though its presentation is not. Though there are only a few actual pages of proofread content and lots of pages transcluded of yet to be created. When there is content to be transcluded then they can be done so, whereas at this stage we should have rely on links from author page to the Index: page. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Adventures of Huckleberry FinnEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as it is in the process of being scan-backed.

Unsourced version where sourced version exists, possible copyright violation, and no clear evidence that this is the 1884 edition. Languageseeker (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After search and comparison, I think that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn's source is Project Gutenberg's Plain Text UTF-8 (Chapters 01 to 05, Chapters 06 to 10, Chapters 11 to 15, Chapters 16 to 20, Chapters 21 to 25, Chapters 26 to 30, Chapters 31 to 35, Chapters 36 to the Last), or sources of them are the same. They use same capitalizations, symbols (e.g., using "--" as en dash), styles (e.g., using ALL CAPS instead of italic, using double space after colon/period, etc.), newlines, etc.. I have added the source information to Talk:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Is this acceptable to Wikisource? If not, could The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be moved to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) to save its edit history? I am willing to overwrite it by transcluding Index:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).pdf. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: There's no need to move it. So long as we only have one edition we don't disambiguate page names; and if you Proofread an edition from a scan you can just transclude it over the old unsourced pages. Just remember to move the subpages for the chapters to use arabic numerals rather than roman when you do (the current pages use non-standard names). --Xover (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you for your message. We have another edition: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). The only difference in title is whether or not "The" is used. I think that maybe it would be better if The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn could be redirected to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, the versions page, and all the specific editions, no matter whether "The" is used in title, could have publication year in parentheses for disambiguation. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Ah, I see. Yes, in that case we'll have a {{versions}} page at The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, linking to the various editions at, respectively, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). I'll have a look as soon as I'm done untangling the current issue I'm wrangling with. --Xover (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: We already have a {{versions}} page: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (without "The"). And the 1885 edition does not have "The" in its title, so it is at Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), not The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885). Do you mean that we need to change the {{versions}} page from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (adding "The"), and move Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) (also adding "The")? Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: No, I just meant to outline the structure and that the page names should be consistent. Since the versions page and existing scan-backed edition are already at a page name without "The" the most expedient fix is to move the Gutenberg/1884 edition to a name consistent with those. I'll take a look at it now. --Xover (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: What was the point of re-moving the pages, while I was working on them, to add the "The" to the page name that I'd just told you we wouldn't have in this case, and leaving a whole mess of redirects behind? --Xover (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you for moving The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and its subpages to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884). I re-moved Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) and its subpages to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) (adding "The") because the 1884 edition has "The" in its title (see this). It's different from the 1885 edition, which, as I said above, does not have "The" in its title (see this). I think that the page title should be the same as that of the physical edition. Is it right?-Neo-Jay (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Most of the time you can assume the title is simply what's printed on the title page. However, in this case there are a couple of factors modifying that. The first is that the difference is in an article, which are usually omitted in title listings for sorting purposes, and which is sometimes omitted in page names (not the displayed title, just the page name) here precisely to get nice sorting in category pages etc. The other is that the use of the definite article in the 1st (UK) edition is conclusively a mistake (Clemens made a mistake in a letter to the UK publisher), which makes what's printed on the title page even less of an argument in favour of using it.
That's not to say opinions couldn't differ on what page name we should use, so it's entirely possible we could have ended up moving it to a page name with "The". But the only reason for an additional move here would be if there were people who felt strongly enough to argue about it, in which case, by definition, we would need to have a discussion to determine the final name (vs. unilaterally moving it). Moving it to a new name to include the "The" after I had just moved it is just pointless, much less while I was still working on cleaning up after the move. And for large numbers of pages you should generally let someone with admin tools do it simply because cleaning up the redirects afterwards is more work than just doing the move and suppressing redirects. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I am very sorry that I moved these pages without discussion and have caused so much trouble. I will be more cautious in the future. As for the naming issue, I am not sure that "the use of the definite article in the 1st (UK) edition is conclusively a mistake". The current version of the English Wikipedia article Adventures of Huckleberry Finn says that the title with "The" is used in more recent editions. And I also found many editions whose title has "The" on (e.g., this 2014 edition, this 2019 edition, this 2020 edition, etc.). I think that the titles with and without "The" are both correct. So, in my humble opinion, it would be better if the 1884 edition has "The" in its Wikisource page title as its printed version. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: caused so much trouble would be rather overstating it. If I gave the impression it was a big deal I have to apologise: it wasn't optimal, but the harm was minimal.
As to the title, I had to research that when I started looking at this request, and as is often the case I found that Wikipedia wasn't entirely up to date on this issue. The bit you quoted from my message was a summary of what I'd found, but I realise that it looked like I was just making a bald assertion. And, amusingly enough, my journey through this issue almost exactly mirrors these guys: "Will [The] Real Huck Finn Please Stand Up?" (modulo having librarians at the Mark Twain Room at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library on speed-dial). The short version is that Twain scholars have given the issue some attention and concluded based on the original manuscript and Clemen's letters.
In any case, it is still arguable whether it should be at a page name based on what's printed on the title page (mistake or not), or at the "real" title based on that research, so I'm not going to move it yet again unless there's a discussion here that determines consensus for one or the other. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Many thanks for the links. I learned a lot from this interesting post. And I really appreciate your insights and discussions. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Copyright issue [resolved]

[ moved into a sub-section top try to maintain some semblance of structure. --Xover (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC) ]

@Xover: The Gutenberg is not the 1884 edition, but a modern reprint. As the comments on the talk page state, there is evidence of copyright infringement that needs to be resolved. I didn't want to copyvio the page if it's might be deleted, but it seems that this needs to be a part of the conversation. Languageseeker (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: What copyright issue? Which comments? What evidence? --Xover (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: see Talk:The_Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn_(1884)#This_version_is_very_different_from_the_scanned_book. There's evidence that it's not the 1884 edition, so which modernized edition is it? Is that edition under copyright? Languageseeker (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: The chapter titles were added on 16 December 2005 and were not included in the original versions (see this and this). The chapter titles were copied from Project Gutenberg's 1912 edition, while the content of book were copied from Project Gutenberg's another version (not the 1912 edition), whose links I have provided above (or see this). I don't think that copying Project Gutenberg's editions would have copyvio issues.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any source information in the PG link. The issue is that if PG violated copyright and Wikisource imports that version, then Wikisource also violates copyright. Even though the original of these works are in the PD, subsequent editions can still be under copyright. Languageseeker (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: There is absolutely no reason to assume PG violated copyright; the comments on the talk page in no way shape or form suggest a copyright issue; and there is not one shed of evidence presented anywhere to suggest it is a copyvio. There is also no reason to assume later editions are in copyright. They may be, but only in certain narrow circumstances. In other words, your assertive phrasing in this regard is wholly unmerited. --Xover (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: The difference between the Project Gutenberg's Plain Text UTF-8 version and the 1885 edition is the specific manual of styles used by these PG's Plain Text pages, e.g., using "--" as en dash, using ALL CAPS instead of italic, using double space after colon/period, etc.. Are these copyrightable? And those Plain Text links' front pages (e.g., this) also provide HTML links (e.g., this), which present scanned pages of the 1885 edition. Does this indicate that its source is the 1885 edition? --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I was raising an issue that a user raised in the talk section. I believe that all scan backed versions are trivial to resolve a claim. I’m not overly concerned with how PG sources it’s works, but I that we should exercise caution when importing wholly unsourced editions. The HTML version does appear to provide better evidence of the providence of the work which is the 1885 edition. So, this alleged 1884 edition is actually the 1885 edition that we have a sourced copy for. Therefore, it’s a duplicate. This is why accurately citing the source of a work matters. Languageseeker (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Thank you for raising this issue. Now The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been moved to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884). I will overwrite its text by transcluding Index:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).pdf (thank you for creating this index page). It might take me several months. Best regards.--Neo-Jay (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I truly appreciate you sorting this out and figuring out the source of the unsourced text. Thank you for working on this important text. Until you get a chance to override the text, do you think it makes sense to put a disclaimer that this is the 1885 text and not the 1884 text? Languageseeker (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: I added a note to Talk:The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884), stating that the Project Gutenberg Plain Text UTF-8 version (source of the Wikisource's original version) is possibly based on the 1885 edition (I am still not 100 percent sure that the 1885 edition is the source of the Project Gutenberg version since PG does not explicitly state so, but just presents some scanned images of the 1885 edition). Thank you so much for the discussion. Best wishes.--Neo-Jay (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Trumpet-MajorEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as excerpt.

Incomplete, unsourced edition.

Sourced from Gutenberg, which is the 1920 Macmillan edition. A scan of an earlier printing of essentially the same edition is here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
My basic qualm is that nobody is going to or should finish that project. The Macmillan is a reprint with no input from the author. The deletion is because of the unfinished state of import. Languageseeker (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Life of Henry the Fifth (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The First Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Macbeth (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as redundant.

Unsourced with a sourced replacement available.Languageseeker (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:Weird Tales volume 02 number 03.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Existing pages moved, and index speedied as redundant.

I tried working on this, and found it illegible, so I generated a DJVU from the IA JP2: Index:Weird Tales volume 02 number 03.djvu, and copied over the transcribed files. Any objection to deleting the PDF index?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection, though moving the pages might have been better than copying (then they'd still be validated)?
I'd support the addition of "supplanted index" to WS:Deletion policy#Precendent for this kind of thing. If the pages have been moved to a new index and all the Page: subpages are either redirects or moved without redirects, I'd also say this could be a CSD G4: Redundant speedy (obviously if page NS redirects exist, they should be culled too).
By the way, the poor PDF thumbnail quality is phab:T224355 and is to do with the fact that the embedded images are 600 dpi, but the file is rendered by MW at 150 dpi. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Note that I moved the existing pages over to the new index to preserve edit history and validated status. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

All items with source Frederic Bancroft, ed., Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, VolumeEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Invalid proposal, withdrawn by proposer.

The complete works just got posted on the front page so all works with Frederic Bancroft, ed., Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, Volume as their source on the title page should be deleted. Languageseeker (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  •   Comment @Languageseeker: You're describing a search strategy, not a set of pages. Please either list all the pages you are referring to, or, at a minimum, more directly describe what pages this proposal would apply to. I also recommend giving some attention to your proposal rationale, as I couldn't really make heads or tails of it. --Xover (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Basically, it would be to delete all the pages in this search [1] such as The_Writings_of_Carl_Schurz/William_Steinway Languageseeker (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Why.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
They come from The_Writings_of_Carl_Schurz that just posted as a scan-backed version. Therefore, these entries are duplicate content. Languageseeker (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
*   Comment I think you should list all the articles proposed for deletion. When possible I did a move to integrate them with Schurz's papers, but I had reasons for not doing the integration. Sometimes it was a different version (newspaper or pamphlet transcription with headlines and/or intertitles; Bancroft had a distinct editorial style and regularly altered capitalizations), sometimes it was part of a series of articles (e.g. Harper's Weekly editorials, letters to and from Lincoln) and I couldn't do the move without interrupting the series. Maybe people could suggest alternatives, but just deleting the whole wad would leave some disruptive red links. I did consider all of them individually, and didn't leave around needless duplicates. Please note I also do business as Bob Burkhardt, but currently I am not active with that account. I can see I should check in with it occasionally. Library Guy (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the William Steinway article you cite, it is not a duplicate of anything that I know of. This is one of the articles I integrated. Look at the page history. So your search strategy is defective I believe. Library Guy (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually now that I look, you are proposing to delete many of the integrated articles. None of these are duplicates. When I did the move, I retained the talk page just because it was part of the history of the development of those particular articles. Library Guy (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Then should we remove the talk pages to avoid future confusion? Languageseeker (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think they should be deleted. They are part of the history of the article. History, even its own, is a lot of what Wikisource is about. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with saying that the article was formally sourced from these collection, but it's no longer accurate to say that they are sourced from there. Languageseeker (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
William Steinway certainly is sourced from the collection. That's what transclusion is all about. Perhaps the alias I'm using is throwing you: The Writings of Carl Schurz. This is just taken from the page headings. The formal name is Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz which only exists as a redirect. It seemed kind of unwieldy to be copying the formal name into all the subpage titles. It is so long. Your banner at Letter from Carl Schurz to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1860 is what caught my attention, and on closer attention I would consider deleting that article as well as letter from Lincoln it links to, but I need to replace the links to it with links to the new article from the collection. In retrospect I should have done a move there, followed by a transclusion, as I did with the other articles I integrated. The links in the header are duplicated, so there would be no loss there. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I know that you and Library Guy are the same user. I think that transcluding over unsourced text is the right way to go. I also think that once you transclude the text, there is no longer a need for the source template because the tranclusion creates a link to the source. So it's a bit confusing to keep them. Languageseeker (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
So please list the files you wish to nominate for deletion. The only one I know about so far is Letter from Carl Schurz to Abraham Lincoln, May 22, 1860 and that is because I found the banner there. In the past, when one of my files was nominated for deletion, I got notification on my talk page. I don't see any notification on my Bob Burkhardt talk page or my Library Guy talk page. I would like to keep the talk pages I moved (with the source template on them) so if you propose deleting those pages, I will oppose the deletion. Today I plan to make the changes needed so the Lincoln-Schurz pages can be deleted without trouble, but you need to list them here (and put a banner on the pages involved if you want to delete them (they are community property and the community needs to have the opportunity to comment) and I think a notification needs to be posted to my talk page. Deleting pages is a serious matter. If you have the time to post the banner on a page, you need to take the time to post a link to the file here. If you don't have the time to do it properly, please don't bother us. Library Guy (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: (CC Bob Burkhardt) Modulo necessary contractions etc. you should put the work at its title as published rather than invent your own name for it (let me know if you need any help with moving pages etc.). If the textinfo on a work's talk page is no longer accurate (for example if you have replaced the contents of a page) you should update it, possibly by just deleting the wikitext and leaving the page empty. It is likely such pages will be deleted at some point because we don't tend to keep around such just for the no-longer-relevant textinfo template, but if you don't want to tag them for speedy deletion you should at least make sure they don't contain actively misleading information.

@Languageseeker: I am not seeing any valid deletion rationale for anything at all here. Is there anything you are still proposing be deleted or has that issue been resolved to your satisfaction? --Xover (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: I didn't make the name for the title up. This is the title the editor uses for the work in the page headings, and I think the editor and I have the same motivation. The title on the title page is very cumbersome to work with. If all these pages are moved (and I do not have the patience, or the necessary experience with bots or whatever) either a lot of redirects would be left around, or a lot of other fiddly changes would be necessary. On the other issue, looking at Talk:The Writings of Carl Schurz/William Steinway, I don't see anything actively misleading, and the other talk pages are similar. The newest work was done under an alias (Library Guy instead of Bob Burkhardt). Rather it is duplicate information generated in an earlier version of the article. It is part of the history for me. I've been working around this particular project for over ten years. It is really hard for me to imagine the ramifications of proposed sweeping changes. I realize others probably don't wish to put this kind of time into it, but I hope they will respect the time I have put into it. I can deal with proposals to delete individual files, and in my updates I have carefully considered the changes I have made. I did flag a lot of redirects for deletion during my latest work on this project. I think I have organized things sensibly. Library Guy (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I’m going to withdraw this in deference to Library Guy. Thank you for all your hard work over the past ten years. Wish I could buy you a wiki drink to celebrate at an appropriate social distance. Languageseeker (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: If the editor intended the work to be called "The Writings of Carl Schurz" they would have put it on the printed title page. What is put in page headings in a work is fairly random, and is usually not decided by the author/editor. You have substituted your own judgement for theirs, which in addition to being a bad idea in general, is explicitly against our policy. Not, I hasten to add, in any major way (the substitution and reasoning for it is in itself entirely sensible), but you definitely shouldn't be doing that. There's no rush, and you don't have to do it all yourself, but it should definitely be addressed in due course.
You're right that the textinfo templates are a trivial issue (assuming the one you linked is representative); they're mainly just redundant to the info provided inherently by the Proofread Page system. So long as the information in them isn't actually wrong they do no harm. --Xover (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: I had a quick (and I do mean quick) look at what it would take to move the work to a new page name, and it looks like it would be relatively straightforward. It would go something like 1) move all the pages with a bot, leaving redirects behind; 2) search and replace with a bot all the associated Page: pages to replace the old page name with the new; 3) have a bot force a recursive link update on all the mainspace pages to update the transcluded links; 4) bot-delete all the redirects for the old page names, except for the top level page. All of that is relatively straightforward and mostly work the computer does for you. It shouldn't even disrupt the work while it's processing (users/readers shouldn't notice a thing). It will take a little effort up front to plan, make sure of the page names, etc.; and it will take some-to-a-bit quality control afterwards to make sure the bot jobs didn't mess up anything. I didn't really dive deep into it so it's possible I missed something, but that should be a reasonable enough outline to start from.
Can you follow up on this once you've had time to mull it over a bit and have some available time? I'd like to close out this deletion proposal (to clear out the backlog), but I don't think a page move for this (truly monumental, kudos!) work is something to rush into, so I think it's something that should be handled separately and with due consideration.
PS. There are several people that can handle automated / bot tasks like those I describe above. You can feel free to ping me directly, or you can ask for help in Wikisource:Scriptorium#Repairs_(and_moves). Don't hesitate to do so: the stuff that can be done by computers is the easy stuff, it's the stuff that can't be automated that is hard. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I am content with the filenames the way they are. The headers all use the title page's long name. I try to make sure the filenames are related. The book itself is much the same way. The long name only appears on the first page. After that one just sees the page headings, which matches the shorter name I used for the filename. Can you refer me to a help page which gives guidance on filenames? I've seen some awfully long titles. Library Guy (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Library Guy: We do have some guidance related to page titles at Wikisource:Style guide#Page titles, but I'm afraid it's rather limited and not of much use here. Mainly because it is taken as obvious and unnecessary to mention that a work should be given a page name that corresponds to the actual title of the work, with some consideration for abbreviating the excessively long and complicated titles that were common in early modern works.
But let me put this a different way… If you do not want to move it to a page title concomitant with the work's actual title, one perfectly acceptable way to address the issue is to open a discussion on the Scriptorium to see if the community accepts your alternate page title as within the bounds of good practice. I am, in this context, mainly trying to clear the backlog of proposed deletions without letting any identified issues fall by the wayside and be forgotten.
Normally I would have just moved the work myself, but I didn't want to unilaterally do that when you were clearly reluctant, and when it is such a big and complex work as this, and one in which you have invested so much time and effort. That's why I asked if you could follow up on that issue: so you could take your time, mull it over, control the details of how the move is done and the timing of when it is executed, or, if you still disagree, you can bring it up for discussion with the wider community when it suits you to do so and framed in a way you are comfortable with (rather than whatever I would have been able to come up with).
I understand and appreciate how much effort you've put into this, and how attached one gets to every single detail of such efforts. I don't want to badger you or run roughshod over such a monumental effort, or unduly rush you on something that is certainly a minor detail in the bigger picture. I only want to make sure this one issue that cropped up in the discussion doesn't get forgotten about and go unaddressed once this thread is closed. --Xover (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I think you are the one who should open up the Scriptorium conversation since you want to make the change, as people with proposed deletions do here. Maybe there is even a banner you could put at the top of the page so people in the community interested in the work will be alerted to your issue. My plan is to put a note on the top page of the work noting where I got the filename. This is not the first work I have utilized the page headings in. I used them to construct a TOC in Summer on the Lakes. It's kind of like the way the aboriginals used the whole buffalo. Thank you for not acting unilaterally, especially on an undocumented policy that you think is "obvious and unnecessary." Bob
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Works of John RuskinEdit

The following discussion is closed:

Nominating The_Works_of_John_Ruskin because it's a duplicate of content on Author's page. Languageseeker (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So? I don't know how entirely to handle that, but The Works of John Ruskin is a multi-volume work and like any work, deserves to have its own page. You see this at many levels; books of short stories get their contents listed on the book page and the author page as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Languageseeker (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: In this particular case the mainspace page exactly duplicates (I assume) what's already on the Author: page, and it contains no content beyond what properly belongs on the Author: page, so as it currently stands it has no reason for existing. Once the work is actually proofread it should, of course, have some sort of collecting structure (possibly at this page name, possibly as a portal). But for the fact we have an ongoing discussion on "substantially empty works", that affects several long-open discussions here, this page would have been speediable (after its contents were moved, or verified to already be at, the Author: page). --Xover (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  Delete I agree with deleting the page as there is no proofread content. Such pages should be founded only to roof individual volumes already present at Wikisource. Not necessarily all of them, but at least a couple of them should be proofread first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Languageseeker: You forgot to inform us that you had changed the page to a completely different presentation and a completely different edition before anyone had time to comment here. @Jan.Kamenicek, @Prosfilaes: You may want to have a second look at the page and either reaffirm or amend your position on this. --Xover (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Now the page lists individual volumes of the 1891 editon of The Works of John Ruskin, but the links do not go to transcriptions of those volumes, they go to some other editions. E. g. Seven Lamps of Architecture, which is supposed to be the 7th volume of the 1891 work, links to an 1849 edition of the book, which has nothing in common with this 1891 multiple-volume work. The page would make sense only we we had transcriptions of the particular volumes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. As I can see, indexes of 1903 edition of Ruskin's works are ready, so there's no more use in this old page. It doesn't have links to transcription projects of 1891 collection's volumes, so it's out of WS:SCOPE. Ratte (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Judaism and Islam: A Prize EssayEdit

The following discussion is closed:

OCR copy and paste of work in poor state. Not been rescued in its time here, time to cull it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree and Comment. Why hasn't anyone made any effort to correct the OCR? What should be done about all the footnotes? Rickyrab2 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  Delete. Index for anyone who wants to work on it: Index:Judaism and Islam, a prize essay - Geiger - 1898.pdf. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Am ok with deletion so long as it's indexed and moved appropriately. Rickyrab2 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
But I would like to keep the source material somewhere because it's easier to copy and paste from this source to the index than it is to work on the raw OCR of the indexed material. Rickyrab2 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Note. The material has now been copied over to the Index and is available for working on. Rickyrab2 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Rickyrab2: DjVu works are way better than PDFs. For any work that has come from, I would suggest to head over there , go to the ALL FILES section and you will see a djvu.txt version, and from that you can usually get a good set of the text to paste. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancient IdealsEdit

The following discussion is closed:
speedied, no content —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is just a header, with no other content.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Suakin, 1885: Being a Sketch of the Campaign of this YearEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Kept: moved to scan, OCR errors (mostly) eliminated, ready for further proofreading —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete copy and paste of a work, some formatted, some straight OCR. Long abandoned. Time to cull rather than leave in its present form. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks clean enough that M&S shouldn't be too hard. I'll give it a shot before we nuke it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  Keep Moved to scan, OCR errors mostly eliminated, ready for proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Under the Knife (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
speedied: redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced with multiple sourced alternatives. Languageseeker (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Improperly titled index pageEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as G7.

My apoligies, I flubbed the Index: name (left File: as part of it) and hit publish instead of preview. Please delete Index:File:A tribute to W. W. Corcoran, of Washington City (IA tributetowwcorco00boul).pdf. Thank you. Tcr25 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tcr25: Done. For future reference, you can move pages to the correct name (and request speedy delete of the redirect if not needed with {{sdelete}}). Xover (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Xover. I couldn't figure out a way to add {{sdelete}}) to an Index page, but I didn't think about trying move. Thank you! Tcr25 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The Plattner Story (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

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

As always,   Delete. I honestly wish we could just speedy these. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: you can use to see whether the text is identical to the sourced edition; if it is, it can be speedied as G4 Redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Jaikant bhardwajEdit

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

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

Account of a visit to the frontEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

Tender buttons: objects, food, roomsEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted: speedied as redundant, converted to redirect

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

  • I have redirected the page. I don’t think deletion is necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I am aware of that option, but elected to bring it here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Reopened. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Politicization of Gender Relations in IndonesiaEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  Delete and I would be in favor of speedy deletion for this very reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would oppose speedy deletion for this work. I otherwise agree. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude to WarEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Celebrated TrialsEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

The Gondreville MysteryEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Sartor Resartus (Project Gutenberg edition)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Fire, Famine, and Slaughter (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Leaves of Grass (Gutenberg edition)Edit

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

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

  • keep; it is a gutenberg edition, and it is what it is — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It is what it? What is that supposed to mean? Clear   Delete as it's not scan-backed, has a scan-backed alternative, and the validity of this Gutenberg source is dubious anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete. The Gutenberg text, being self-published by Gutenberg editors and not linked to a properly published edition, is not really in scope. Since we have scan-backed editions available there is no reason for us to continue to host it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " keep; it is a gutenberg edition, and it is what it is." I could not have put it any better, it is attributed to a site that produces high quality and complete texts using multiple proofreaders and error checking. One hopes that our versions are going to be better, but we don't have the same level of quality control before publishing to readers. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it worse, rather. While they do have a good proofreading system, they don't produce scan-backed works that you can check yourself against their scans, so there is virtually no way to verify the accuracy of their text like could be done here. Your comment is just an appeal to authority, not a trust in evidence. Also, why keep a "Gutenberg edition" in its own right, when we do have a more verifiable alternative? This site isn't Gutenberg! We do things differently here, we actually do clarify what edition/version we're talking about while they most often do not care enough to do the same. They also don't tend to include multiple versions of a single work (AFAICT) like we would. They often don't include typos in the original texts like we would, and it would be impossible to tell where original typos might be by looking solely at their transcriptions. They also don't have the same formatting standards that we do, as we can see at the actual page referred to here. If you compare this to something like this page, for example, the difference is clear. Looking at the sheer beauty of our scan-backed texts vs. the absolutely abysmal looking Gutenberg copy-pastes, it's obvious to me which one wins in the end. To clarify further, I have also seen typographical errors (ones not true to the text they were transcribing) in Gutenberg texts several times in the past; I think I remember seeing at least two in their version of Bobbie, General Manager. And there are copyright issues with at least one of them that I've found, that we unfortunately still have. Project Gutenberg is not immune from errors, and I have seen their errors before. Why are we suggesting to pretend that this isn't the case? So to have Wikisource trust Gutenberg texts wholeheartedly like is being suggested is dangerous, and I wholly oppose such a notion. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I agree with most of that, if I think it worthwhile I do scans from scratch. I don't think putting a PG text next to scan is a good idea, because the 'corrections' are difficult to detect; the transcript may as well used here and blame attributed to them. Repeating the process to catch minor changes requires the time and focus of users here, which is fine if they think it important, but there is a lot text that distributed proofreading at PG have not produced. I don't think the efforts of that site can be so readily dismisssed, the gain of verification requires more time and focus; it is not a simple cost/benefit sum. Having the text integrated to wikimedia is likely to be a benefit, this site should mirror PG texts that are absent for that reason alone. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment
A side question I've been wondering about as I've seen them crop up in recent weeks -- what on earth is a "Gutenberg edition" anyway? I'm reading through What Wikisource includes (a page which, I should note, is badly in need of some general introductory text...which would probably help in a case like this) and I just don't see where the work product of a website that's generally similar to Wikisource (in the sense that volunteers are transcribing pre-published works) would be worthy of their own pages here.
It seems to me that we generally publish transcriptions of published works, and while there might be a little haziness around what "published" means, I can't see how Gutenberg would qualify as its own independent publication, for our purposes. A Gutenberg text is typically an effort at faithfully reproducing an existing published work. So, for instance, if the Gutenberg text is a transcription of the 1882 edition, our page should reflect the 1882 date, or the name of the 1882 publisher, or whatever; the Gutenberg text might be a really useful tool in getting a head-start on proofreading it, but republishing the contents of Gutenberg transcription should never be an end in itself.
Of course, sometimes -- and in this case -- Gutenberg volunteers do not bother to tell us which edition they have transcribed, and that's a little frustrating. (This lead to an incredibly frustrating, but also fascinating, situation with The Oregon Trail, for instance...still have to figure out how to sort that one out.) But, IMO a situation where the original source is unclear is best resolved by doing the research and figuring it out, or just by bypassing the Gutenberg text and starting the proofreading from scratch.
But why we should ever host a text with "Gutenberg" in the page title, indicating that Gutenberg is a publisher similar to those with editorial staffs and the like, is a mystery to me. So, I guess this is a long-winded "delete" (or retitle and do some heavy editing, if somebody is up for that) vote, but one that is also requesting some clarification from anyone who thinks something like this does belong on Wikipedia. What's your vision of how Gutenberg and Wikisource should coexist in the world, if it differs substantially from what I've described? -Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  Delete IMO Gutenberg editions aren't totally useless once added to Wikisource, since they do fill a redlink. However, once we have a scan-backed version I do not see the value in the PG version. Technically, they are a new PD edition, but I really don't think they are a value-add for us to keep around in addition to "real" editions. PG provide access to their own "editions" and also occasionally update them as well as provide ebook downloads. We can't be as faithful to the edition than they are themselves.
WS isn't a live backup service. If PG went under and their work was about to disappear, I could see the argument for mirroring, but they haven't, and probably won't any time soon.
I'm also pretty lukewarm on importing new PG texts, since what happens then is that we end up with a dumped (and old) PG edition forever and no-one bothers to sort out a scan-backed version because it's more fun to fix a redlink that tosh up a bluelink (and since the backlog is, for all practical purposes, infinite, that's reasonable enough). That's a question of "is a dump better than nothing", to which I can see the merits of both sides of the argument. So I wouldn't really be in favour of a retrospective purge of existing PG works, though obviously I would be in favour of a drive to tidy them up a bit. As !voted above, I am in favour of deleting PG versions once supplanted. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  Comment: On the note of preservation, Internet Archive does a pretty extensive job at keeping Project Gutenberg archived, it looks to me like anyway. Almost every book I've looked up there with a Gutenberg text has had at least one archive there. Most of their texts are probably copy-pasted on many other sites across the Internet as well. So if Gutenberg went down tomorrow, I still wouldn't think archiving all of their content here would be necessary. (I wouldn't be entirely opposed to keeping Gutenberg texts in a separate namespace for archival however, such as in someone's user subpages, or have the documents uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but as far as keeping them in the mainspace as is, no.) PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I.e. while there is no denying that Gutenberg is an important website with both significance to Internet history and as a pretty good source of the transcribed texts of public-domain works, I don't think it's necessarily our job to preserve their content under any circumstances I can think of. There are other sites that can do this. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Gutenberg is not a verifiable source, because there's no scan.   Delete. Ratte (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete There are many differing published editions of Leaves of Grass. I do not mean that there are slight differences, but major ones. To quote from the Wikipedia article to see just how radically different the editions in Whitman's own lifetime were: "the first edition being a small book of twelve poems, and the last, a compilation of over 400". If we do not know which edition Gutenberg used, then it will never be possible to call it anything except a modern electronic edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Wireless Networking in the Developing WorldEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Diplomacy and the WarEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted per nom.

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

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

Monday or TuesdayEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as an unformatted copydump. The other discussions belong elsewhere.

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

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


The following discussion is closed:
Converted to redirect per nom.

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

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

Treaty of Lausanne (1912)Edit

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

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

  • The original is only four or five pages; could you create the index, please? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Prasun BaruaEdit

The following discussion is closed:
speedy deleted

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

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

A Child's History of England (1853)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as redundant to a scan-backed transcription.

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

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

Martin ChuzzlewitEdit

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

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

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

mass deletion of PagesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Not the right venue for this issue, and no consensus on what, if anything, should be done.

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

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

The Iron HeelEdit

The following discussion is closed:
All non-scan-backed texts redirected to their scan-backed counterrparts.

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

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

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

Transitory Provisions of the Constitution of IrelandEdit

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

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

  • The annotations look valuable as an independent text; could it be moved to user-space? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A glossary of words used in the neighbourhood of SheffieldEdit

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:

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

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


The following discussion is closed:

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

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

Template:Userspace draft and Template:Userspace notesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Both templates deleted and all uses removed.

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

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

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

Greensleeves (unsourced)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

Thirty-sixth Amendement of the Constitution of IndiaEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

The Complete Peerage (2nd Edition)Edit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:
Undelete declined: the deletion rationale was primarily poor quality, not copyright.

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirects beginning with "WikiProject:"Edit

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

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

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

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

The Rider on the White HorseEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

The Ethical Theory of HegelEdit

The following discussion is closed:
kept; work migrating to scan

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

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

Chronological Table of the Statutes and othersEdit

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

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

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

There are scans of these on Google Books as follows (compiled from:- )

Google also seems to have 1948 as 2 volumes - ( there was some scans of portions of this from an independent scan uploaded to Commons.)

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

  •   Keep These are exceptionally important works and they are needed both here and to support sister projects. I will put additional scans behind them (some of them already have scans on the commons), and I will add the other sections of them. (I should point out that some of the works listed above are actually complete works. Statutes in Force was a collection of leaflets, and the leaflets that have been reproduced are entirely complete works. The fact that the works are short leaflets does not make them incomplete.) I think it might also be helpful to mention w:WP:NODEADLINE. James500 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • (transcription project)
  • (transcription project)
  • James500 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Statues in Force: this is what happens when you don't list sources. Do you have source documents to can share with us? Since SiF is apparently over 60 thousand pages long, it doesn't seem like these are in fact complete in any meaningful sense.
  • Everything else:   Delete (but move to scans). These are not in a fit state for mainspace display. Also note that despite WP:NODEADLINE, if you dumped work in this kind of disrepair at enWP, they'd shunt it to the Draft namespace immediately and rightly expect you to tidy it up before allowing it into their mainspace. The equivalent of that at enWS is the Index and Page namespace (and, to some extent, the Portal/Author NS). In the Page/Index namespaces, there is indeed no deadline and we wouldn't be here if that's where you had been working. And I say this as someone who generally thinks that incomplete but well-formatted collective works are OK in mainspace. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As regards "Statutes in Force", it is not a single work, it is a 'periodical' (strictly a serial) consisting of a large number of leaflets that are separate standalone works that were published and sold separately. The individual leaflets are certainly complete.
    • WP would certainly not shunt anything that capable of surviving an Afd to draftspace (unless they wanted to be desysopped). That basically means anything that satisfies GNG . They have WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD over there. The reality is that they are prepared to allow very short articles provided they are capable of expansion. James500 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @James500: If you don't make this kind of thing abundantly clear, you should not be surprised when people assume it's incomplete like all the rest of your barely-formatted title-page dumps. I suggest you carefully make it clear what each part is and add a note to the top of SiF detailing how the work as a whole is structured. I have previously advised you to add similar descriptions to the notes of top level pages and you ignored me, so I am probably shouting into the void here.
      • They absolutely would move it, and they do: [2]. And they were right to do so in this case because it produced a better result. And it was not by a sysop either. And I would say that that was substantially in better shape when draftified than, say The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1950 is right now.
      • This is all academic anyway because that's enWP and this is enWS. Beyond drawing broad parallels, WP:NODEADLINE doesn't apply per se to enWS. That said we do have the same concept specifically in the Index/Page spaces. Which is where this stuff should go until it is more than an un-formatted title page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • [Actually criteria 2a-ii of the guideline w:WP:Drafts says "very little chance of survival at AfD".] I agree this is academic so I won't say any more about it. James500 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not ignore your advice to add more detailed descriptions descriptions to the notes of top level pages, I just have not had time to carry out that advice. James500 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Taking Index to the Statutes for Index to the Statutes 1235-1990, The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measures of 1953 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1953, and The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure 1960 for The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure of 1960, none of the works listed are in a remotely complete state, and the lack of system or scans makes them entirely useless. They should be entirely deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These works do not lack scans. This is the index page for a scan of one of these works. James500 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      @James500: Please either migrate these mainspace pages to the scans, or ask for help doing the match and split, and then work on them in the Index/Page namespace until they are in a fit state to be transcluded. We're way past the minimum discussion time for a proposed deletion so they may be deleted at any time. If there is some particular reason you cannot get this done in a reasonable amount of time then please let me know and I can move them to your user space instead. Xover (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • For a number of reasons, I am unable to deal with the migration of the whole of this particular group of works at this time. The userfication that you offer of the pages in question would be preferable to outright deletion. (In addition to that, I think that I should deal with certain other scans first.) The minimum discussion time for proposed deletion is not in of itself a deadline for the migration of content to scans, because pages cannot be removed from the mainspace without consensus. In this case, there is at this time no consensus to remove the several Statutes in Force booklets from the mainspace. James500 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
        @James500: Consensus to remove them is, in fact, exactly what we have here; but since you are expressing an interest in working on them until they are in a fit state to be presented in mainspace I am offering to find alternative ways to implement that consensus that enables you to do that.
        If you identify which of these mainspace texts belong with which pre-existing scans I can help you use match and split to migrate them there. For those texts which do not currently have a scan, please identify the ones which you wish to preserve in your user space until you have prepared a scan and Index: to migrate them to.
        And let me re-emphasise that in the Index:/Page: namespace, or in your user space, there is no longer any time pressure. You can work at your own pace and in the order you prefer, with essentially zero probability that anyone will nominate anything for deletion. Xover (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
        I do not understand why you think that such a consensus has been reached. It might be helpful if you were to explain why you think that. The chronological table and the two indexes can be userfied unless someone else objects to their removal from the mainspace. I am unable to deal with the Google Books scan for the public general Acts of 1950 listed above at this time. The Google Books scans for the public general Acts of 1953 and 1960 are in progress, as you can see from the scan links above. James500 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed:
Images without text have been deleted.

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

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

"WP:" namespaceEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

  • The first of these means “WikiProject,” not “Wikipedia.” “TW” and “AGF” should be deleted, as they are not policy. “SOCK” should be deleted in favor of WS:SOCK. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  Delete all. They don't belong in the mainspace regardless of if the reference is "WikiProject" or "Wikipedia". The Wikipedia thing is beyond ridiculous though. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted the two hard redirects. But the two soft redirects appear to have been created deliberately so I would like to hear from Billinghurst regarding the rationale before taking action on these. Xover (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
They are ten and eleven years old! and will have reflected problems that we had at that time. I have moved them to the Wikisource namespace and the tools that used to have those in their edit summaries are now able to be better customised, so if we have that problem again, we can discuss with the users. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Party list law (R.A 79 41) philippinesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted as copydump.

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

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

North American Agreement on Environmental CooperationEdit

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

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

  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Does Inductiveload's intervention as alluded to below affect your position? Xover (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is largely formatted; only the indentation is absent. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that was me, I forgot to leave a note. I hacked in most of the formatting in a text editor according the PDF. It does need splitting and the indents need sorting out, but it's actually not in an atrocious state. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
      @Inductiveload: Is this a {{vk}}? Xover (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter and Wendy (1911)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Text has been migrated to scan and proofread.

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

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

Template:Transcluded OCR errorsEdit

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

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

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

The Works of Thomas CarlyleEdit

The following discussion is closed:
No consensus, and no bright-line policy obtains to tip the balance either way.

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

  •   ping @Ratte: you may wish to be aware of this discussion. --Xover (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you @Xover:, and apologies for neglecting to do that @Ratte:; I had intended to do that when I saw it created relatively recently. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I wanted to make a project like The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift or The Works of Charles Dickens, to start proofreading Carlyle's 1896 collected works, but now I don't care. You can delete it if you want. Ratte (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • My question is whether or not the text has independent value? Was it printed from the stereotype plates of editions that Carlyle contributed to? Was there some scholarships that attempt to create an authoritative text? If no, delete.Languageseeker (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This text is the Centenary Edition ed. by H. D. Traill. It was generally used for The Carlyle Encyclopedia (see preface). Ratte (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Based on this information, I vote keep. Languageseeker (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Failing to meet those criteria, outlined at 20:48, 20 April, would not have been a satisfactory reason for deletion. Converting the commons files to indexes takes about 7 minutes, apparently, I am not of course proposing that they are deleted. It is a project that I would likely make a substantial investment of time in, having already done that with Carlyle I feel justified in objecting to empty title pages that obscure our actual content and disappoints the reader. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
            Indeed, and those criteria would not have been accorded particular weight by the closing admin, except possibly as adjunct to policy-based arguments had any been put forward. Xover (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Re independent value of collected works, it may be complicated because many of the volumes might be duplicates of existing scans while the Critical and Miscellaneous Essays gather works that were published in a bunch of periodicals which would require a bunch of work to collect and proofread the periodicals or whether they were all published in other collections of essays. In either situation, you are likely to have a large amount of unrelated or duplicate work (e.g. overlapping collections of essays) to produce a fully proofread set. More of the general issues around periodical literature and partial proofreading of collections of independent works... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • «At Wikisource, we allow multiple copies of a work» (c) Billinghurst. Ratte (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I am saying in the context of this is not ready for transclusion into Main until enough volumes have been proofread to avoid having large number of red links / ext scan links in Main. Right now AFAICT not a single page of 30-volumes has been proofread and transcluded into Main. Does it merit listing purely as a list of volumes? Should it be moved to Author instead and then can be moved to main when enough progress has been made? In both cases, I would guess we have some combination of importance (e.g. an important edition) and non-duplicateness / likelihood of being proofread to decide whether it merits listing MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
          @MarkLSteadman: Since your comment here back in April, four volumes have been completed and the series page (the one under discussion here) cleaned up. Does this affect your position on this issue? Xover (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
          • That makes a big difference. There is some meaningful to link there in main. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Ratte: I'm not at all sure I understood your message above correctly, so my apologies if this is irrelevant… But if you want to collect things based on a common property but which were not originally published in an inherently collected form, you may want to consider using either a portal or a WikiProject. For monumental efforts like the collected writings of any prolific author, both approaches can be good. And I mention it because the mainspace under discussion here would probably fit well as either a portal or a WikiProject, if you were still interested in working on it. Xover (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't understand you either. The nominated page cannot be considered just as «things which were not originally published in an inherently collected form». It is the authoritative edition of Carlyle's works. Ratte (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ratte: When I posted the question it was not obvious from the page at a cursory glance that it represented a single collected edition of Carlyle's works. The current version makes it clearer what it actually represents. As CI argues below, there is still room to differ on whether it is best to synthesize a title page for the entire series, or to let a portal fill that function and let each volume be its own top level work. I am not aware that that is a settled issue on enWS and thus both approaches are acceptable. Xover (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ratte did not make the collection. This is the The Works of Thomas Carlyle (Centenary Edition) which, as Ratte demonstrated, Carlye scholars still use as the reference edition in many cases. Languageseeker (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that there are now several complete volumes up, however, the one I worked on (German Romance) used a different source (a US printing). I fancied that it was a better scan and text-layer: while this is less of a problem if the transcript from Gutenberg is inserted (not what I did), there are several images which would benefit from the richer data of the US edition. I still think the main title page is unwarranted, the available works are listed in the author space and linked in several ways. There is little that we don't already have, and the rest may be identical to what we do have. It is worth pointing out that a parent page of this type only contains navigation content for the volumes themselves (the actual source), it is only that that I am proposing be deleted. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Cygnis insignis: Having a synthetic "title" page for multiple works in a series (i.e. like this one) is not uncommon on the project, and I am not aware that that approach has been deemed unacceptable in favour of, say, a portal. As I read the discussion, Ratte and Languageseeker support the status quo; MarkLSteadman supports deletion, but mainly because it is premature until more of the series is completed. That shakes out as 2 against and 1.5 for, neither side with any bright-line policy to lean on, which from the perspective of a closing admin tallies up as "no consensus". Unless further discussion shifts the balance, that looks likely to be the conclusion fairly soon. Xover (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, but mass creating these sets is has consequences: the similar circumstances with Tolstoi has seen partially completed indexes deliberately widowed by later uploads of [inferior] scans. That is the most objectionable part, and want I intended to forestall by having these 'sub-projects' discussed first. As a consequence, the exuberant completion of the first Carlyle volume, to save this navigation page, has for no other reason produced a duplicate of Sartor (but we have the [PG?] transcript for the French Revolution, so there's that). The indexes should be marked where there is potential for wasting users time on redundant effort, "a version of this already exists". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Middle Cornish Charter Fragment (Add. Ch. 19491)Edit

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

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

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

Night and Day (Woolf)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Work has been fully proofread. Big thanks to R. J. Mathar for their great work on this!

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

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

Index:朝鮮巫俗の研究 上券.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

  Keep Theoretically useable as the basis for a translation. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
If there's interrest in a translation, then yeah, keep it. I just figured it was abandoned and not in scope. Jarnsax (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't normally mind things lolling around in Index or Page NS if they're not totally invalid. Examples of that might be a photo or a scan redundant to another, better scan (this is to avoid people wasting time inadvertantly proofreading damaged or duplicate scans, which leads to bad feeling) or some weird home-made excerpt scan where there is a complete work to work from. Because Index and Page are not presented to casual readers, there's no real harm keeping them, especially if the metadata is OK.
But I certainly wouldn't advocate wide-scale proactive creation of Indexes for foreign works, if only because it's a bit of a waste of time if you don't anticipate anyone using it any time soon, because our rate of translation is very, very low.
On the other hand, I do think there is value in creating Index pages for English works, even if you have no intention to work on them, because the upload and Index creation and pagelisting is fairly technical and fiddly and facilitates "drop-in" proofreading later on, thus lowering barriers to entry. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol, funny you should say that... I actually have a whole list of works that have been 'just hanging around', largely taken from the list of index pages, that I intent to just get to the point of 'pages with headers' and proofread frontmatter, to put up as 'transcription projects' with the please edit me template on the front page. Jarnsax (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that there is an unresolved copyright issue with this work that has been discussed in user talk. I need to follow up on that before we can close this. --Xover (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    Updating for the record: the copyright issue was unrelated (I misremembered). Xover (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Henderson v. United StatesEdit

The following discussion is closed:
While there appears to be further need for cleanup, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete at the present time.

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

  • Both volume numbers given, 23887 and 709, are nonsense. The volumes relating to 1883 decisions are 108 and 109, neither of which mention a “Henderson.” The text is not of a supreme court opinion, however; a distant reference finds this as his petition from Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. It is case no. 709 (as recorded), but I know now where “23887” arises. If this work should be kept, it should be completed and removed to the right type of header template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, good work @TE(æ)A,ea.: all I could find was that #709 was indeed Henderson's case (but not at the Supreme Court). I think this is a case of someone copy-pasting a Wikisource SC page as a template and not realising that that's only one kind of legal case. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Good find! @TE(æ)A,ea.: That looks like the same document but it is just a petition to the Court rather than a Court decision. Does it meet the "notability" criteria? Lexpaedia (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Only as it is related, although I am not one to make that determination unilaterally. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: You may wish to be aware of this discussion. Xover (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep! I've updated the Wikisource to include the correct court in the case Joseph Henderson vs. The United States. I think that the case is important in that it shows how Joseph Henderson, John Van Deusen, William Anderson, and James Callahan petitioned the United States, via the Alabama Claims award, for compensation of their loss of the pilot boat William Bell during the American Civil War. Henderson and Callahan testified to their ownership and status as Sandy Hook pilots during the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. On June 5, 1883, they were compensated for their ownership (Henderson got $6,170.31 for his 5/16 shares) in the William Bell. It is not so much the recovery of damages that is important as the information about New York pilotage in general in their depositions. --Greghenderson2020 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: I am not sure how much work there is left to do on the work. Typically where we are working without scans we would look to set the work up in user namespace, and if there is a lot to do, we probably should move it there. If there are scans available for this work, we would typically want to get those scans loaded to Commons, and proofread from the scans. Lots of the community can help you with that if the scans are around somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks, I've added the entire petition from the court case and updated so it is clear this was a court case not a supreme court case. I could add the Deposition of Joseph Henderson if you think that would be important. From your experience, is there anything else I can add to make the case complete? --Greghenderson2020 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2020: deposition would be a separate document, maybe best as another subpage, though maybe a document in its own right. [Personally I would do as a subpage]. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One Hundred Poems by KabirEdit

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

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

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

I am doing proofreading of Index:One Hundred Poems Kabir (1915).djvuRavinderkap777 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • All the poems are now scan backed and formatting issues addressed. I think we should close this as keep. And it is being actively worked on. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • This is a source, though not the most elegant; and plenty other poor-quality scans may be found. The work only needs paragraph breaks, which isn’t too difficult to manage. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Are you offering to do the work here? I've no particular opinion on the work as such, but this text in its present state is just not something I want sitting visible in mainspace. Xover (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Xover: I have separated the paragraphs, bolded the article numbers, and separated the chapters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An Essay on Virgil's ÆneidEdit

The following discussion is closed:

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

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