Wikisource

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2023

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

Index:Elmer Gantry (Grossett & Dunlap).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as duplicate and redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already an incomplete transcription of this on Wikisource (Index:Elmer Gantry (1927).djvu), which is from the same publisher and is a better quality scan Chrisguise (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Author:Humphrey William Freeland

The following discussion is closed:

converted to a redirect

I created an author page for 'Author:Humphry William Freeland' not realising there was one as Humphrey William Freeland. I believe his correct name is Humphry (without the 'e') as this is the spelling used in those of his books where his name appears in full. He is 'Humphry' in 'Men at the Bar', but not in 'Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford'. He is 'Humphry' in his death registration (https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=89155488:5376&d=bmd_1669206295). All internal links to author:Humphrey William Freeland have been corrected so this author page can be deleted. The entry for him on Wikidata, 'Humphrey Freeland', needs correcting to his full name, but I don't have rights to do this. Chrisguise (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to a redirect instead. Yann (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music

The following discussion is closed:

The wikilawyering on display here, as well as holding this text hostage to your entirely personal interpretation of copyright law, has passed into unconstructive territory now. G6 does not apply at all as the text is not a copyvio and nobody has suggested that it is, much less argued that. G2 is a safety-valve to avoid the need for repeated community discussions when content has previously been deleted, not a requirement that it be speedily deleted or prevented from recreation. So this discussion is speedily closed as lacking merit, having been made on very questionable motives, forum-shopping an already open parallel discussion, and not serving the community. Redacting the two copyrighted appendices has always been the preferred way to handle this; and then you can argue for additionally adding the two appendices.

Speedy deletion declined. See also copyright discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. The previous discussion concerned potentially infringing content contained in appendices to the case. The version that I have uploaded excludes the appendices containing this content. There is literally nothing on this page other than the public domain text of the decision of the court. BD2412 T 21:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    • BD2412: This page (and the related Index: and Page:s) were deleted over copyright concerns, and protected from re-creation. They should remain deleted until the conclusion of that discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
      • @TE(æ)A,ea.: The discussions solely concerned the content of the appendices, which reproduce the lyrics of the songs the court was examining. There has never been a contention in any of these discussions that the actual text of the case, exclusive of those lyrics, should be excluded from this project. BD2412 T 21:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
        • BD2412: And yet there is a contention as to said appendices. It is my position, which has been vindicated in the file deletion discussion, that the appendices were not properly excluded; and a victory in the copyright discussion here will enable the entire file and all work, &c., to be restored. As this would necessarily involve overwriting your work, which is just a low-quality copy-and-paste job, I would like to see it deleted. You are an administrator, yes? My text (proofread against the scan) can be taken from the revision history of the various Page:s—but again, any such outcome should wait until the conclusion of the copyright discussion as it would otherwise confuse the issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
          • Is it your position, then, that the text of the case must be excluded until the fate of the appendices can be resolved? Wikisource is not a suicide pact. There is no need to punish the readers by denying them the text of the case merely because the discussion of the appendices is dragging on. BD2412 T 22:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
            • BD2412: Yes, I do think that, especially as the deletion discussion on Commons has concluded, and determined that the appendices are not problematic, copyright-wise. I am not the person preventing the opinion from being hosted; it is the administrator who has interfered in the discussion and repeatedly deleted the transclusion, Index:, and Page:s. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
              • If the content ends up getting restored over my work, I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is the exclusion of the case text altogether pending the outcome of the discussion over the appendices. There is no basis in policy for such an exclusion while the other matters are being discussed. BD2412 T 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
                • There certainly is a “basis in policy”—this page is subject to deletion under speedy deletion rules G2 and G6, because it was previously deleted (G2) as a copyright violation (G6). That only some of the material was under consideration, is no bar to this rule; it applies to the whole work. As you know, the work is currently the subject of an undeletion discussion; and works subject to an undeletion discussion, which has not concluded, should not be re-created before the (positive) conclusion of said discussion. Your desire to separate the work, and defeat my purpose, cannot avoid the basic procedural rules here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Avon Fantasy Reader/Issue 05/The Gold Dress

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to nominate my own posting and all its transcluded pages (62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74). The story was first published in the Cosmopolitan, July 1942, according to the Galactic Central. The renewals for the Cosmopolitan turned out to be listed as "Hearst's International Cosmopolitan in the copyright catalogs and that's why I missed it. --Nonexyst d 23:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nonexyst Could you link to the page in the Catalog of Copyright Entries where you found the renewal? E.g. https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopy19693232libr/page/152/mode/2up —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@CalendulaAsteraceae:, https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopy19693232libr/page/396/mode/1up?view=theater --Nonexyst d 21:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: Thanks! In that case I'd say you can speedy the text and its transcluded pages as CSD G6. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: Speedied as copyvio. But you'll need to redact the DjVu too. Are you fixed for tools to do that, or do you need me to do it? Xover (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I have the tools, and I will redact the djvu over the following 24 hours. --Nonexyst d 13:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Translation:The Roubayyat bi Omar Khayyam

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, per nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This Wikisource Translation has been incomplete (the Rubaiyat is about a thousand verses) and abandoned for well over a decade. It purports to be a translation from a previously published French translation into Scots, but the Scots looks kinda iffy to me (not an expert, could be wrong). It also lacks scan-backing and is not connected to a Proofread original version at frWS, in violation of the translations policy. And just for good measure it looks like it contains some user annotations in violation of the annotations policy. We have several previously published English-language editions of this work in various states of quality and completion, so it's not like we're gagging for a user translation. Xover (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Index:I am not alone (Andersson paper).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the concerns raised at Scriptorum.

There have been some very serious ethical concerns raised about the work, and the work in question has been retracted.

Whilst Wikisource is not generally censored, it should also in my view not become a platform by which material with a high potential for harm remains in publication (even though it has been retracted), or by which it could be seen to inadvertently support unethical (or potentially illegal) practice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Author:Adolf Hitler? Author:Martin Luther? Author:Mao Zedong? Category:Eugenics? The Story of Little Black Sambo? We document history, we don't edit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Sure. But there's a difference between historical material and contemporary material. And this text was retracted ("unpublished") by the publisher, making the application of the previously published criterion… ambivalent. Had the article been "real" science censored for obviously illegitimate reasons I'd be all for keeping it no matter the research area, but having suffered through actually reading it it can be summed up as "this one guy jerked off to weird Japanese porn comics and wants everyone to know about it." I'm actually more offended by the crap science and the crap peer review at Qualitative Research (this should never have been published in the first place for that reason), than the subject matter.
What I'm saying is our usual "no censorship!" knee-jerk is not the best approach to this. There appear to be some legitimate issues to explore that, no matter the outcome for this text, may help us deal with other controversial or sensitive texts in the future. Because as Brewster Kahle and Elon Musk are discovering, not taking an ethical stance is in itself an ethical stance when there exist actors who play by different rules. Xover (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It was published; there's no question of that. It was also widely read. It has some marginal cultural value in that it was what was loudly retracted and argued about. I hate reading some blog or similar website and finding some vehement discussion about some article that no longer exists. It's also a historian's complaint; we know of many of the historical orthodoxy (or future orthodoxy) opponents only by reports of how they are wrong, not what they said. I'm not a huge fan of anticipating problems before they start, instead of tailoring the solutions to the problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
As I said neither Wikisource nor Commons is generally Censored, some of the specific issues here being:-
  • Wikisource should be applying the same high standards as the original Journal, in re-evaluating the work, given that ethical concerns HAD been expressed, leading to the work's retraction.
  • It was the original journal that retracted the work (not a random third party or external agency), hence it would be entirely professional and respectful of that Journal's editors, to consider if retaining it at Wiksource was appropriate, given that continued republication here might have the perception of being prejudicial to the very clear good faith, and clearly ethical intentions, the editors of the Journal had in retracting a "controversial" work
  • That by continued republication without a careful review, Wikisource could be subjected to external restrictions, or face a critically negative reception from potential participants, partners or external sources of opinion.

If deemed appropriate, has an admin sought an opinion from the appropriate WMF contacts ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Xover: I’m not “personalising” the issue; I was responding to the nominator. The only reason this discussion is possible is because the work was released digitally. If “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” was released under a free license, I would have proofread it, notwithstanding the fact that the paper was later retracted. I also don’t think that hiding the existence of this paper is an ethical command, especially when it was the journal itself than censored it; I’m sure the journal wants all traces of this article gone, so they can brush under the rug the problems with their work which caused the paper to be retraced in the first place. You and ShakespeareFan00 give too much credit to the editors of the paper and their “good faith” in getting this paper retracted: whatever their stated intentions, it looks a lot better for the journal to not have this paper on their Web-site. And more specifically in response to your comments, Wikisource should not be applying any standards to works; otherwise, the clear biases of the abovementioned will have writings they philosophically disagree with (Nazi papers, Communist literature, or whatever) removed after any “personalised” “high standard” of review. I don’t think, especially given that the paper was only retracted after public outcry, that it is “entirely professional” to defer to the journal’s conclusion. As for your final comment, that’s not something we’re in a position to discuss. If WMF wants to censor us, that’s their concern, if not prerogative; we should not debate the merits of such a decision. I find it rather disheartening that I have to defend free speech, not just against the WMF, but also against other editors here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    I am of course quite prepared to defer to consensus once it's been established what it is.
    I'm greatly encouraged that you are willing to defend your position vigorously, and in your expanded response you've presented some exceptionally clear responses to some of the issues I stated were in play
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

If copyright allows, perhaps a suitable compromise would be to transclude the retraction notice (and if it does not; a summary of it) at the head of the transclusion of the actual work, and on the same page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The retraction notice doesn't contain anything objectionable of itself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not the uploader, and not familiar with Wikisource policy. But I want to leave a brief comment here. I opposed deletion at Commons (and not just because it was in use) and I am inclined to oppose deletion here too. This paper (which does not contain any problematic personal information or anything like that) should be retained (with a clear indication of retraction) so that future researchers can learn what sort of issues cause a paper to be retracted and how those issues might be missed. Also, we have one user here who thinks this is not legitimate science; others may not agree.

After writing this, I noticed that Prosfilaes made similar comments above, and I endorse those comments. I also give special mention to TE(æ)A,ea.. Brianjd (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TE(æ)A,ea. was identifying themselves as uploader (at Scriptorium), not me; I misread that. Brianjd (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of having an ethical standard for the deletion of works; I can perhaps imagine something ethically repugnant (but not illegal) that might be a reasonable candidate for deletion. However, I don't know if this paper is the test case for that standard. The journal's rationale for retraction was, it seems to me, that to continue hosting it as a serious piece of research would legitimize unethical and harmful behavior; that a journal has a responsibility to publish ethically responsible research. Journals have editorial standards, so anything published in a journal gains greater legitimacy almost by default; it's probably judicious for them to be very careful with ethics. Wikisource, however, does not have any such editorial policy beyond some loose criteria (WS:WWI) and some legal obligations. As such, a work hosted on Wikisource does not necessarily gain any legitimacy. It's not endorsed in any way by the editors. Under this theory, hosting the paper here would not legitimize unethical behavior, but merely document it. If Nature were to publish an article supporting w:intelligent design, doing so would legitimize pseudoscience—but Wikisource could host the same article without that concern.[1]
    This paper can be unethical in at least two ways: it may have been created unethically, or it may advocate for (lend support to?) unethical behavior. If the former, it would be unethical for the journal to publish it because doing so would implicitly endorse unethical research practices; if the latter, because to publish it would legitimize advocacy for unethical behavior. I don't think either case holds for Wikisource. I think we can publish such a work without endorsing either the way it was created or the message it delivers.
    TL;DR: Scientific publication implicitly legitimizes and endorses a work, but Wikisource publication does not. We can host it as long as we display it without endorsement. Shells-shells (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe in following Wikisource's non-censorship policy, and we can't just hide stuff like this under the rug and forget about it, it needs to be preserved so people can find it, see that something like it was published and that it somehow passed peer review, we can't let something like that be forgotten due to a redaction. Reboot01 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ↑ Under this model, any editorial policy we adopt would cause all the works allowed on the site to gain the legitimacy of meeting the Wikisource ethical standard. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a sense: An ethical editorial standard exists because it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior; it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior because doing so would lend them legitimacy; doing so would lend them legitimacy because an ethical editorial standard exists.
  • I'm leaning   Delete for the various reasons outlined by Xover and ShakespeareFan00. I think it's fine to keep on Commons, but I can't imagine a retracted paper can still be considered "published" under any normal sense of the term. I understand where the folks on the other side of this are coming from, but I just don't fully agree. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    • You can't "unpublish" a work in any real sense; you have to stop it from being distributed in the first place. This has clearly had "copies offered to the general public"; they can retract it, not unpublish it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, per arguments by Prosfilaes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ode to a Skylark

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced version of a poem we have three other scan-backed versions of. Xover (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Delete Sure is. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  Keep The first page of the source is the image on the page (File:Houghton MS Eng 258.2 - Shelley, To a Skylark 1.jpg); pages 2-6 are on Commons. This is the manuscript so, may be different to printed versions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Note that this version's text differs significantly from the manuscript, especially in punctuation and capitalization. Even the first line differs significantly; compare "Hail to thee, blithe spirit--" with "Hail to thee blithe Spirit!" Moreover, the stanza beginning "Higher still and higher" does not appear in the same location in the two versions. There are plenty of other visible differences between our text and the manuscript text; these are just two of the most obvious. It would be nice to have a transcription from the manuscript, but this isn't it. Shells-shells (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  Delete The image from the manuscript was added later: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Ode_to_a_Skylark&diff=5055485&oldid=4660312&diffmode=source after the text. No problem if someone wants to import the commons into an index and scan back the manuscript version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Oriflamma/tmp

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. User space working page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User space transcription, last edited 2015 for corrections, but not otherwise substantially edited for at least a decade. Seems to be a duplicate or draft of The World as Will and Representation/Third Book which ideally should be migrated to the volumes of the relevant work we have as Index:The World as Will and Idea - Schopenhauer, tr. Haldane and Kemp - Volume 3.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:LegalBeagle/sandbox

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. User-space working page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

These seems to be a draft/duplicate transcription of Circular No. 3591 that hasn't been substantially edited since 2013. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Ein Yaakov (Glick)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long-abandoned multi-volume work, consisting mainly of the front matter from volume one, with no scan to back it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Long abandoned work, started in 2008, and only a few chapters of a multi-volume work. Not scan-backed, and contributor no longer around. Notes say that the files are available for download in PDF, and the site noted does host downloadable files. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Translation:Journey to the West

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned original translation page, but with no translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned (and actually never really started) almost 4 years ago. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Browning v. Carroll

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Bot import errors have been corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Bot import seems to have mangled both the text and references. I've attempted to repair but it would be better to delete and start again with KNOWN edition and scan.

I am suspecting that plenty of other cases imported at the same time have related issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Index:AR elaine riot.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract without identifiable source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(With Page: and File:) This is the headline of a newspaper article, which is an unacceptable extract. The source given in the file points to a different article, and this article cannot be found on that page. As there is no source, and it is an incomplete extract, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:BDA:Army Officers

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not use this I made it by mistake. Chiraq Bears (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chiraq Bears You can speedy this as WS:CSD G7. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Ham II/Sandpit

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. User blanked the page, solving the issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Non- scan backed, userspace transcription of a Blake Poem, Not substantially edited in over a decade.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Ping User:Ham II, for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Andy's attempted ping worked, so… @Ham II: Do you still need User:Ham II/Sandpit here on enWS for anything or can we just nuke it? Alternately, I suspect it got nominated because it contains a lint error somewhere so just blanking it would keep it from showing up in LintErrors and maint. cats. Xover (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: Gosh, I've got no recollection of the ping; if I did read this nomination, I must have had quite the New Year's Day hangover! Thank you for chasing this up. I'm not active on Wikisource these days, but am on Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons. This sandpit had an unfinished transcription of Blake's Europe a Prophecy plus another one of this single-page polemic by him. Both texts are now on Wikisource, I see – the latter as Life of William Blake (1880), Volume 2/Prose writings/Sibylline Leaves – so I've blanked the page and it can be deleted. Ham II (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. User-created work compiled from bits of several sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This transcription, which dates back to 2005, was seemingly arbitrarily compiled from various New Jersey edicts to fit a single historical narrative (the renumbering of various state highways in New Jersey in a particular year). I am finding little evidence that this ("1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering") is in and of itself a work, and in fact the title was just taken from the Wikipedia article 1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering. The link given as a source is a dead link, and I'm not finding any archives of it.

It would be good if the edicts referenced were properly transcribed in full (and were scan-backed). But I don't think it's appropriate to compile them in the way that this has been, by modern Wikisource standards. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It was not removed. It was moved to the header template. And it also was not erroneous. "See also" sections should never be in the mainspace. These "See also" and "External links" sections are modeled after Wikipedia article structure when they are erroneously added, but they're just not appropriate for Wikisource. The Wikisource mainspace is for transcribed content only. "See also: 1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering" was not part of any law so it shouldn't be in there. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete as a arbitrary compilation / annotation. As the notes field on the text says, it contains a few parts of that original 1927 bill (16 out of ~100+) but mostly consists of a user-compilation of other data (e.g. some of it is dated 1929). The 1953 text was deleted without specific reasoning so it's hard to tell what the grounds were (it was in a copyright discussion, but no specific argument was provided why this particular text was not eligible for EdictGov). Looking at the deleted revisions it looks suspiciously like a user-generated list of changes to highway numbering rather than an actual bill (there's no preamble, its notes indicates changes marked with an asterisk "were not signed", suggesting individual bills rather than one mammoth bill, etc.). For either of these texts we'd need to find a scan of the actual original text that it purports to be a transcription of in order to properly check both copyright status and whether it has been previously published. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Home! Sweet Home! (1984)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, per nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We have at least 4 other versions of this poem that are scan-backed from works that are unambiguously and in their entirety in the public domain. And it is not scan-backed, so there's virtually no way to ensure textual accuracy without having to buy the entire book.

The entire book I'm talking about, by the way, is apparently a 1984 collection called The Illustrated Victorian Songbook which is very very likely not in the public domain in its entirety. I don't see the poem text itself as presented here having any copyright issues, but given that the original book is illustrated the entire book itself is likely to prove itself quite a problem for scan-backing.

It just doesn't seem like there's any point to keeping this around, if there are 4 other scan-backed versions available, with 3 being proofread already, given all the weirdness and issues I just mentioned. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

L'Envoi (Kipling)

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect; contents transferred to L'Envoi. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. However, it does not list titles called "L'Envoi (Kipling)", but rather titles called "L'Envoi". Can I please please please merge it into L'Envoi? (Please) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks:, @Chrisguise: this discussion may concern you —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I assume that is because they are different works, all by Kipling, with the same title but different contents. I don't have a strong opinion about whether we should have such second level disambiguation pages versus redirecting Title (Author) back to the Title disambiguation page in such situations. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. We generally merge these author-specific disambig pages into the primary disambig page, and I hope to do the same here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman, @Beleg Tâl @Londonjackbooks I was followed practice seen elsewhere on Wikisource (although as I type this I cannot bring an example to mind). There are also lots of instances (usually on 'versions' pages) where the title of the page isn't the correct name of the work, rather it is given as Title (Author surname). Chrisguise (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Versions pages are different than disambig pages. If we have multiple pages, including versions pages, that have the same name, then they will be disambiguated as "Title (Author)" (for works by different authors) or "Title (Date)" (for editions of the same work) - but the disambiguation page that lists all of these pages will be simply "Title". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Well we can't use "L'Envoi (Kipling)" because it isn't unique... it does seem suboptimal for a link to that used to point to "Title (Author)" to now point to "Title" instead as a double redirect whenever we find a second work by the same author with the same title. It would be good to document this on Help:Disambiguation to make this clear going forward. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, "L'Envoi (Kipling)" is too ambiguous to use for a versions page, and too specific for a disambig page. I personally would redirect it to "L'Envoi", though some longtime editors would prefer to delete it outright (note: double redirects should be, and will be, updated to point to either "L'Envoi" directly, or to the specific work that used to be located at "L'Envoi (Kipling)"). I did think we had documentation about this at some point, with dozens of examples mostly based around The Raven (Poe), though I can't find it at the moment—the closest I can find is WS:MOS#Disambiguation, versions and translations pages —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Author:Hannes Walter

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Recent author with no known works in PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This may be an old page, but there's no reason to keep an author who has no apparent freely licensed works, who has no US works or prior to 1989, and who died in 2004. In the US and EU, with current laws, his works will leave copyright in 2074.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Delete we've deleted such authors in the past —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Manuscript of Dr. Ellington

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, per nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I failed to find any information about both the work and its alleged author, so it is most probably out of our scope. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete I started looking into this when it was posted, but had to pause and forgot to come back to it. I also failed to find anything and suspect that it is fanfic at best. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

1990 Census Name Files

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a severely incomplete dump of a US Census Bureau website, containing only a tiny fraction of the data, and that is sourced to the Internet Archive archive of the website rather than the website itself. It is also mainly raw census statistical data (apart from the cover page), so strictly speaking out of scope. But mostly it's just pretty pointless for us to (badly) mirror the Internet Archive's mirror of a born-digital website which was subject to USGov archival regulations to begin with (you can still FOIA-request those pages and expect to have them handed over). Xover (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep (weak). This page is in scope, and the dist.all.last directory is also technically in scope, by being an accompaniment to the main report. However, I do not think the table listing should be hosted, and I certainly think a listing of the first one hundred items in that list is more definitely so. However, excluding the somewhat related attachments, the page is complete, and connects to other pages. I would prefer neither of the pages be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep born digital file that our "open" government persists in publishing in pdf. when you have reliable data link, migrate to commons data. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Les Propheties

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; scan exists and is now linked from the Main page of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a 1961 translation, but without scan it is an unattainable goal to keep the work faithful to this edition, as people keep adding more alleged prophecies taken from elsewhere, like here, or removing them, like here, and nobody stops them, probably because this particular translation is not available anywhere and so no addition or removal of parts of text can be checked. I believe that works of similar kind always have to be scanbacked and therefore suggest deletion of this one, which will create space for adding some of many other, better available, translations. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep (for now). I will try to obtain and scan a copy of the 1961 translation, and a match-and-split can solve this problem. I ask that it not be deleted too quickly. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete But always happy to hold off on such deletions if someone is actually willing to do the work required to save it. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please keep in mind though, that, given the current random state of the text, we're talking about actually proofreading all of it. Just moving the current unverifiable mess to Page: and retranscluding it does absolutely nothing for us. --Xover (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Xover: Quick update: I’ve picked up a copy of the book in which the translations were published, and have confirmed that it is in the public domain. I will be able to scan it soon. It also contains a fair amount of text beyond the actual translation, but it’s not necessary to proofread that to be able to keep the work for right now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I really hope to get this scanned in either this week or next week. Jan Kameníček: I looked at the two examples you provided to see whether they were true additions. There are only ten centuries which survive in whole; however, within the “Duplicate and Fragmentary Centuries,” there are some additional prophecies, including two from an eleventh century and a number from a twelfth century. The prophecies of the twelfth century are not numbered ordinately, and there are noticeable gaps in the original. All of the prophecies added by the first IP, including the one removed by the second IP, are forgeries, and are not to be found in Leoni. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Xover: I have scanned the book; the scan is in five parts (owing to page limits on scans), but one was too large to upload locally (but see 1, 2, 3, 5). Where should I upload it? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Impressive work! Several thoughts:
  • Why not upload it to Commons? I've confirmed that its U.S. copyright was not renewed here: [1] On Commons, the template is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.
  • I believe one of the several reasons DJVU files are preferable to PDF is that they are typically smaller. Also, unless I've missed something, DJVU is required for Match & Split. I'd be happy to convert these, and perhaps combine them into fewer files, if you'd like.
  • Have you kept (or could you make) higher quality individual scans of the image plates, and upload them as PNG?
  • Are you aware that it's possible to send a book to be scanned by the Internet Archive? I have a few I've been meaning to send, but I have not personally used this process. Could be worthwhile for future projects. See these links: Overview; Webinar, discusses their process in depth;form to send them a book
  • Also, it is possible to upload files larger than 100MB, but not with the standard form. I believe I could help with this as well but I have to refamiliarize myself with the process. (One easy, but roundabout, way to do it is to upload first to IA, then use the IA Upload tool to transfer to Commons.)
  • I owe you an email separate from all this, and it's on its way.
-Pete (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Pete: 1. When I scan a book in multiple parts, I upload them without metadata here so they can be combined and reuploaded as one file with metadata at Commons. 2. Especially for books of length, that would take a great deal of time; this book, scanning with PDF as native, took me over six hours in two sittings. I usually make (and will make in this case) high-quality scan images of pages with images. Another problem is file size: I have to scan to a flash drive which only has about 6 GB of free space, so scanning high-quality images would require more sittings. (It’s a twenty or thirty minute walk to scan things, by the way.) 3. The book is not mine, so I cannot send it in; like most of the books I scan in, they are borrowed from libraries of other universities. 4. Annoyingly, the fourth (of five parts) is ~107 MB, so I can’t upload it locally. To upload it there, even, I have to use the miserable Wizard. It also requires me to use Commons, which makes it worse. I do have an IA account, which I have been using to upload some microfilm scans; but I don’t know how to use IA Upload (and I don’t think that would be the best move in this case because it is a partial file). 5. Okay, I’ll be on the lookout. (Thanks for reminding me to check my email.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. Thanks for explaining your process, that makes sense.
  2. Again, good to understand your process, I'm all the more impressed with this effort given what you're telling me.
  3. Yeah, I should have been more clear, I understood this one was from the library, but it seems like a good option to be aware of (because sometimes we have the books we want to get scanned.) Just wanted to offer the info, please disregard if irrelevant.
  4. I think I can help with that, but I'll have to think through how to best help. IA Upload is a tremendously valuable tool! It can be a little fiddly but it usually works. If you can get it uploaded to IA, I can do the IA Upload transfer from IA to Commons...and I could walk you through the steps if you'd like.
  5. OK, check your inbox again -- sent now. -Pete (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
You can upload works of arbitrary size to the Internet Archive as zips of images and then copy them to Commons with IA upload even if they are oversized.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea. (CC @Peteforsyth): You can upload files of arbitrary size (up to either 2GB or 4GB, which is the hard limit) using c:User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. It's not particularly intuitive or user friendly, but if you're at all technically inclined you should be able to figure it out. That lets you upload single files of arbitrary size to either Commons or enWS (you need to install it both places).
The biggest limitation is that it only uploads single files (so it's for the end product). Batch upload of individual files can be done using one of the Standalone desktop applications for Commons. I haven't tested any of these, but the most commonly mentioned is Pattypan.
Uploading images to IA is also a good option. One thing is the ia-upload tools and similar, but if you want me (or someone else at the Scan Lab) to generate a DjVu for you (with or without modifications), IA is a convenient place to download the individual files from. But, of course, that presupposes the images are more or less completely processed (crop, levels, orientation, etc.) and are PD worldwide.
Regarding this specific scan, just use bigChunkedUpload.js to upload the last PDF along the other four and I'll extract pages and generate a DjVu. Unless you want to do the extra work of uploading the individual images to IA. Working from individual images rather than the PDFs will avoid some generational loss (multiple lossy re-compressions), but may not be worth the effort in practice (depends what tools and data you have convenient etc.). Xover (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

An Introduction to Botany. Containing an Explanation of the Theory of That Science

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Scan exists if someone has the patience, but the work is of very limited value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While the work is in scope, it is not scan backed (though has ext link to scan) and has been long abandoned and is well incomplete. It serves no real purpose in its current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, it's a stupid name but the chapters transcribed are actually transcribed. It just needs to be at a less stupid namespace. I'll do it.  — LlywelynII 12:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: It is not the solely the name, as I took it away from "An introduction to ..." as it needed disambiguating, and knew at the time that I was nominating for deletion. The work needs to be fully backed by scans or deleted. We don't accept partial, abandoned works where they cannot be completed without their source to tie them to an edition. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
You're obviously around more, but of course it doesn't and that's a silly policy. Half-done work is better than nothing for expansive collaboration projects like this. There's literally nothing gained from removing it; the original text is perfectly available; and it provides greater access as is.
It's exactly the same situation as these silly ancient year categories. Sure it's currently useless. It's within scope and better to have it ready for the next guys with interest/helpful completionists. — LlywelynII 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: If it was transcribed to a scan, then it would be perfectly acceptable to be incomplete and available for further work. It is our clear experience that works in this form they do not progress, they just sit and rot. If someone wishes to upload the scan, and start the migration process, then it approaches something retainable and workable. Currently? Simply too hard for users to easily progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment This was tied to WD item Q19109835, which indicates a scan, and that scan exists on Commons. However this work is of little to no value, being a translation of a work by Linnaeus that focuses almost exclusively on listing and defining terms, then describing Linnaeus' high-level classification of plants, which was quickly discarded by taxonomists. Wikipedia and Wiktionary together provide a much better source of information than this volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Pilgrim's Progress (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This is an unsourced edition added from an unknown edition. There are two scan-backed copies of this work on enWS. Languageseeker (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Delete. Could be even speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version.. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Is the unsourced edition identical to one of the sourced editions? If so, I'll speedy it myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Mennonite Handbook of Information

The following discussion is closed:

brought up to standard, scan backed — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This work was a copy and paste dump, and essentially unactioned/unimproved since. It is not a worthy representation of the work, nor particularly fit for presentation. The work is within scope, though, it is my understanding that it is a work that is in many editions as a regular update of information and republished, none of which is evident with our form. So it seems that the page itself would be a {{versions}} page, and with each edition otherwise suitably located and linked from that page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like most of the work is missing, but what is there is at least partially cleaned up. If an appropriate scan is found, I would be willing to bring what we already have up to WS standards, and leave it as a work in progress for anyone desiring to add the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't resist .... Index:Mennonite Handbook of Information 1925.djvu —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Manifesto of Prague

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted by billinghurst, unknown license. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While this open letter is of interest, I accept that the copyright status hasn't been established; as the only the significant contributor to the page, I propose deleting. My thanks to Jan Kameníček for discussion elsewhere. Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

deleted Thanks for the self-nom. @Klbrain: Do note that something like open letters on the web can be linked to from their author or portal page where we cannot host. We would still expect the portal or the author to have that "notability" component for the respective author or portal page to exist. It is out attempt to find balance. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Index:NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SURVEY 21 YUGOSLAVIA COUNTRY PROFILE CIA-RDP01-00707R000200100031-1.pdf (

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as author's request.

Index:NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SURVEY 21 YUGOSLAVIA COUNTRY PROFILE CIA-RDP01-00707R000200100031-1.pdf ( typo in index name. sorry about that. Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 10:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Index:CFA exam story.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract from a web-only source without suitable licensing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this in our scope? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I've asked the contributor: It is an extract from a brochure posted on a webpage. So it is an extract from an unpublished work without a PD license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Satyricon

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; recreated as redirect to scan-backed copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Unformatted copy-dump from 2007. We have a proper scan-backed copy in progress. (transcription project) --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Can be deleted, but it seems it will be replaced by the scan-backed version soon anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The Index page for the scan uses a different page title. This pagename may be needed for disambiguation. Many English translations exist, as well as other works with this title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. My plan initially was to just transclude over the existing page, but as you note there are multiple translations and other works. For now I'm going to delete Satyricon to break the Wikidata association and then recreate it as a redirect to The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter until we get more versions.
PS. If any text on here needs trigger warnings it's this one (you name the trigger, this text has got it). Even the critical commentary is… very very sus. Xover (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Plan of Discipline

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, as extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a separate work, but just a short extract from the work Journals of Major Robert Rogers, see here. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Cjhanleyjr/Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report ‎

The following discussion is closed:

blanked, at U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly a duplicate or early draft transclusion of U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report and the user has not been active on Wikisource for over a Decade. The flagged LintErrors are minor.

Do we retain userspace drafts indefinitely on English Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:TheSkullOfRFBurton/Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society/Volume I

The following discussion is closed:

blanked page, though not deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly abandoned Transcription, user was last active over a decade ago. If retained should be scan-backed somehow... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment This is a work that we would prefer to have from scans, and as subpages. Showing in this form is problematic, so blanked. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:RJGray/On a Property of the Set of All Real Algebraic Numbers

The following discussion is closed:

kept; no action — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Userspace draft, not substantially edited since 2016. If retained the subscript errors should be solved , and the work moved to the Translation namespace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: While I personally think we should delete old userspace drafts and sandboxes that cause the slightest bit of problem (provided they appear long-abandoned, of course, and with a "speedy" undelete if the user returns and asks for it), I don't expect the community to support that absent significant problems caused by the individual userspace page. Especially since we have less intrusive options such as blanking the page without deleting it. I could be wrong but that has been the general tenor in previous instances.
But on the other hand we certainly shouldn't start moving stuff out of userspace that we don't know the provenance of since there's probably a reason why it is in userspace and not in a content namespace. Xover (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This one is however sourced, and I am thinking it's a user translation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
See Also: User:RJGray/Sandbox ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  Comment This one can't be moved into the Translation: namespace, since it does not meet our guidelines for an original translation: "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation." --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/sandbox

The following discussion is closed:

kept, though blanked — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft transcription (non scan backed) of a European Treaty, Not substantially edited in over a Decade. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Blue-Haired Lawyer: Do you still need your (ca. 2010) user sandbox here? If you want to keep it, would you mind if we blanked the page so it doesn't show up in maintenance backlogs? Incidentally, if it's deleted now and you later want to get back to it, you should be able to just grab any admin and ask for undeletion with reference to this discussion (a permanent link to which should typically be provided in the deletion log for the page so you don't have to keep track of it). Xover (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Sam joe quick/Speech at the Meeting Celebrating the Completion of the Building of the Anti-Japanese Military and Political University

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

userspace draft or transcription of an unsourced speech. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Note that this particular user has made all of four edits to any WMF project, each edit creating a page in mainspace that was subsequently moved to userspace due to lacking any kind of quality, source, license, etc.: Special:PrefixIndex/Sam joe quick/.
There was no response to Billinghurst's message on their talk page at that time, so I hold it exceedingly unlikely that this user will ever return to the project. If they do they can easily request undeletion.
What I'm saying is that, yes, userspace drafts should get wide latitude for active or somewhat established users; drive-by copydumps temporarily moved to userspace to get them out of mainspace do not qualify. (this, btw, is why I do not think moving things to userspace is a good idea: it ends up as a dumping ground for all the junk, essentially kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with). --Xover (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be the same as [2], by Mao Tse-tung. Ping User:Sam joe quick for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pt. Ram Prasad 'Bismil'-A warrior of Pen & Pistol

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per consensus — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The work, whose addition to Wikisource bears many signs of selfpromotion, cannot be found anywhere, and so it most probably is not within our scope. Its author tried to promote his work in English Wikipedia too, but it finished with an indefblock for gross incompetence, which (among others) included adding fake references. The self-promotion attempts continued from IP addresses or from sock-puppet accounts after the block too. As a result I do not trust his contributions here very much either. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless someone can follow up with a good paper source for this text (something we could at least buy, or better yet read directly online as a scan), then I would say   Delete. If it was really from 1985, some kind of non-online source should be provideable. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this self-publishing author. I had several discussions with him back in 2011 to 2013. He was supposed to do OTRS releases for anything he wanted to put on here (see the December 2012 archives of the copyright violations page). If such can't be found, then I'm more than happy for this to be consigned to the wastebin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
If you do really want to buy it.... https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30873290980 MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Given the contributor's history, I would prefer some accessible source to be checked. Even if the paper were really published in the linked publication, we cannot be sure that text presented here is exactly the same as the one there (the false references mentioned above are a clear warning). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh sure, and if we wanted translations of Ram Prasad Bismil's poetry, whether someone wants to do a clean translation into Translation: rather than deal with the copyright mess of the conference proceedings. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
After some search I found the following information: Manmath Nath Gupta was also present as an Indian delegate in the International Symposium on India and World Literature (IWL) at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi on 27 February 1985 (...) He was much pleased when a paper on his leader titled as Pt. Ram Prasad 'Bismil': A Warrior of Pen & Pistol was placed before the delegates. That sounds like some paper with the same title as our text was really published at the conference, but its author was somebody else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Except that that text was added to the WP article by the author of this paper. Gupta was just present at the conference and Verma was the author and presenter of the paper. The conference proceedings are still in copyright—thus my request to him to provide OTRS releases. I neglected to follow that up as it was happening during the time I was have major health issues in RL. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep absent some evidence against its being legitimate (other than aspersions directed against the author). The poorly-worded Wikipedia article appears to be merely a glancing reference to the paper; I do not believe that it is meant that Mr. Gupta wrote it. In any case, I am looking into India and World Literature at the moment, so I request that the file not be deleted for the time being. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Comment no further progress made to work, so there is no clear reason for retention per above conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Expedition of Humphry Clinker

The following discussion is closed:

kept; work now transcluded from scans, so fully within scope

abandoned work, not scan-backed, only 2 chapters of plenty. Work itself, is not out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Note that the two chapters themselves are now scan backed as they were just proofread, I think we should hold on deleting to see if further chapters are done. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to hold off if someone is working on it. @Chrisguise: Are you planning to work on this? Would you prefer we keep this or delete it to make way for your new transcription? Xover (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I am intending to progress this work (in my usual haphazard and erratic fashion). I worked with the existing structure and have already overwritten the 'unsourced' text, so there's no need to delete anything. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-India-CWMG

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; uses have been converted to standard template — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

From IP address 184.21.204.5, on Template talk:PD-India-CWMG: "Why is there a special template for Gandhi's works? / Is there a special copyright exemption for works of Gandhi? If not, why is this template not more general?" PseudoSkull (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

FTR there is no special copyright exemption for Gandhi's works. Anything tagged with {{PD-India-CWMG}} could just as well be tagged {{PD-US|1948}} (although not {{PD-India}}, which only applies to works which were PD in India in 1996). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Gandhi's works became PD in India on January 1st, 2009. Yann (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  Comment If this template is deleted, Module:PD-India-CWMG should be deleted as well. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
clean up was complete and checked (as usual by me for my deletions) in this space — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Masks or Faces?

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

Work in itself is not out of scope; however, it has just 2 of 15 subpages, and was started in 2011, so should be considered abandoned. Not scan backed. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Two on a Tower

The following discussion is closed:

deleted

While the work is in scope, we only have one chapter prior to the work being abandoned. Not supported by a scan. There will be scans available, though even with a scan uploaded, this version is not worth trying to rescue. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. Easier to start from scratch. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Anarchy (Malatesta)

The following discussion is closed:

converted to redirect to its root page; updated wikidata — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an unsourced partial duplicate from a different edition of the work that is now scan backed here: Anarchy and Is It All a Dream?/Anarchy MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Free media

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as unused and not required — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

10+ year old cut&paste import by a now-globally locked account, untouched since, entirely without documentation, and currently unused (I very much doubt it's ever been used). All it does is add a single global category that we could equally well add either manually (to the file's description page) or through our proper licensing templates. It is also nonsensical: it purports to tag "all free media", but all media on enWS is free by definiton. It probably makes sense on enWP (from where it was copied) because they have a concept of non-free media (they permit some copyrighted content to be used under fair use exemptions). Xover (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  •   Delete I agree with the rationale. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete When I saw it appearing earlier I was considering speedy, but needed to think through it a bit more. I really don't see the point of its existence here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don’t think the identity of the creator is relevant, and I don’t think that a speedy deletion would have been appropriate given the age of the template and its recent use. These objections aside, I agree that the template has use, and should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
    The identity of the uploader is relevant insofar as it takes quite a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour to be globally banned by the WMF (we're talking off-wiki harassment and similar, in addition to on-wiki shenanigans), which means we can no longer assume good faith in their actions. So in cases like these where we have incomplete information (i.e. why the template was created, what it was to be used for, etc.) it affects the assessment for those aspects. Xover (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment the Category:All free media was created in conjunction with the Template, and has no content. Should it also be deleted? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed, I'd meant to list that too explicitly. Xover (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

PD-art

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per consensus — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-art, and the attendant Category:PD-art, are nonsense as framed. It appears to have been created / used when Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was novel / controversial, but the text it uses doesn't really address the core issue there. The template is now unused (I removed the last three uses) and is in all cases redundant to our actual license templates (it is never sufficient to use {{PD-art}} alone). If we feel the need for some way to indicate that application of Bridgeman v. Corel the right way would be to create an equivalent to Commons' c:Template:PD-scan (which is designed to wrap the actual license template and merely explain how it applies given Bridgeman). I propose we get rid of it and if a need pops up for something in this vein we create something fit for purpose (which may be a parameter to our existing licensing module instead of a new template). Xover (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Delete unclear why we would be hosting such reproductions instead of commons anyways. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Index:Home Life in Tokyo 1910 by Jukichi Inouye.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

speedy deleted as duplicate, after ensuring subpages are present in alternate work — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Index:Home Life in Tokyo (homelifeintokyo00inouuoft).djvu. The latter is newer, but has more completed work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Isagoge (Owen)

This is a secondhand transcription, which does not meet WS:WWI. This work can be salvaged if an Index page it set up from a scan of the original publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Delete unless scanbacked. The volume which this text has been extracted from is available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b286823 (or both volumes of the work at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001227555 ). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is part of Index:O. F. Owen's Organon of Aristotle Vol. 2 (1853).djvu. I will proofread the 25 pages which shouldn't take too long. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I have now transcluded it from the 1853 Bohn edition with an initial pass. @Jan.Kamenicek, @EncycloPetey @Xover is that sufficient to address your concerns? MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment @MarkLSteadman: please convert it to a redirect and mark this as {{section resolved}} when done. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Converted into a redirect to the scan-backed transcription from the original larger work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

1904 List of Qualified Jurors, Singapore

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; published list, with identified source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The page is a list of qualified jurors in Singapore for the year of 1904. As per what WS:SCOPE#Reference material mentioned, pure lists are out of Wikisource's scope unless it forms part of another source text. The page should therefore be deleted for out of scope with reference to WS:CSD#G5.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep. This work was, apparently, published in the Government Gazette for October 21, 1904, which is clearly another source text. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Question WS:SCOPE states that Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. But as we don't have corresponding transcribed text for that issue of government gazette, isn't that it is not published as part of a complete source text?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
      You're right. It's just that those who do not wish to delete anything, ever, for any reason (I'm exaggerating for effect, but you get my drift...) tend to wikilawyer that part of the policy. Combined with the general reluctance of the community to delete things for being incomplete (no matter how incomplete and poor quality), we tend to end up keeping even stuff like this (loose, cut&pasted, lists of names, other random accumulations of data). I'm all for raising our standards a bit and deleting any such cruft that nobody is actually working on, but we'll see where we stand when it comes time to close this discussion. Xover (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep Published work which is a list, so more than a reference. Complete and useful to someone. Ideally it would be resituated as a subpage to its published work. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete Isolated lists are out of scope per WS:SCOPE#Reference material. If we wanted, we could flood Wikisource with copying similar lists from various sources here (even bots could be employed for such work), but do we really want to? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
      Keep per @Billinghurst and @TE(æ)A,ea.. This is "more than a reference." It has value more than is currently recognized. It is also a rare and historically interesting document from a geographic area that lacks the depth of coverage that are available from other countries/ areas. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

How the Other Half Lives

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; scan-backed copy is in progress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced text claiming to be the original 1890 version, which significantly differs from the original publication by:

  • illustrations used, compare e.g. illustrations in our How the Other Half Lives/Chapter VI with the original (I suspect that the contributor instead scanning the original simply used some other partly similar available photos of the same places)
  • omitted illustrations used in the original, like this one
  • added notes, which are not present in the original (and without the source we may also suspect they are copyrighted)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that we ran it in the Monthly Challenge last year so initial work towards a proofread copy was done here, which has most of the correct illustrations but needs the text proofread. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Page:"Another enemy to conquer forest fires, nine out of ten can be prevented" - NARA - 513860.tif

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; Beyond scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Has not been transcribed and the image resolution isn't good enough to make the text legible. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Delete. I'd say this—a sheet of stamps—is a bit outside what Wikisource is suited for. Had it been a single stamp it'd be more borderline, but there is no sane way we can reproduce this in a way that adds value to our readers. Xover (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wreck of the Steamer "Stella"

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; complicated issue, but print copy found to serve as source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: original by Languageseeker, with claim “out of scope - secondary transcription.” However, there is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. A secondary transcription is a transcription made at another site and then imported here, from my understanding of the closed proposal. This work is marked as “no source”; thus, it is not evident that it originated from an illegal source. For the record, I oppose the deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm interpreting the policy as including "no source" as being "secondary transcriptions" by default. Languageseeker (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. If there is no source, then it cannot be a secondary transcription, and if it is a secondary transcription, then it has a source. The two cases are inherently mutually exclusive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey What is to stop users from source washing by simply omitting the secondary source? Languageseeker (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it would be good to communicate to contributors clearly what we expect them to do, if what we want them to do is to provide a source we should explicitly communicate that to them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I did reach out to the user and offer to find them a scan. Part of the rationale for this policy is to stop further unsourced/secondary transcriptions. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You mean: how can you police the honesty of contributors? That's an entirely separate issue, and not relevant for this deletion discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk)
It’s about making a presumption that no source = secondary transcription as the most likely scenario. The other works that the user posted are from a secondary source. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This almost certainly was copied from one of the many secondary transcriptions online, which are probably copying each other and I hazard likely eventually back to Yet More Poetic Gems, which is a British 1980 compilation and therefore copyrighted (the compilation, probably not the poem). It would be a lot better if the original source could be found, probably in some periodical, but if it can't be, a "naked" text is the best we can have, though there would always be an open question over whether it was modified in the 1980 edition (with a small but non-zero risk of creative input: cf. the posthumous "improvement" of Charles Bukowski's work). So it could be an exception to the second hand text thing based on lack of public domain source. Any ideas where the original was published, anyone? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the poem was first published in 1962 in More Poetic Gems. Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)–
That can't be right, it sounds like it was likely first published in some local Dundee paper around the time of the event. That Wikipedia list looks like someone has just transcribed the TOCs of the collections at the IA. For example, apparently the one about Gilfillan was published in the Dundee Weekly News, not in a 1962 collection, 60 years after McGonagall's death. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This begets the question of how much work do we need to do to hunt down the original publication. If the uploader transcribed the poem from an original publication, they should be able to easily list it. Otherwise, I'm inclined to presume that they simply copied it from an online source. Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Can you solve the mystery and tell us the source of this poem? Languageseeker (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Worldcat says that the poem was originally published in 1899. But I haven't been able to find an instance of the original publication. DoublePendulumAttractor (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Languageseeker, @DoublePendulumAttractor: You might want to note that "Lines in Praise of Tommy Atkins" was also published in More Poetic Gems (1962).
I really don't have any access to print media (although I surely wish I did), and searching Google Books doesn't yield anything with "Preview available", but I do know that several other poems have been published posthumously; that might have been the case with these two poems. Just giving you some advice. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Thank you. This source would make it a secondary transcription and out-of-scope. Languageseeker (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  Keep It rather seems to me that this poem will not be easy to scan-back due to lack of unambiguously copyright-free physical copies. While any one poem is clearly in the PD, the actual book Yet More Poetic Gems is not because copyright subsists in the collection itself, so we can't host a scan of that book.
Thus, I suggest that this poem should be permitted, since it's unreasonable to expect someone to use a scan if no-one can find a scan. If a scan comes along in future, probably due to digitisation of some local Dundee broadsheet, this "unsourced edition" (in that it's not clearly tied to a physical edition, though it likely is YMPGs) can be replaced with a suitably backed copy. In the mean time, we have {{unsourced}} and {{second-hand}} to make it's provenance, or lack thereof, clear.
This is, IMO, an appropriate time to invoke a WS:WWI#Consensus exception due to the unusual lack of any hostable scan for the work.
If scans were available, I would expect those to be used instead for all the usual reasons. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
apparantly there is a broadsheet floating out there [3]; [4] - but it might be hard to find to scan. when you delete it you make it harder to find. (maybe you should contact the Univ Edin. group at WMUK --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
National Library of Scotland has a print copy dated 1899 [5]. Therefore in scope (as are any other of McGonagall's poems being nominated). As we have NLS people involved here talk to their liaison contact @LilacRoses: and see if they can help. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Act No. 3815

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, as this has sat unrepaired for years now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Weirdly it looks to have been originally published in English so I am not sure what that translation is about, see e.g. here https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ (which says public domain). The source is almost certainly from the copyrighted source here: https://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippines.htm#.YLgkKXVKiV4 since it has the chan robles header. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please look at Republic Act No. 8293 Section 176 (which is also here in Wikisource at RA 8293#Sec. 176), the Philippine law stating all Philippine government works (including your proposed Act No. 3815) are and must be not copyrighted and are in the public domain.
Also, all Philippine laws are written in English and not a translation of any kind.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Yivan000: Thank you for working to improve this text; however, please familiarise yourself with our style guide. enWS does not use the automatically generated table of content that MediaWiki provides, does not use the heading syntax of MW wikimarkup (we use direct visual formatting instead), and we use formatting templates rather than raw HTML. Paragraph breaks should be done by simply inserting two newlines, and italics should be done with wikimarkup, not HTML. In short, while massively improved from the cut&pasted text that was there before, this is still a mess. Xover (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The complete works of Count Tolstoy

The following discussion is closed:

All PDFs Deleted; some salted to prevent recreation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

@R. J. Mathar: It should be noted that File:The complete works of Count Tolstoy (IA completeworksof02tols).pdf is based on Internet Archive identifier: completeworksof02tols however File:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu was based on Internet Archive identifier: completeworksofc03tols. The First is a Univ. of Florida scan of one of their prints while the latter is an MSN scan of a CDL print. It appears you created some strange Frankenstein of the two of them. I just upload completeworksof02tols.djvu over it and change the documented source (which was originally only documented as "Internet Archive"). —Uzume (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The difference between these two can be easily viewed by comparing: I filled in the missing DJVU Index pages (and media on Commons) since only Volume 2 and Volume 20 are currently transcluding from the PDFs (where as Volume 12, Volume 23 and Volume 24 are from the DJVUs). They aren't particularly pretty but they are now there (the PDFs seem only slightly better as some of the DJVUs seem to have extraneous pages and the OCR is misaligned between pages). —Uzume (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Uzume: You appear to have some level of grasp of the various and sundry issues here?
From the above discussion it seems like the most desired outcome here is ending up with just the DjVu-based indexes, with whatever proofread pages currently associated with the PDFs moved over. In addition I think I hear that there may be some technical issues with some of the DjVu files. Is that roughly correct?
If someone can spoonfeed me the things that needs doing here I can help out with bot-moves, deletions, and (probably) DjVu fixing (misaligned OCR is usually fixable, and extraneous pages can be deleted if worth the effort). Xover (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Xover: Well, I believe I did when I wrote that four months ago (did you wait to respond until the exact same day four months later?). I really am not sure whether the PDF files or the DjVu files "should" be used, however, I did go ahead and fill in and fix many of the DjVu file issues at Commons as well as stub out the Index pages here. In doing so, I ran in to issues with IAUpload for three cases where IA had no existing DjVu files (it was creating extraneous pages not in IA PDF files causing misaligned OCR). As memory serves (I would have to spend time to look it up again), I backed off and had used PDF to DjVu conversion as a work around (which fixed the content but also causes the quality to drop). I am pretty sure I gave some feedback about this on tickets in Phabricator (along with other issues I found in the tool). I shall try spin back up on this (it might take me a few days to find the time) and then "spoonfeed" you a few things to help get this cleaned up, however I shall likely move such discussion to your talk page then and leave this discussion as more a status update (assuming few people here really want to hear about the detailed technical minutiae). —Uzume (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Uzume: Ping? Xover (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Xover:: Pong? —Uzume (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I was promised a spoon-feeding. :) Xover (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What's the status of these? I'd like to do some of Tolstoy's works. Yann (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: From a source perspective, both seem to be complete though a few (perhaps three) might have slightly better quality on the PDF side of things but that could be remedied by going back to the page scans and rebuilding the DjVu; last I checked IA-Upload has some issues in this department). Otherwise, feel free to work on whatever you want. My understanding is that the DjVu series is currently more complete than the PDF one (in terms of pages transcribed) so I would work there and recommend having the PDF side of things being deleted (some may ague the other way however). —Uzume (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to go through deleting the PDFs and their pages, but someone should first edit Author:Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy to switch all PDF scan links on that Author page to their DjVu equivalents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night

The following discussion is closed:

Cleaned out; Vols. 1 & 3 have transcription started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A nearly fifteen year old mess of a copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Comment a horrid mess, and I approve its judicious clean out with a clear mind that there is probably some things there that can be saved, but much rampant copy and paste should just be culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Mikado

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, but Scan transcription and transclusion started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-scanbacked, the given source is http://www.archive.org/details/mikadoorthetowno002227mbp , but the text in this source differs significantly in some scenes from the text we have here, compare e.g. The Mikado/For he's gone and married Yum-Yum with https://archive.org/details/mikadoorthetowno002227mbp/page/n31/mode/2up . -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep absent a scan-backed alternative. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete I'd rather start fresh than have this text that differs from the published version. Languageseeker (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  •   Keep and scan back with Index:The Mikado or the town of titipu.djvu. The text originally uploaded in 2006 appears to be based on the Chappell & Co. Vocal Score. At some point JVB found the Schirmer edition and put that link on the Talk page. If I recall my G&S history correctly, the Schirmer editions were based on pirated scores from the American touring productions. The Index: that Clockery uploaded in 2013 is the official publication of the libretto by Chappell & Co. and is the one we should be using as the primary edition. The Schirmer can be an historical oddity for interest. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Beeswaxcandle: Are you voting to keep the work if scanbacked or even if not scanbacked? It does not seem anybody is going to proofread the index anytime soon, so I suggest deleting the confused version we have, and after the index is proofread, it can be founded again. IMO indexes of works not present in Wikisource have higher probability of being proofread than indexes of works whose poor versions already exist here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll work on getting it scan-backed gradually amongst other tasks. The final presentation will be different, but might as well leave it there for the time-being. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I also have an interest in improving our coverage of Gilbert's works, and have it on my to-do-eventually list :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser sdu9aya9fasdsopa/CIA Inspector General Special Review: Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, but blanked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User space transcription, sourced, but seemingly un-edited in over a decade.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete Contains very little actual transcribed content (mostly just a whole lot of copy/pasted "censored" boxes) out of a very girthy report. The user has exercised their right to vanish, meaning they are both exceedingly unlikely to return on their own and would in any case be prevented from continuing work on a draft in their vanished account userspace. The old draft is triggering lint errors and maintenance backlogs, and contains a link to a domain-squatter (well, the ACLU is redirecting to it, but we're linking to aclu.org; *sigh*).
    For any active or established but currently inactive user we should leave a lot of leeway for userspace drafts. But for a vanished user, any draft that comes up here is most likely a good delete candidate (unless someone wants to grab whatever it is to work on immediately). --Xover (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

List of Bagram detainees as of 2009-09-22

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, without consensus; but verifiable and not user-compiled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this work seems to fall under the "reference material" precedent exlusion in WS:WWI, so I want to get community consensus as to whether this document is in scope, before I invest more time in improving the transcription. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak   Delete. It is not a fully-fledged published work, it is just a table downloaded from a website. There are zillions of various tables all over the internet, so I would stick to the regulation of WWI that tables should be a "part of a complete source text" to be elligible for inclusion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have many government documents, which are themselves rather short, and I think that this document is “complete” so far as our guidelines are concerned (considering that we a number of letters, notes, etc., of only a very few pages which are still “complete”). It was not traditionally published, but the same could be said of a number of other government documents—not the less that this one was released as part of a court case. I do not think that the fact of this specific document being in tabular form should bar it from being a valid work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep unenthusiastically. As long as it is properly curated, then I have no issue. Not saying that I encourage them, or really feel the value in them, just if they are complete documents of something notable, and usable at a WP, then they are okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete. It is out of scope as mere data, a list compiled in response to a FOIA request; neither published in any form nor part of any larger work (an appendix to a court opinion or report or similar). Nobody has found this information of sufficient interest to publish it in this form anywhere, except the uploader here. This is exactly what the WWI exclusion is about. If we permitted this one could drown the site in similar "lists of random stuff" and be entirely within policy. --Xover (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Xover: No, it’s not true that this list was “compiled in response to a FOIA request;” FOIA cannot be used to compel agencies to create new information, merely to release existing information. Thus, this file existed before its release was compelled. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
      Quite possibly. But looking at the format of the file it seems more likely to me that it was compiled from some underlying source or sources (database, spreadsheet, etc.) in response to the FOIA request. Dumping a list of inmates in a given prison from your prisoner database isn't really "creating new information" in any relevant sense. Xover (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Great Battles of Bulgaria and Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

These texts by Lyubomir Ivanov (aka User:Apcbg) are extracts from Bulgaria: Bezmer and adjacent regions — Guide for American military, and are therefore out of scope. Although these passages are CC-BY, the full work is copyrighted and cannot be hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What out of scope, these articles are self-contained chapters of a work not considered to be hosted here. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. The works that do not meet the criteria are considered out of scope, and they can be speedy deleted or nominated for deletion. Please would you explain how these works are in scope. BT is saying that they are extracts of the original work, so not within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I cannot see how the concise prehistory and history of a country spanning over several dozen centuries could be "not within scope". Apcbg (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Scope is not determined by the subject of a work, but by the nature of the work itself. "Selected sections of a larger work are generally not acceptable" according to our policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. In this case, because we have self-contained portions which are allowable and the whole work is not allowable, I think they should be allowed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral and need more information. These are not 2 distinctive works, and as such would not be hosted, they are parts of a larger document. I would expect to see all of the document or none if we look at the referenced PDF. Our WWI does not talk about self-contained components in that form, so I am not swayed by that as an argument. The work has a copyright anyway, and truly needs to have permission granted and that stored in the WMF's database of permissions anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Self-containment is attested by its citation 1-7, 8, 9 in academic publications. Apcbg (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that these are not two distinctive works. (I am not sure why a chapter being cited in an academic publication would make it a self-contained work; publications cite individual passages all the time.) Copyright is not really an issue, as it just requires some paperwork on the part of the author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes publications cite individual passages but in their list of references they always reference such passages to some distinctive works; in this case, fact is citations are referenced to "Essential History etc." Apcbg (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Umm??? References go to the published work. If it is in a serial then it one has one form of citation, if it is a book, then it is to a chapter. And you are here at English Wikisource and looking for a work to be here. The commentary that you are getting here is that we are seeing this as a two chapters of a more complete work. We either have the complete work if it is in scope, or we have nothing, per our inclusion criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
References go to where they actually do; those above go not to a more complete work but to "Essential History etc." as a distinct work. Apcbg (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The work seems cited as part of a larger document, not as any individual work. There is no evidence of the publishing of the parts of document as singular documents, and any reference should be viewed as indicative, not normative. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
"The work seems cited as part of a larger document." Not at all. With minor variations, the nine citations above are of the form "Ivanov, L. Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, March 2007." No larger document cited. Apcbg (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Umm, both works clearly say "First published in: L. Ivanov ed., Bulgaria: Bezmer and adjacent regions — Guide for American military, Multiprint Ltd., Sofia, 2007, ISBN 978-954-90437-8-5.", then both works link to webpages that are individual, and not any of the publications cited.   Delete as extracts as they are not part of their larger cited documents. That they also seem to fit the category of self-published and no authoritative review is also adding to my disquiet. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
"Delete as extracts as they are not part of their larger cited documents" – Not sure what this might mean. Citation in nine academic publications is an authoritative review par excellence. Apcbg (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Superiority

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; duplicate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The pages are doubly transcluded, where it's also present at Popular Science Monthly/Volume 56/March 1900/Fragments of Science. It seems like the latter is the place it should be, and not at this base page. In fact, "Anglo-Saxon Superiority" seems to only be a section of the "Fragments of Science" article, and not a work in its own right. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Images of tables in Brain/Volume 31/Part 3/A Human Experiment in Nerve Division/Chapter 2

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the following images with HTML tables, so they are no longer necessary.

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Done, speedied PseudoSkull (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Henry derozio

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be an earlier version, with incorrect name, of what is also at Henry Derozio, the Eurasian, poet, teacher, and journalist. -- Beardo (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

McClure's Magazine/Volume 38/Number 5/Alexander's MasqueradeAlexander's Masquerade

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a duplicate with a wrong name of McClure's Magazine/Volume 38/Number 5/Alexander's Masquerade. -- Beardo (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Done speedied. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; Index and Transclusion started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Also known as The Jefferson Bible, this is an edited redux of the gospels by Thomas Jefferson. Our current text is an incomplete copy of unknown origin containing 17 of the 89 published chapters. There is a good scan at IA (external scan), but what we currently have is an incomplete copy added to Wikisource in 2007, but with no named source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The scan is already at Commons, so I'll set up an Index:Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (IA lifemoralsjesusnaz00jeff).pdf --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

United States Headquarters Agreement

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

These are two different works, though the critical text is (theoretically, at least!) the same:
Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
retain as different editions/versions, hat note the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
United States Headquarters Agreement is now transcluded from the USSaL. I did a initial proofread but left it marked as unproofread as I used the USStat templates but they do not produce the correct formatting for the headers (as they produce the earlier style). MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The UN-US Headquarters Agreement is now transcluded from the UN Treaty Series. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Inductiveload: You seem to have a grasp of what these works are. Could you move the editions of the same work to suitably disambiguated pages, create a versions page (or pages, if relevant), add {{other versions}}/{{similar}} hatnotes to link them together, and tag them all with {{migrate to}}? I think this and the below section are about two editions of a UN—US treaty and a distinct agreement relating to implementation of that treaty, but I quickly lose track of what's what here. --Xover (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Again, these are different works that contain the same text with different "contexts":
Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If Inductiveload is saying that they are different editions, then retain, and ensure that we suitably disambiguate with a {{versions}} page, and hat note each with {{other version}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I suspect the actual text edition is from Google Books given the title for the loan as: "Loan Agreement With the United States for the Construction of the Headquarters". Anyways, the loan agreement is in Bevens 974 / TIAS 1899 and 62 Stat. 3725 if we want to move it out and have a proofread copy of that as a separate work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations is now transcluded from the USSaL, the loan agreement is now also present as a separate work. Please clean up and handle the versions pages. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad notam. Diverse years' notes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to delete this text for several reasons:

  1. The alleged source electronic publication is nowhere to be found. Most probably it was a sort of selfpublished "electronic book", judging also by the non-professional design of its cover, and was not preserved permanently anywhere, now being lost forever except its Wikisource copy. As a result, it is impossible to check whether our text is faithful to this "publication" or not, or even if really all these texts were included there.
  2. Without the source publication it is just a random compilation of independent newspaper articles, some of which do not exist in English version.
  3. Many of these articles imo have copyright problems. Although the release of texts under GNU-FDL is allegedly confirmed by ticket:2008032110005275, I am convinced that it applies only to the main author Andrey Lubensky, but not to all other coauthors and translators of the individual texts.

These include Valery Asadchev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/1.21, Andrey Derkach and translator Dmitry Sudakov for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/1.26, Andrei Dashkov for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.2, Vera Solovieva for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.9 and many others, Vladimir Mikheyev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.3, Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.55 and Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.56, Maria Gousseva for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.4, Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.7 and many others, Dmitry Sudakov for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.2 and many others, Leonid Kuchma for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.19, Leonid Sauta for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.23, Major Melnichenko for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.24 and Alexander Grigoriev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/3.11. I really doubt that all these people were included in the correspondence with the OTRS team.

I asked about the ticket at the VRT noticeboard already a week ago, but the VRT team seems to ignore the question. However, I think that the first two reasons I have raised above suffice for deletion. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. The work is complete, and thus the lack of a source cannot be used as a deletion rationale. Thus, your second objection is also moot. As to your third point, I believe that the ticket permission would cover the entire work, as Mr. Lubensky would have had to have obtained the rights for the works in question, and thus would have been in contact with the authors of the respective portions of the publications. Absent doubts being raised about the scope of the ticket’s permissions, this work should be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    I am afraid the lack of a source is a big problem, as the work has become absolutely unverifiable, nobody will ever be able to check it, and Wikisource has thus become the primary source of the compiled e-book, which is not our goal. As for copyright, it hase never been sufficient when a person declared that other people people agreed with releasing rights, they have to agree personally and communicate their agreement to OTRS/VTR. Otherwise we would soon be flooded with alleged public domain releases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is my understanding of the situation wrt the inclusion criteria (separate from the copyright details):
  • Author publishes a series of articles in journals / newspapers. The individual articles are presumably all in scope as not self published.
  • Author then uploads these works to WS and declares this particular collection an ebook
The question is: Can wikisoure host the works under the ebook as is or should instead the individual articles be moved out as works (e.g. under Pravda/<date>/) and then linked (either from Author or Portal) with just the Ad Notam page being deleted? The actual content seems to be in scope (provided the OTRS meets the copyright clearance requirements). MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we have ever deleted a set of, say, Times obituaries for being a "random compilation of independent newspaper articles" and hence out of scope, or say a collection of works by a particular author scattered across a bunch of magazines? I also don't think anyone has raised concerns about things such as Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 lacking an independent source. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The situation is different: 1) Various articles were published in a newspaper. 2) A collection of these articles was selfpublished in an e-book. At least some of these articles were not published word by word in this e-book, but they were edited first, e.g. they were translated from Russian to English, such as this one. Some of them are not accessible anymore and we cannot check how much edited they were. 3) Copy of this e-book was hosted in en.ws. 4) The selfpublished e-book disappeared from the internet. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The only differences I can see are that one is born digital and one is born print and that in one case the self published ebook is hosted by en.ws and the other it was uploaded to commons. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 lacking doesn't exist outside of commons / en.ws either right? How do we know that we have a high fidelity copy besides trusting that the version uploaded was correct? That example has a copy hosted here which is what mentioned on the page. If the entire issue here is that the source is free text in the footer rather than being listed in the header / talk page I am happy to move the links to the talk page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 is most emphatically out of scope and we have definitely deleted such texts before. In this particular case I have tried to work with the contributor (this is not the only such invention they have added), but they get stressed out of all proportion by it (and I don't have the stomach for leaning hard on them about it). It's a real pity because a very large portion of their work is creating new editions (compilations, mostly) that will eventually get deleted, but they otherwise do good work transcribing that could have been of great value to the project had they stuck to proofreading actually existing (previously published) works instead of constructing their own. But to the degree you considered these frankenstein compilations precedent, they most definitely are not (they're even speedyable). Xover (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
So after long waiting for an answer on the VRT noticeboard I decided to ask a VRT volunteer personally by email and have learnt that none of the following people have released their rights, (which looks like a very bad work of the volunteers who approved the ticket):
So even if my first two points were not taken into account (though I believe they should), the parts co-authored by these people need to be deleted for copyright reasons anyway.
However, I still believe that the whole self-published collection should be deleted per what I wrote before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. We've had problems with alleged VRT/OTRS-released works related to Lubensky before, that on inspection turn out to be nonsense (it's most likely Lubensky himself or someone connected to him doing the uploading, and they appear to have no real conception of how copyright works or take into account other people's contributions). But in any case, there seems to be a primary element of self-promotion in everything related to Lubensky's works, which makes me even less inclined than usual to accept unsourced, self-published, compilations.
    There is a reason we have a previously published requirement, and there's a reason we forbid excerpts and annotations. This seems to be exactly that: an author (or someone close to them) ripping bits and pieces out of the context in which they were actually published (if they were actually published), creating a compilation of them designed to promote that author. So in addition to all the issues Jan notes, I think we should draw a line here due to the attempt to use the project for promotion (free web publishing, with a built-in audience and high Pagerank, with no independent editorial control). But the bottom line is: this particular "edition" exists nowhere outside Wikisource, and as such is very much out of scope. --Xover (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Voisine v. United States

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This is only the syllabus, and is besides merely a copy of the text (including headers) without formatting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

PD-old-X templates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

These templates are deprecated and not transcluded anywhere. In my opinion it would be tidier to delete them (although I am of course open to hearing reasons why not). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

similar speedy nominated

— billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I've speedied these as they were more technical components used by other templates rather than directly usable themselves, and all now unused. Xover (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Arthur Rackham (Hudson)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; images "Now Commons", category redundant — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This is just an easy alternative to many individual speedy deletion requests. I created all of the images in this category, to be replaced at a future point by images extracted from these page scans. This has now happened (see Arthur Rackham: His Life and Work), and these images are no longer needed. Thus, all of the images in this category, and then the category itself, can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Index:Poems of nature (IA poemsofnature00whitrich).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; unneeded duplicate with no meaningful content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I just created this based on a file already on Commons. It turns out it's incomplete, so have created another index page with a different version of the same edition (also from Commons). Please delete this one. Thanks Chrisguise (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Festival (Lovecraft; Gutenberg)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; Gutenberg copy redundant to scan-backed copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We have a scan-backed proofread version here Weird Tales/Volume 5/Issue 1/The Festival. It has a librivox recording, so wanted to check. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Index:Ballantyne--The Coral Island.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept pages; dedicated proofreading has corrected the difficulties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone ran Phe-bot to create all the Page: namespace pages, but did NOT add headers and did NOT use the text layers from the scan. It looks as though a Match-and-Split was performed using some other text, possibly Gutenberg, and the result is that every page has a dozen punctuation mismatches, several text mismatches, different capitalization, different hyphenation, and even different words.

This has been set up for the Monthly Challenge, but we need a clean and correct starting text. I'd like someone with a bot to delete all the unproofread pages. If necessary, we can then run a bot to correctly generate the unproofed pages from the scan's text layer with headers, but working from the current pages will be hugely frustrating and likely result in lots and lots of unspotted errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It was Match&Split by ShakespeareFan00 on November 8th last year, and the source was the pages in The Coral Island who, since this edit, claim to be from this index. Since the text is already transcluded we're actually discussing deleting the whole text and starting over.
@ShakespeareFan00: It's generally not a good idea to Match&Split a text that you're not planning to immediately proofread. The claims that a text is from a particular scan, or even jut from a particular edition, are often iffy; and even when they're accurate, if the text was not proofread using Proofread Page the likelihood of there being this kind of subtle errors present is high. For anyone new—and especially less experienced users—discovering those errors is very difficult. For my own part I always cross-check such text against the OCR for that very reason. Xover (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair comment, but you are convincing me that the current model here doesn't work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Which model? Help:Match and split has been in place since 2012, and advocates extreme care if match-and-split is to be done. Generally, it's a bad idea unless you are absolutely sure the scan and other text come from exactly the same source. In this case, they did not. The copy we had before was from an unknown source, and either the check against the proposed scan concluded incorrectly that they were the same, or the check was not made, despite the warning on Help:Match and split. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm going to extend my nomination to ALL pages, including the ones that have been "proofread", since User:ShakespeareFan00 has started rushing through proofreading today, but isn't catching the many differences in punctuation, spelling, and hyphenation. Here is a page I validated after he proofread it today. Even the "proofread" pages contain the same level of errors as those that have not been proofread. We should wipe the slate clean and restart this one using the text layer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I try , but it seems I am not doing it carefully enough. Endorse deletion.
    Let's consider dropping Match and Split as an Index status entirely as well.
    The Match and Split tools could still be used, but using a closed access list like AWB? Which would also mean removing them from visible Gadgets? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    The Unsourced (possibly PG) is using British Spelling, whereas the Scans are using US.
    Do you have a list of the first printings of this in the United Kingdom and the United States?, scan I found (for a British Printing) was around 1900 on IA, which is considerably after the work was originally published.
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Index:US Constitution in Georgian language.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Closed; speedied as empty and beyond scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-english language work, Possibly a speedy, but 'Not english' wasn't one of the listed criteria.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Non-English works are out of scope, unless actually used for a Wikisource translation (well, or there is reasonable indication that it will be in the near future). Xover (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579)

The following discussion is closed:

kept, no consensus to delete — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Scrambled mess of references, Delete and start again with KNOWN scan. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Also - Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579)/Concurrence Frankfurter
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Page styles

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per discussion — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The remaining uses of this were migrated to be IndexStyles, making the template unused. @Inductiveload: this was a template you seem to have had a part in, before IndexStyles existed, your thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Delete Yes, this should be deleted. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  Delete Agreed, this template is now obsolete. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete CSS pages

The following discussion is closed:

speedied

Template:RunningHeader-centered/styles.css and Template:Rh/3/styles.css are now unused and redundant to Template:Rh/1/styles.css, and I can't request speedy deletion because they're CSS pages. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Service

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, no rationale provided for delete tag.

Saw that this redirect was tagged for deletion in January but the discussion was never created. Given that it breaks the redirect we should resolve it one way or the other. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Index:Weird Tales Volume 3 Number 1 (1923-12).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redudant

This has been superseded by Index:Weird Tales Volume 3 Number 1 (1923-12).djvu -- Beardo (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Plowman's Tale

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Added in 2006, and split in 2009, it is an anonymous text that has remained without source since that time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Foreign language indexes without local (original) copies and no local work on translation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

From VGPaleontologist:

There are some other indexes which are close, but all of the above (1) are not in English, (2) have no transcription work on the relative Wikisource, and (3) have no local translation work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's against the rules, go for it. I'll stop putting foreign-language documents on either way. Personally, I don't know enough about the internal policies of Wikisource to have a valid opinion on the matter. VGPaleontologist (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • So far as I’m aware, the lack of a local transcription is a rule violation, but it is not well enforced. I personally think these indexes are simply unhelpful, as there’s no real potential for work on them because they are not in English. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Note that there is proposed policy about hosting translations: Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource_original_translations. Specifically, "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki," so according to that proposed policy that is where they should be proofread first, before bringing them over to English WS for proofreading into an English translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've speedied Index:Het beleg van Alkmaar (2) 1573.jpg, since it's a map, and beyond scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)   Comment if they are actively being translated, or have started being translated then they are okay. If the Index: ns pages are being created in the hope that someone, somewhere will create them, then they should not be created. Am I concerned about those existing? Not truly fussed to the point of demanding them deleted. Just leave their creation to someone wishing to actively translate. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Author:Tim Chilcott

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This author page lists only translations published on the internet. A search shows that these translations are internet-only, and are self-published at the TCLT (Tim Chilcott Literary Translations). As none of these translations have anything but self-publication to the internet, they are out of scope, besides all being under copyright for the remaining life of the author plus 70 additional years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Delete, clearly has no practical use to us. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  Delete The author lists them as available provided as Attribution (fine) and Non-Commercial (not, see Help:Licensing compatibility) "I am pleased to give permission for the translations and accompanying material on the site to be copied, on condition only that the customary appropriate acknowledgements are made, and that the copying is not undertaken for profit.". MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep for works out of copyright, remove those within copyright. The purpose of author pages is to list freely available pages, and we long ago decided that pages at other sites could be listed if they fulfilled our general criteria for listing with regard to copyright. How are these listings any different from those we had to Wikilibre? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    They're different because the licensing is incompatible AND because the translations are self-published straight to the internet. We wouldn't host such translations here. The oldest listings are those he self-published in 2003, so they're all under the incompatible license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    Among other things, it is not clear what the licensing is, works at Wikilivre actually have standardized licenses like CC-BY-NC-ND, this just has the vague sentence elsewhere on the site which is extremely restrictive. When you say "freely available", does that just mean "available without cost" or "available under a free license", because this really is much more like the former than the latter,. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The premise is that none of the works listed on that author page are freely licensed by English Wikisource licensing standards. So the challenge would then be, if we were to keep this author page, that you would need to produce even one example of a work that would fit our licensing standards (i.e. isn't non-derivative, isn't non-commercial, etc.). As far as I can tell, I can't see any works that would fit these criteria, but maybe my eyes are failing me. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I was cutting the middle ground in that I am not against an author page with translations per se which seemed to be the lead. The content of copyright linked works should be removed and can be speedied in deleting from the page, that doesn't need discussion here. If there is anything left, it stays, if there is not, and there is unlikely to be, then it goes, and that has long been the consensus for modern authors, and we have already speedied those. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that the claims is that we may keep and link to works lists hosted elsewhere on author pages if a. They are public domain outside the US b. They are licensed under a free but more restrictive license (e.g. a CC-BY-ND). So for example there would be nothing wrong with an author page that contains links to scans hosted in the UK / Australia of works from 1930 to 1950 of an author who died in 1950, even though they technically would not have any works that meet English WS standards. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me whether the claim is in favor allowing author pages collecting links of contemporary authors to commercial publications (e.g. short stories published by contemporary authors on various magazine / commercial websites), per Wikisource:Copyright_policy#Original_works_including_translations those links are permissible. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: I'm confused about why option "b" would be okay though. If it's CC-BY-ND or non-commercial, it doesn't even have the chance of ever being a work we could host, at least not in any of our lifetimes...unless the license were to be arbitrarily changed for some reason. At least I can understand an Australia work that's not PD, since that'll be PD within the coming years/few decades, but one of those restrictive CC BY licenses just doesn't fit in that category IMO. I'm concerned if our policy allows such a thing. And maybe that's more of a Scriptorium discussion than something for here, but it is...concerning. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I can understand why such an argument might be made, but this particular instance is a poor case: there are no links to the author from texts, it lacks any particular notability (lacks a WP page) of these translations and they are no clearly licensed. In addition, many of these works (such as the Gospels, Voltaire, Racine, etc.) already exist here in translations. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
So, we should definitely delete the author page now, because as suggested above, I had to remove every single one of the works listed on the page, because after doing the incredibly tedious task of searching each PDF listed, I could not even find a single one that was even anything but copyrighted... So these translations are not even just out of scope by some technicality like "no derivatives"; they're completely out of scope. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Pulaski's Letters to George Washington

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

French language work that should be at frWS though I guess in two parts. Either way, out of scope for us in the written language. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  •   Delete Beyond scope, as they are not written in English. The WD item will also need to be posted for deletion at Wikidata after we delete the local item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    • @EncycloPetey: Training WD about the scope of our works is difficult. I am still having the argument that versions of chapters are not in scope for them. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
      But deletion of "empty" items is straightforward. Once there is no content for a WD item, which existed solely for a Wikisource work, and that has been deleted, saying so is reason enough for it to be deleted there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
      It can still have notability, even if there is not a link. Depends on how the item is defined. The issue here is that it is a combination of letters. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
      But in this situation, the Wikidata item contains no identifying data: merely a link to the page here on WS and the page name as an identifier, with no further information. When no publication information that would identify the item exists in the WD item, deletion is uncontroversial. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Story of Mr. Popkiss Told

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; redundant with erroneous title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be an earlier version of The Story Mr. Popkiss Told with an excess "of" in the name. -- Beardo (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicative Gutenberg Versions of Lovecraft Stories

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

These three works all are originally from Gutenberg but now scan-backed versions from Weird Tales exist. Some of librivox etc.

Grouping together as they should be relatively uncontroversial. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Republic (Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This was opened for discussion in 2021 and ended up in the archives, apparently without resolution and consensus, partly waiting on scan-backing of a copy. A scan-backed copy now exists The Republic of Plato as of May of this year. Renominating for deletion as it is now duplicative of a scan-backed edition. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Page:Alexander and Dindimus (Skeat 1878).djvu/151, Page:Alexander and Dindimus (Skeat 1878).djvu/152, Page:Alexander and Dindimus (Skeat 1878).djvu/153, Page:Alexander and Dindimus (Skeat 1878).djvu/154,

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Four pages which are blank "overscans"; not required and not linked by the Index. -- Beardo (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Constitution of India

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to Versions page listing two specific editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This work was probably originally added as a secondary transcription of the 1949 version of the constitution, but I often see somebody adding later amendments and thus making it a compilation of versions, where it is impossible to distinguish what comes from 1949 and what is a later addition. Trying to stop all the good-will contributors is a Sisyphean task without the work being scan-backed, especially as two of the three links in the talk page are dead and the third one refers to the 1996 version instead. The problem was already noted by a user in 2018, who commented on it at the constitution's talk page too. Therefore I suggest deleting this compilation and thus creating space for a scanbacked version (or, even better, versions). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Numbers of Indian foundation documents need to go back and be properly versioned and restarted afresh with DJVU scans of originals. So I am in favour of their deletion ONCE we have a project in place to get this right AND properly explained in what we are looking to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; redundant file that is also corrupted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Some work needs to be done with this on Commons. This file is corrupt, and was replaced with Index:Felt’s Parliamentary Procedure Upload 2.pdf. The original file should be deleted, the new file name redirected to the old file name, the index for the old file deleted, and the index and pages for the new file moved over. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Legends of the Gods.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Second-hand transcription; the source PDF has metadata indicating it was printed from an OpenOffice document. Omphalographer (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Delete. Per nom. There is an IA scan https://archive.org/details/books-on-egypt-and-chaldaea-1-33/32%20Egyptian%20Literature%2C%20v1/ and a relatively-poor quality scan available of the 1912 publication on Hathi: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100638867 MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment Have you alerted the user who is working on this ? -- Beardo (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. I have now. Omphalographer (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that a source based on the IA scan was started Index:Books on Egypt and Chaldaea, Vol. 32--Legends of the Gods.pdf MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Brigade

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; excerpt, and not a work in its own right. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As said by John Vandenberg in 2007: "The description indicates that this is not a PD source text, but rather was published as part of a book (OCLC:14881652all editions?). As a result, I think this falls beyond the scope of the main namespace." PseudoSkull (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

So in other words, apparently not a work in its own right. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep A list of names is not eligible for copyright for the same reason a phone book cannot be copyrighted. There is no creative input beyond copying names. If you were to assign two people the task, they would come up with the same list. Whereas, if you tasked two people to create a page long short story about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, they would be different because of their individual creative input. --RAN (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): And I agree with everything you said. And if it was a fully published work that was just a directory, I would never propose a work like this for deletion. But my particular issue with it is that it's not a work in its own right in any sense, but rather an excerpt from a larger work that is in full (presumably) still under copyright. I do disagree with Wikisource explicitly trying to scope out works that are directories, if there is a valid source behind said directories—but in this case that's not the issue I have with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade page. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete As a mere listing of names (data) and as an excerpt it is out of scope, and as its publishing context was a 1985 pamphlet protected by copyright it cannot be made to be in scope until around 2055 or so (depending on the details of the copyright term). I can't offhand think of anywhere in the Wikimedia universe this content would fit—unless Wikipedia would accept it as a list article, but I doubt they would—so the best alternative I can suggest is keeping it in your userspace for reference (but note that the ALBA has an online database of these, e.g. William Aalto, that's a better reference). --Xover (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Noting that while I agree with the sentiment of deleting this work based on it being an extract, I have issues with the Wikisource community trying to explicitly scope out listings of names. I do think they'd have a place here if the listings were a complete work and scan-backed. Part of what WWI says on the matter is, "Such information has not been previously published, is often user-compiled and unverified, and does not fit the goals of Wikisource." Not always previously published, not always user-compiled or even unverified. I get the sentiment—we don't just want users dumping their lists of data here and calling those works—but an official church directory with no images, or a compilation of weather data on paper by the National Weather Service, for example, is a work, and should be treated as such. So I'm not disagreeing with the vote, but if the circumstances of it being an excerpt were different, I would be voting Keep. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Such listings, when they could be argued to be in scope, are typically appendices of a report or have some enrichment (such as a dictionary). When appearing in such a context they have context, scope, notability, etc. WWI doesn't scope out "lists of names", it scopes out mere lists of names and other things that are just data, when they appear devoid of context. The raw data from the weather service is pointless to host here. A paper from the weather service that includes copious data in appendices is fine. But those are the nuanced bits: the essence is that people invariably want to dump "lists of stuff" somewhere in the wikiverse, and Wikisource superficially seems like the perfect place for it, so we need to scope out that stuff to not be drowned in cut&pastes of arbitrary lists.
Also note that experience shows that a lot of the things that would fall into the gray areas here—such as some old train tables, mostly just data but with just enough annotation and textual info to make them arguably in scope—are also a very poor fit for our workflows and tools. We are just simply not set up to easily work with or do a very good job of things that deviate very far from "traditional book with chapters of prose text". Take movies, complex visual magazine layouts, and comic books as one end of the spectrum (formatting these in a way that is useful is at best a pain, and we provide little fidelity to the original work), of which mere lists and data is the other extreme. We have our useful mission around the center of the scale and the further out towards the edges we get the worse a fit we are, and we have to draw a line somewhere. On the visual end our documented hard line is "no text" (I just images), but it should probably be drawn a little closer to the middle. I'd love to do comics and complex magazine layouts here, but we just don't have the tools and can't do them justice. I've not looked in detail at the films, but from what I've seen the tooling looks like a hack so if it works I think that's a credit to the contributors working in the area rather than the tools. The situation is even worse on the data end of the spectrum. Xover (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: I'm the one who can talk about the tooling for films because I made those tools, and yes, the situation with films is a mess. As if our transcription process wasn't already excessively complicated and repetitive to begin with, for films it's nearly impossible to work with on Wikisource's ProofreadPage software. If you do it with the "intended" method, you have to enter each individual timestamp two times in a row just to make a pagelist and transclude it, and then you have to create the pages. And if you mess something up, i.e. there's a line you accidentally missed, all the pages have to be moved to account for that, for every single missed line. And if you don't have the video playing somewhere in another window, you will have to skip to the timestamp you want for every page (assuming you can remember what that timestamp was), which is horribly inconvenient and makes ProofreadPage in its own right almost useless.
So we work on films through Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts (a page I created and maintain) as a countermeasure, something to make the process easier and more straightforward. For now, it's better to work on films on single page than through the normal means. The fixes for films in ProofreadPage are doable in theory, but the question is whether or not the software team behind ProofreadPage will look into it within the next 10 years. And really if they're going to look into fixing film, they might as well do some fixes for our work in general. And I have it on my mental list of things to do to formally propose such improvements, but give me time.
So you make a fair point. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Isn't every news article we host an extract from a published work? The issue of the newspaper is the work and the news item an extract? How is that different than this situation? If an extract can be read as a self contained entity it should be kept. --RAN (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    No. A news article has a byline indicating its author, and since it has a separate author, it is a separate work. The same applies to pulp magazines, where some of the stories are allowable here because copyright has expired, but others in the same issue are not hosted because they are still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  Comment for anyone who might be interested — The work that this is excerpted from, No Pasaran: The 50th Anniversary of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, may actually be public domain in its own right. (Maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed). I'm not seeing any registrations in the Copyright Office, and online sources say it was published in 1985 in New York. So, considering that it's an obscure pamphlet, I'd wager it's possible they left out the copyright notice, in which case it's public domain. This would certainly not be an argument for keeping just the directory excerpt as hosted as Abraham Lincoln Brigade, but it would be an interesting project. I may just look into getting my own copy of this to verify my suspicion that it's public-domain. Unfortunately, I can't find any scans online, so I can't verify it lacks a notice, but the possibility is certainly there that it does... And having a transcription would incidentally save the content of the page we had to delete here. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Peasant Stories

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; redundant. Two scan-backed copies exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This work only has the introduction by Tolstoy which was separately translated and is now scan-backed in the collection where that translation appears. A very quick search showed no public domain translations of this collection. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Flora da Usina São José, Igarassu, Pernambuco - Sapindaceae.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; non-English work is out of scope and Authors have no known hostable works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently this needs to be listed separately? See § Foreign language indexes without local (original) copies and no local work on translation, supra, for the reasoning and discussion. See also the three Author: pages for three (of five) co-authors, with no other works listed: Author:Marccus Vinicius da Silva Alves, Author:Genise Vieira Somner, and Author:Maria Regina de Vasconcellos Barbosa. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Box left

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; unused and now redundant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Unused, redundant to {{centered box|align=left|...}} and {{border2}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

On the Nature of Things (Watson)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; consisted of only Preface with no source identified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Only the preface since 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Delete as nearly empty, a more complete transcription would of course be welcome. There is a scan copy on IA [6] if we want to migrate the two pages to Page NS in case anyone is particularly attached to them being somewhere. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I've no knowledge about the utility of this edition, but some pages are 80% or even 90% footnotes, so it is not a translation I would ever care to work on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
My very quick search is that the Munro translation is the more important of the two which we also lack. The preface itself doesn't appear to have much utility by itself. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Munro is important because the volume contains parallel Latin and English text. Volume I has the Latin on the top half of the page, and the English on the bottom half. Volume II is all the notes. It would be a complicated edition to host, and would lose a lot of its value with the Latin not displayed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sehnsucht im Zwielicht

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied; out of scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The actual work is in German, so shouldn't be here; there is a long commentary, for which no source or author is given - so that may or may not be PD. -- Beardo (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a recent addition that is clearly out of scope, just mark it for Speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Figure 3 NPTEL Interface.jpg + File:Figure 2 CEC LOR Interface.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; non-free images incompatible with WS licensing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the following files:

They were recreated locally on Wikisource, after a Commons DR showed they were non-free. —Matr1x-101  {user page (@ commons) - talk} 20:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Fair Use

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, but revised per discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The documentation itself states why this template shouldn't be here:

"Wikisource does not apply the fair use doctrine at this time, as by our policy Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. This license is not acceptable at English Wikisource for licensing works, with further explanation at Wikisource:Licensing."

So what is the purpose? It's only misleading people into thinking there's some validity to a fair use licensing at Wikisource, as per a recent comment on User talk:Billinghurst, and WhatLinksHere does not show any actual uses of the template; only happenstance mentions in discussions. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I assume that the template exists for the same reason as that on Commons, namely, so that people who try to use it will see that it is not a valid template. The template clearly states as much, so I don’t know how anyone could confuse the issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Well it seems like all it's accomplished is confusing people. Someone can easily use the template or refer to it without reading the documentation, since nowhere on the template itself does it state that the license is invalid for enWS.
And if you look into the history of why the template was created, it looks to me like it was created for political reasons. Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10 is the first mention of the template, by Slowking4, the person who created the template, and it seems to have been created alongside said discussion. The user who created it was the one who proposed in 2016 that Wikisource have an Exemption Doctrine Policy, i.e. allow fair use. It seems like the template was not created as a way to dissuade users from adding the template, but to prepare for what was thought to be a future change in our policy regarding fair use (however, that discussion ended with no consensus to change policy).
The documentation page was not even created until nearly 2 years later, in 2018, by Billinghurst, to clarify that the template shouldn't be used here.
I don't think the evidence shows that our fair use license template is effective at discouraging people from adding the template, nor was it even apparently the original intention of the template's creation. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
We can have it or not, as long as it is not used, and if it is the way of having the clarity that we don't allow fair use, then it is reasonable. We can always track its use or attempted use through abuse filters. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I documented a template, nothing more. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  •   Delete There's no demonstrated use for this template, and we do not create templates for all the licenses and copyright statuses that we do not permit on the project. Slowking created it optimistically during one of the old discussions—as one tends to do when discussing such things—but it's never had any actual use beyond being a strawman example for that discussion and should have been deleted when that proposal went nowhere. And in general we should work diligently to reduce the number of templates and amount of code we need to maintain on the project, not add more for which there is no demonstrated actual need. --Xover (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
That is another good point—should we create templates for every CC BY, etc., license, then, that doesn't permit commercial use or derivatives? Logically that'd be the precedent we'd come to if we kept the Fair Use template, and I'd say we really don't need those either.
The only purpose the template has served thus far is confusing editors who are apparently used to Wikipedia into thinking we might have similar rules to them on Fair Use. And I do like the proposed change to the template—that is, if we're going to have it at all, the content Calendula proposed is great for that—but, unfortunately, linking to the template as has been done previously does not necessarily require that someone read any of it. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In my mind, it is clear that we don’t want “alternative” licenses (like CC NC/ND), so we can leave them without templates. However, with fair use in particular, the rationale is highly desired elsewhere, many people (especially newcomers) think it’s a catch-all to get out of copyright law, and there have been several discussions here about allowing it. Given all of this, I think it’s valuable to have a fair-use template that specifically says that it isn’t allowed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
i am not confused. the EDP / fair use proposal, was for copyrighted images in public domain works. this is a better, more forthright policy than the current "some images in a document are de minimus", which is a novel theory on commons. but clearly the consensus is to delete any mention of alternative work-arounds of the "sum of all knowledge". consensus can change. meanwhile, it prevents work on many public domain documents that include copyrighted material. i have plenty of work to do, i leave you to your "live free or die" politics. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 21:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The Travels of Marco Polo

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; recreated as redirect to the correct title (scans exist). --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  1. Incomplete second-hand transcription from Gutenberg
  2. More or less abandoned (although User:Egm4313.s12 has added Prologue recently)
  3. Gutenberg does not seem to be too faithful to the original, see Talk:The Travels of Marco Polo#THE TITLE IS WRONG.
  4. Our version does not seem to be too faithful to the Gutenberg either, omiting images, various front matter texts etc.

As a result it looks much better to start a new (scanbacked) transcription from scratch. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep. The work is almost entirely complete; there is no marker that it is incomplete, and the main text is completed, so people would not likely be inclined to complete work. The PG title is taken from a reprint, where this it the title. Your fourth objection is also to completeness. A scan would be nice, but is not necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
"A scan would be nice, but is not necessary." Where do you get that idea from? A scan is something that needs to be found at some time and then the text gradually replaced with the proofread transcluded text. Hosting the scans for all our works that are not digitally native is something that is a long-term requirement—not some mere lofty aspiration. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Beeswaxcandle: It’s “not some mere lofty aspiration”? What are you talking about!? By here, I see some 200,000 texts needing scan-backing—a number which has remained almost unchanged since 2012. A scan is not a requirement, for any text, in any circumstance; and this is especially true where, as here, text may be taken easily from PG to complete the work. In any case, a scan-backing here would just be a match-and-split from the text already here, as it is of sufficient quality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Using match-and-split on a copy-pasted PG text is against long established policy (see Help:Match and split#When not to use this tool), so that would not be an option. I'm well aware that we have over 200,000 mainspace pages that need scan-backing (not "texts" as this total includes subpages). The majority were placed here before side-by-side proofreading was implemented, and a large portion of it was botted in with minimal wikification. Some of the other WS language domains do require that new additions are scan-backed and our French counterparts have done excellent work in getting to 99% scan-backed. This was achieved through a collective effort and a change in policy to not accept new scan-free texts. Each time a similar change in policy here has been raised, it has been knocked back. The result is that as soon as we get some older texts scan-backed, another set of scan-free turn up. It is acknowledged that it is more "exciting" to work on new texts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • “Each time a similar change in policy here has been raised, it has been knocked back.” So it’s not “a long-term requirement”—you just want it to be, correct? The only times I’ve seen this “policy” “enforced” recently is to harass newcomers, so I object to those actions as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    It is not a long-term requirement that all newly added works have to be scanbacked, although it seems high time to start requiring it compulsorily, and some of the many reasons for that were given above. However, it is a long-term requirement that copypastes from Gutenberg are not accepted any more, which makes completion of this work impossible. I also agree that adding new works is much more attractive to contributors than repairing bad quality work of others. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  Delete I think it's way harder to untangle a mess than start from scratch. I also don't support keeping texts that are clearly inaccurate. Languageseeker (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  Comment A good solution to me is that we get scans, make it a project for a month, and we replace it. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom and Languageseeker. This needs to be started from scratch based on a scan. --Xover (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  Delete This is a complicated mess. Best to start over from scratch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  Delete, just that it's a second-hand transcription is enough for me to say delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  Comment A set of scans now exists: (transcription volumes: Vol. I, Vol. II, Notes and addenda) These Index pages are linked from both the Author and Translator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:The complete works of Count Tolstoy (IA completeworksofc08tols).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant per nom. ---Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a .pdf version with some pages missing of a text which is also at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 08.djvu -- Beardo (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:The Smith and the Devil

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Versions page exists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A category for a work (The Smith and the Devil), with what seem to be different translations/versions of that work in the category. These should be transferred to a versions page, if I'm reading into the situation correctly. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Created and populated by Yitzilitt, as their only edits to the site. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  Delete I've created a versions page at The Smith and the Devil. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Previous-roman-numeral

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Unused template, and I don't really see a use case for it. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

John James Audubon

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected, subpages speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Full scan-backed version has been available since ~2011–2012, at John James Audubon (Burroughs), and this version is just a poorer-quality, less comprehensive, scanless copy of the same version. This should be deleted to make way for a disambiguation page. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed into redirect, subpages speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: … An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced Grimm's Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Now that we have proofread multiple versions of these tales, I suggest we cull the unsourced versions. They lack proper sourcing which makes the alternate names confusing as it is unclear which alternate edition they came from. A first set of 5 that are duplicative of scanned versions are below:

MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: … An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Tess of the d'Urbervilles (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This version duplicates Tess of the D'Urbervilles (1891) which has now been proofread in its entirety. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: … An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The Two Angry Women of Abington

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; now scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Open an edit window to see the horror firsthand. This is an HTML mess tagged for cleanup in 2008. In the intervening 15 years, no cleanup has been attempted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  • While the HTML is nightmarish, I don’t really see any problem, as the actual displayed text is quite readable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    Really? You see no problem with trying to verify / proofread a text that looks like this throughout?:
    Passing well-done of her, she is a kind wench.<BR>I thank ye, Mistress Goursey, for my husband;<BR>And if it hap your husband come our way<BR>A-hunting or such ordinary sports,<BR>I'll do as much for yours as you for mine.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Gour''. Pray do, forsooth.—God's Lord, what means the woman?<BR>She speaks it scornfully: faith, I care not;<BR>Things are well-spoken, if they be well-taken. [''Aside''.<BR>What, Mistress Barnes, is it not time to part?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Bar''. What's a-clock, sirrah?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Nich''. 'Tis but new-struck one.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Gour''. I have some business in the town by three.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. Till then let's walk into the orchard, sir.<BR>What, can you play at tables?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Gour''. Yes, I can.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. What, shall we have a game?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Gour''. And if you please.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. I'faith, content; we'll spend an hour so. Sirrah, fetch the<BR>tables.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Nich''. I will, sir. [''Exit.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Phil''. Sirrah Frank, whilst they are playing here,<BR>We'll to the green to bowls.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Fran''. Philip, content, Coomes, come hither, sirrah:<BR>When our fathers part, call us upon the green.<BR>Philip, come, a rubber, and so leave.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Phil''. Come on. [''Exeunt'' PHILIP ''and'' FRANCIS.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Coomes''. 'Sblood, I do not like the humour of these springals; they'll<BR>spend all their father's good at gaming. But let them trowl the bowls upon the<BR>green. I'll trowl the bowls in the buttery by the leave of God and Master<BR>Barnes: an his men be good fellows, so it is; if they be not, let them go snick<BR>up. [''Exit.<BR><BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Enter'' NICHOLAS ''with the tables.<BR><BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mast. Bar''. So, set them down.<BR>Mistress Goursey, how do you like this game?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Gour''. Well, sir.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. Can ye play at it?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Gour''. A little, sir.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. Faith, so can my wife.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Gour''. Why, then, Master Barnes, and if you please,<BR>Our wives shall try the quarrel 'twixt us two,<BR>And we'll look on.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mast. Bar''. I am content. What, woman, will you play?<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Gour''. I care not greatly.<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''Mis. Bar''. Nor
    --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Porter%2C+Henry%2C+fl.+1599%22&and%5B%5D=lending%3A%22is_readable%22 At least 4 scans at IA, including a 1911 published facsimile of a 16th century printing. :) Choose one and this could be scan backed :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're volunteering to get that started, that would be great! The cleanest (best) scan is this one which also has some comparative front matter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I can't work with the edition you mention, it is still in copyright in the UK ( see W. W. Greg for the dates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
However the 1911 editions seem to be edited by Author:John Stephen Farmer, an author we already have on English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Most of the text in the scan I recommended is a facsimile reprint, but much cleaner than the other scans. Presumably, you'd be able to work with that portion? There would only be the notes by the editor and comparative list of questionable readings that would be at issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The concern was indeed "new material", but it was also to do with potential editorial corrections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
See page viii which discusses errors in the original. Based on what is stated there, and a look at the original text, there would be no advantage to accurately reproducing a text filled with mistakes of all sorts. If we can't work from an edited text, then I'd just as soon see the work deleted. It's not worth Wikisource's time to put a huge effort into accurately reproducing an error-ridden text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Michigan v. EPA

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; an unformatted copy-paste. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just the text layer, especially problematic as this file should be in multiple sections (for all of the opinions). The PDF is of the slip opinion, which should be replaced with the bound volume anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Not out of scope as a work, though it is the ugly copy and paste that we try to avoid. We have deleted works such as these in this state previously, so can see that we can do that here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Monthly Challenge

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; misplaced discussion, with no rationale for deletion from Wikisource given. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I propose to remove Index:The_Fortunes_of_Perkin_Warbeck_-_1830_-_Volume_1.djvu from the Monthly challenge. The 1857 edition exists already in Index:The_fortunes_of_Perkin_Warbeck.djvu and it would be a waste of effort to spent time on another version of the text. I do not object to the DJVU or its transcription project... - R. J. Mathar (talk)

@R. J. Mathar: removing it from the monthly challenge is a smaller discussion from that challenge, not a deletion discussion here. I would almost suggest removing it and noting that on the talk page, then taking the conversation from there. I would agree that the challenges are not normally the place to replicate additional editions of works. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Index:Eclogues (Mackail 1915).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; not a redundant edition but different from our existing one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The file is missing some pages, and the main content can be found here, already proofread and transcluded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Keep It is missing some pages, and therefore needs repair. But why delete it? It is not the same edition as the 1910 printing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey: It is the same edition, just a later printing. The only difference is the title page, and I don’t think we need a whole separate transcription project for a different title page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    What makes you think it is not a "new edition" as stated on the title page? Page v says "In this re-issue, the translation has been modified. . .", so it is not the same edition. The text of the translation is different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Book of Meqabyan III

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; apparently a Wikisource-original translation. No source text and abandoned with only one chapter of progress --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned work, that has no provenance, source or licence for the original nor the translation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  • The Ethiopian Maccabees are very obscure. The first book was translated into the English in 2018, and a translation of the second book came out this year. No translation of the third book into the English has been published. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Department of Commerce v. New York

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; unformatted and incomplete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Only the syllabus; the actual opinions are missing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Barack Obama articles by quality and subcategories

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; author-based categories are against policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

These categories are a product of another time (late 2000s), and are a sprawling from WS:WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which has been inactive for over 10 years. All these categories use the word "articles" to refer to what are actually "works". From the terminology used (especially "articles"), and the style of these templates and the way things are added to them, it's clear that it is replicating Wikipedia's style, which is something we really should have always been avoiding. This trend of replicating Wikipedia was more common on Wikisource in the late 2000s, when it was a smaller project than it is today (and for good reason I'd argue).

The Obama categories also implicitly rely on the old method of determining text integrity status (the "block method"), which is rarely used anymore; we prefer scan-backing now...

I don't know that I have any really strong arguments for the categories' deletion, but they seem very inappropriate to the project in the modern context, redundant, and unnecessary. Category:Text integrity only lists this individual topic-specific text integrity tracking category, and no others. All the Obama categories also (as of the time of writing) have had 0 page views in the last 30 days, so clearly aren't serving anyone anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Index:The Odyssey of Homer (Buckley).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; redundant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This index is a later reprint of the 1853 edition of the work, which is largely transcribed at Index:The Odyssey of Homer, with the Hymns, Epigrams, and Battle of the Frogs and Mice (Buckley 1853).djvu. As the person who has done most of the (limited) transcription of Index:The Odyssey of Homer (Buckley).djvu, I have no problem with it being deleted. The limited links to the index have been diverted to the 1853 version. —unsigned comment by Chrisguise (talk) .

  Delete There are only very minor differences in the front matter and also different advertisements (which nobody transcribes anyway) and so it can be deleted as abandoned if nobody wishes to keep proofreading it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/400 and Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/403

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; copypasted from dubious external source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

These chapters were newly added to Translation:Shulchan Aruch, but they do not seem to be the original Wikisource translation, they seem to have been copypasted from an external source. Here the translation was published under CC-BY, so I was considering moving these chapters to the main namespace and creating a new version of the work. However, it seems that the translation of the work published at https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Yoreh_De'ah?tab=contents is a compilation with each chapter being added from a different source (including Wikisource) and for this reason not elligible to be hosted here.

BTW: Another newly added chapter is Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/222, which has been copypasted from https://www.dafyomi.co.il/nedarim/halachah/nd-hl-088.htm, where no licence seems to be given and so this one should probably be deleted for copyright reasons. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

+ one more: Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/68. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete work files in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access/

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access/Programmatic import from PubMed Central has been updated to explain the situation and to list the deleted pages so that they are easy to undelete if anyone wants to perform archeology there. Note that the pages should not be restored in place to live on in the state they are currently in; only to be extracted elsewhere (email/offsite), or as the starting point for concrete planned improvement efforts. For a continuation of the OA project as such, the pages should be regenerated by recitation-bot or its successor rather than undeleted.

Back when the Open Access movement was young and hopeful, WikiProject Open Access tried to use Recitation-bot to automatically import loads of Open Access scientific articles automatically. The plan was not uncontroversial (support/oppose were about evenly split in the discussion at the time) and succeeded about as well as any such bulk-import-by-bot projects (i.e. not at all well). The result is a metric crapton of incompletely imported working drafts that keep showing up in mainspace categories, triggering citation errors, template errors, broken image tracking categories, syntax errors, etc. Over the years I've tried attacking the problem by manually fixing each issue as they come up, but like most such zombie swarms they keep finding new ways to be an annoyance. In their current state they are not useful as even drafts for referencing (they are broken in significant ways), and there is absolutely no prospects of them ever getting fixed up. The majority of them are probably compatibly licensed, but as they have no license templates and were not evaluated individually (they made lots of assumptions about licensing status) we can't rule out that some subsets of articles or illustrations have incompatible licensing.

The affected pages are ~258 subpages and ~221 redirects under: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/:

I am proposing that we just delete these now. It's been nearly a decade without activity, and no signs anyone is picking up the ball. And since these were programatically generated they can be programatically regenerated with no loss of data if the project becomes active again (but then, hopefully, with better quality). Alternately, if anyone really can't stand to see them deleted, we could just blank the pages and replace the contents with a message explaining how to restore the contents from revision history. It's be easier and cleaner to delete them, but blanking would solve most of the problems with them. Xover (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just like technically problematic pages in the User: space, these pages aren’t harming anyone. There’s no real need for work on them, in my opinion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
      Comment It's harder to exclude these pages from tracking categories and similar than userspace pages, which can be handled by simply excluding the whole namespace. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. In general, arguing that one can just filter it out is about as convincing as arguing that you can just walk around the pile of poo on the sidewalk: it is strictly speaking true, but does not really address the issue at hand. Xover (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete hesitantly. There has been time to fix them, and we have asked. Their history I forget. If excluding them from WS: ns is the issue, unlike excluding them from User:, I would be comfortable moving them all to subpages of the bot account. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete This is an abandoned project with no progress to make the dumps usable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional pages at Index:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; duplicate pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of images appended to this index (rotated versions of page images within the work), which the transcriber used as a means of transcribing the respective pages. The pages in the work itself are proofread and the content is the same as the 'extras'. Therefore, the duplicate pages may be safely deleted. These are:
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 73.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 74.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 75.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 76.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 77.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 101.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 111.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 112.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 113.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 114.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 178.jpg
Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853) p. 183*.jpg
Chrisguise (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doctrines to be Rejected

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as nonstandard regional copy without source. Now a redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This page is a redundant, corrupted copy of the historically accurate page Doctrines to be Rejected in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. According to the notes on the page proposed for deletion, the page was copied to Wikisource in 2007 from a website maintained by a single Christadelphian community member (see the footer of the page) rather than a more authoritative source like The Christadelphian Office. The page as it was originally copied to Wikisource is now only available via Wayback Machine and was already corrupted in its earliest recorded version (the phrase "Fellowship cannot be extended to anyone who holds, teaches, fellowships or countenances any of the doctrinal heresies referred to below" is not present in the original version and item 35 of the original has been substantially rewritten into two different items, 35 and 36,), and you can see further corruption take place on item 22 between the two versions linked to above, proving that the maintainer of this site was at least the source of some of the corruption that's now present on Wikisource in the page proposed for deletion. —unsigned comment by TsuyoiHato (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2023‎ (UTC).

I've got more information on this one! A researcher friend was able to track down a 1924 reference to the "Fellowship cannot be extended" amendment and also the restructuring of point 35: In 1924, a piece of correspondence published in The Berean Christadelphian (which had only started publishing a year prior) captures that this was a local amendment voted on for adoption in an ecclesia in Los Angeles, California. It's not part of the standard document or part of any standard version of the document that I'm aware of. I think the page is good to be deleted, but if not, it should be properly titled to indicate that these positions were not standard, mainstream Christadelphian beliefs. (I tried to add a link to an image of the correspondence, but it's getting flagged by the same filter. You can see the image at `imgur .com/a/Oal91W0`.) TsuyoiHato (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hans Brinker, or The Silver Skates/A Letter from Holland

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; not present in our scan and no source was provided to back the letter. It can certainly be recreated if someone finds a source, though it would need to exist in a new location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The work 'Hans Brinker, or The Silver Skates' is being migrated from an unsourced version to a scan backed one. This letter is not present in the scan backed version and so needs to be deleted. -- —unsigned comment by Chrisguise (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2023.

The letter is dated 1873 and reflects her first visit to Holland, several years after she wrote the book. This shows that the unsourced version was a different edition. The ideal would be to find a scanned version that includes the letter, but I would have thought it better to keep this letter until then. —unsigned comment by Beardo (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2023.
It's clear from a quick search that the letter appears in the front of many PD copies of the book, so we shouldn't delete it just because we transcribed a different edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Translation:Mishneh Torah

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; long-abandoned incomplete Wikisource translation without a scan-backing copy in the original language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned translation nominated per Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations: "Works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion." Besides, the contributor seems to have tried to produce his own illustrated edition instead of bare translation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment No, the contributor was not producing their own illustrated edition, but was working from the copy at he.WS, which has the same illustrations to represent each of the "books" with an icon for the link. I cannot read Hebrew, so I do not know whether the he.WS copy comes from a verifiable source. I suspect not, unless it is from a very recent public domain digital edition. The he.WS page has a lengthy Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I see. Though still not convinced about the illustrations, my main argument of the deletion proposal is different: abandoned translation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    If the translation were based on a stable scan in the original language, it could be kept. In this case, however, I don't see evidence of that at he.WS, which means there is no stable starting point from which future contributors could resume the translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ten Days in a Mad-House

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; backing scan found and connected to copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete work, and not backed by scan. No source, so no ready ability to complete it and nothing has been done to the work in ten years. The work itself would not be considered out of scope, and it does have a link through to Wikipedia article. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:R. G. Anand vs. Delux Films.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

No objections in two months, so delete per proposal.

This is not a scan of the original, but a copy of an OCR transcription of the original (as exhibited by the page numbers, in-text footnotes, and obvious mistakes (like “arc” for “are”) that would only be made by a program), making this not ideal for work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the judis.nic.in website is, but if you go via the India Supreme Court website https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments it gives a link to chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/5032.pdf which seems to be the same version. So although not ideal, I suspect that it will be difficult to find a better version. -- Beardo (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:The life of and character of Marcus Portius Cato Uticensis - collected from the best ancient Greek and Latin authors; and designed for the readers of Cato, a tragedy (IA lifeofcharactero00theo).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

contributor request

The PDF file is causing problems. I will create a DJVU version, upload to Commons and create a new index page. Please delete, since no work has been done on this book. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)}}

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Author:Wright

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Full rationale explained at end of discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not certain of the value in having surname-based disambiguation pages in author: ns. They duplicate what is done elsewhere and are going to be a beast to maintain, and if we linking on pages in either author or main namespace they should never be to a surname alone. As such a page like this is not so much a disambiguation page, and more a finding aid and duplicating the maintained pages in WS:Authors-W#Wr — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Delete for any surname disambig page, but commenting that surname-based redirects exist, such as Author:Shakespeare and Author:Hawthorne, which may also want to be considered. But the disambiguation page "Author:Wright" does not share the same value as those surname redirects to, since so many times when "Shakespeare" or "Hawthorne" are referred to in a work, we know who they're talking about. And it's easier to write Author:Shakespeare than the full name (especially as it exists now). But Author:Wright should never be linked to...so, it really serves very little purpose that a special page can't serve. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I was talking disambigs as they are listing, not redirects. Separate conversation that I am not raising. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW 731 author pages disambiguations. The single first names are tolerable, some others less so. See petscan:25586458 — billinghurst sDrewth 07:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Did a partial trawl through these and I see

and there are more. I see that Jan.Kamenicek has been creating these, more recently.

I will further proffer that in looking at some of the WhatLinksHere, some of these pages are problematic as people link to the disambig pages, presumably unwittingly, where it is a well-known dominant author, and that is an issue for us. Some of the surname pages, look to be more what we would have as Portal: ns pages, and more relate to the surname pages that exist at the wikipedias. [A reminder that disambiguation pages are not meant to be finding pages, they are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.] — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Keep. I consider them quite useful in cases when one remembers just the surname of an author. As for the maintenance, I can imagine that one day somebody will find a way how to keep the pages automatically, as they require only listing of a few pieces of information about authors who have their author pages in WS: name, birth and death dates, and description, all of which can be taken from WD. To me they look slightly more appropriate to the author NS than to the portal NS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I could imagine a situation where these types of author disambiguation pages would be useful, if they could be fully autogenerated (not just by bots, but the software). But in the current state, no. A great idea, but convincing anyone to want anymore WD integration whatsoever seems like an impossible feat. So I wouldn't count on this idea getting any support until the 2040s, meaning these surname disambig pages are better off just deleted now. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I still think that current manually maintained pages are better than nothing, and their existence may prompt somebody to automatize them. If we delete them all, nobody will ever think about their automatization. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep all, as a general matter. A few of these might be worth deleting, but I don’t think they are all collectively incorrect. If just a last name is cited, it is useful to have these for ease of reference. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea., @Jan.Kamenicek: They are wrong, and being linked to and left. It is simply wrong to be linking to a disambiguation page and they should meet red links, so that they know that it is incorrect. They are not being used as disambiguation pages, you are using them as some sort of link catcher which is out of scope. What are you automating? What are you trying to create? If it is topic or subject pages, they are not in the author: ns, they all currently sit in Wikisource: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    I agree it is wrong to link to them, but they are useful to readers (myself included) who search for an author and remember just the surname. If possible (which I do not know if it is), contributors can be prevented from linking them from the main NS, but imo it would be a loss to delete them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete. There is a need for good tools to help identify partial or alternate author identities—I spend enough time trawling the name-based dab pages on enWP and on querying Wikidata to feel this need quite keenly—but manual Author:-namespace dab pages ain't that tool (it'll just be one more incomplete, unmaintained, and unmaintainable place to dump stuff). It also violates the principle of the redlink: red links encourage contributors to add the missing content (or update the link), but artificially blue'ed links discourage it. All Author:-namespace dabs for partial or alternate names should be deleted (redirects and dabs for actually ambiguous names should of course be kept).
    But we should give some thought to how we can serve the very real need better: going from a partial or ambiguous name mentioned in a text to determining the actual identity and linking it should be much much easier when information about that person actually exists in the Wikimedia-verse (has a wp article, exists in Wikidata, has a Creator: template on Commons, an Author: page here, etc.). --Xover (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I am closing this as   Delete, but because the issue is contested, I'm going to first explain my reasoning. I have been thinking through the issue for several weeks before settling on my choice against keeping the surname-disambiguation pages. Those who voted in favor have stated such pages can be useful. While utility is a good thing, it's not enough to warrant the establishment of a new set of disambiguation pages on Wikisource. And as this was the only reason given for keeping them, their status is supported by a very weak rationale. However, there are multiple reasons why they are less than useful or are not a good idea:
    1. We already have Wikisource:Authors, an alphabetical index of author pages present on Wikisource. The new disambiguation pages duplicate a function we already have in place. The authors index is also already linked from within the Authors: namespace. If the Author page you land on is not the one you were looking for, there is a link on the left side of the header that takes you to the correct place in the index to find what you were actually looking for. Duplicating the function of the Authors index in a second namespace with manually updated pages is an additional expenditure without additional benefit. This point was the single largest factor in my decision, and any counter-argument lamenting that the author index pages are incomplete would condemn the Author: namespace disambiguation by surname pages just as much. Dividing effort between two namespaces to maintain the same lists of links manually does not make sense, and the Authors index is the older, more complete, better organized, and better linked option.
    2. Several of these disambiguation pages turn red links blue in ways they should not. The links to Author:Emerson were originally redirected to Author:Ralph Waldo Emerson, but when the redirect was converted to a disambiguation page in 2013, the incoming links were not corrected. Typically, a reference to an author in the English-language works we host refer to a specific author, and the target should be that author, either directly or via redirection, and not a disambiguation page.
    3. The search function on Wikisource allows users to type in "Author:Neruda" and limit search by namespace. There is no need to manually replicate the search function in a set of static pages.
    4. But having these pages interferes with that search function in the Author namespace, and users looking for a particular Author not listed on the disambiguation page may assume there is no listing for that Author.
    5. If a search does not return the sought-for result, Wikipedia has surname-based pages, and these pages will also list authors who do not yet have an Author page here. Such pages exist across multiple language Wikipedias.
    6. Wikidata is also searchable. I have used it on multiple occasions to find authors.
    7. If there is a special group of authors regularly encountered, users can post a list to their own User: space, or append a list of those authors to a suitable Portal:
    8. Some of the surname-disambiguation pages duplicate the function of a proper disambiguation page. For example, Author:Dickens should be Author:Charles Dickens since both listed individuals have the same first name. The same is true of Author:Linnæus (both are Carls) and Author:Hazlitt (all three are Williams). These pages should be moved to a full name disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:RunningHeader-centered

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This template is unused and redundant to {{RunningHeader}} plus index CSS, and having it creates an undesirable maintenance burden. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Comment This template has multiple links and transclusions. Until all of those links are take care of, it would be premature to delete this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The only transclusions I see at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:RunningHeader-centered are to subpages of the template, and the other links are likewise from subpages of the template, or from discussion pages. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. All incoming links are to discussions of the template (i.e. this page), and the only transclusions are self-references on the template's own doc page. Xover (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Songs by James Scott

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; works in the category also deleted since gallery pages are not within the scope of Wikisource.

Categorization by author is no longer in line with our current standards. These works need to be listed on the author page, Author:James Scott (1885-1938), not in a category. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This can be speedied if someone removes the Category from all the pages that have it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Category deleted, for the list of works discussed below see here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Works

  •   Comment Has anyone else here looked at the "works" in this category? They are simply images, with no transcription of lyrics or the sheet music. None of the works in the category that I saw merit inclusion because they contain no text transcriptions at all. The page content is better suited to Commons, as they are simply images. If these pages are deleted, the corresponding data items will also need to be deleted, unless the images and content are first transferred to the Wikidata items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd disagree very heavily with deleting the works on the basis that they don't contain text, because they can be made into music sheets with our plugin, which can be considered legitimate and useful data that can be parsed textually. But, in their current form, they are literally just pictures of the scans, so   Abstain on my judgment for the transcriptions themselves. Hopefully someone will one day put in the work to make the transcriptions hold up by modern standards (adding sheet music and possibly the small amount of text provided), and I in no way oppose their existence in the case of a modern transcription effort, just that their current presentation isn't too much more useful than a Commons category. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
My point isn't that they contain no text, but that they contain no transcriptions. They are merely galleries of images. If they had music transcriptions, that would be fine. If they were picture books with transcluded images matched from an Index of the pages, that would be fine. But presently, these are <gallery> pages, which make them Commons content, not Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
There are three ways of dealing with scores that go across page breaks. a) Do the score in the Mainspace and don't put anything in the Page: space (e.g. Essentials in Conducting/Appendix B—for this one I worked on it offline in Frescobaldi and uploaded the sound file to Commons); b) Put the whole score onto one of the pages in the Page: space and leave comments on the other pages indicating what has been done (e.g. Page:Fugue by Ebenezer Prout.djvu/235); c) Set each page of a score separately with various overrides on each page to set the bar number and hide time signature etc. (e.g. Cox and Box (complete)/Rataplan). This last is the least desirable option from a transclusion perspective as some pages of a printed score don't fit neatly on to a single Lilypond page and we end up with page-end scraps. This makes e-Book versions very difficult to download and use. Sound files also have to managed separately as otherwise they end up split per page as well.
All that said, I do not recommend setting these scores here on enWS as they do not form a part of a larger text. Most of them are already available in pdf format in IMSLP. Those that aren't should be uploaded there. If someone wants to re-typeset them, then any of IMSLP, Mutopia, or MuseScore are the best hosting venues. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Beeswaxcandle: I thought as much. I’m not skilled enough to do (3), and I think (1) defeats the purpose, so I’ll work with (2). Xover: Not in this case, but in cases where the scores include lyrics, it might be useful to have a separate, “annotated” page that just has the lyrics. These take a while, so it’ll be easier to just close this as keep and wait a year. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete as out of scope. Images, even images of text or musical notation, are for Commons unless they appear as subjunct to content that is in scope. If TE(æ)A,ea. commits to work on bringing them in line with policy I'm happy to postpone deletion; and if brought in line with policy there will no longer be a valid deletion rationale. --Xover (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will proceed with deleting these pages, but only after transferring the data and image links to Wikidata items for each song, such as I have done at d:Q4972501. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Supposed Confessions of a Second-rate Sensitive Mind

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect. Speedied as redundant.

Delete this version without a backing scan. I missed moving this as part of the transcription of Poems, Chiefly Lyrical, where there is now a scan-backed version (see Supposed Confessions of a second-rate sensitive mind not in unity with itself. Chrisguise (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Old style

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; no consensus. Proponents of the template see use for the template, though are divided about that usage.

This is another of those templates that seems to be used to unnecessarily force a style rather than continue an existing font, and is contrary to our style guide. It just clags up proofreading, and adds template noise and unnecessity. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep How is it contrary to the style guide? Why should we have fewer options for styling text? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Koavf:
“ Formatting should be flexible and not interfere with access to the document, knowing that we are trying to reproduce works for modern readership, not provide facsimiles of the time and place. See also Help:Adding texts, Help:Beginner's guide to typography, and Help:Editing. ”

—WS:Style guide

“ Font face

In most situations, Wikisource does not specify the choice of font for texts; this choice is left to the browser or reader. However there are some situations in which it is useful to specify a particular font, and this can be done with one of the following templates:…

”

—Help:Beginner's guide to typography

It is forcing a style on readers, it doesn't give flexibility, it is not allowing their choice of styling that they choose. The toggled layouts are our means for varying the presentation, similarly the {serif]<=>non-serif toggle. This template forces something that is not inherently part of our typography as you feel that it looks nicer or mimics the published work. That is not our choice, present the text and play with the size. However, all this does is unnecessarily make proofreading harder for no tangible benefit, adds extra coding burden for no value. We are meant to be keeping things as simple as reasonable possible for the readers and for the transcribers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
How is this forcing a style any more than (e.g.) {{Serif}}? Any user can easily have local style sheets to ignore any CSS rule. How is proofreading harder? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
In most of the places I see this template used, it is placed contrary to the instructions on the template. It's being used to specify a particular font for no useful reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Is the idea that we should be using CSS styles instead? I can see the argument for replacing the repeated wrapping by defining it in the CSS of the whole work instead. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The template does not specify any particular font. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
These templates as set up and used to not work with the help:layouts, and then, instead of being used minimally, their use is 'abused'. Plus "Serif" is not similar as some works have clear SERIF and NON-SERIF components, so in that case it is replicating tht work. Further, the serif template is long-hosted, whereas the nominated template and its was created well after the style guide was created, not in consultation with the community, and would I argue in contravention to the style guide, and it can easily be managed in its removal. I will also note that abuse of the serif template should be remedied, and look forward to your assistance in doing so.
It is NOT up to all of our users to locally control their CSS to obviate the use of an errant template. Personal CSS is to be used where they want a look outside the published form we produce according to our style guide. You have that concept and expectation back to front.
With regard to it complicating proofreading. It is unnecessary and performs a stylistic function related to a typography of the publishing period, not to modern works. Adding it is adding burden to anyone assisting with any work, or later validating by having to continue that addition, or just having to read through it when doing any proofreading by making it busier to proofread. It fails the KISS test. It makes things busier to proofread. As I also said, PUT IT IN A LAYOUT if it is needed, don't enforce it within a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
"Plus "Serif" is not similar as some works have clear SERIF and NON-SERIF components," Some works have clear old style and not-old style numerals. Your arguments have as much weight as any template about style, from {{serif}} to {{color}} to the various stylings of {{hr}}. As I asked before: "How is proofreading harder?" if someone doesn't want to add it, no one is obliging him to. And if it is, then your argument applies literally just as much to any style template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you link to an example of works with a clear distinction between old style and non-old style numbers?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
E.g. The New Yorker/Volume 1/Number 1 uses old style numerals on the front page and its first ad but not in the running text of the first article or subsequent prose, but you do see it again (along with Roman numerals) in some subheadings. It's common for fine print or title or some kind of text that is otherwise offset to be in fancy number style, just like how some works will use serif or sans-serif for certain types of content or italicized/oblique and upright text. These arguments against style templates are thoroughly bizarre to me: if we want the ease of plain text, we can just strip out all formatting. Why have any style templates at all? Or why have some style options but not others? We can have various bold font weights and different sizes and {{color}} but not old style numerals? Just makes no sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just like {{serif}}, it’s useful in some circumstances. Particularly, text in small-caps or all-small-caps looks better with old-style numbers (i.e., the numbers look like they are (all-)small-caps with old-style). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    Since many readers can't see the effect of this template because of their browser (I'm one of those people), how does that use "[add] value to the work or [help] distinguish content"? Why not simply use a font-size template? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    I would think this is because of the default font choice in the browser rather than the browser itself as it is supported by all major browsers. For example it's been supported in Safari for 7 years Chrome for 7 years, Firefox for 8 years and edge for 3 years. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-variant-numeric . Are we only going to support things assuming users haven't upgrade their browser in a decade or using a more esoteric browser? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  Delete I am yet to see these templated numerals used for anything other than because the look of it reproduces to some extent the font chosen by the publisher. In all the works I've been involved with here I am yet to need to reproduce a font difference in the numerals. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  Comment In general I find it odd that we don't have the companion template to set lining numerals, which I would guess would also be prohibited for setting up a table in a document that generally uses text numerals? Re the general discussion I don't see a huge problem with it being used in, say, section headers or the title page where someone might stick {{small caps}} / {{sans-serif}} / {{blackletter}} / {{larger}} etc. all of which override the default preferences to match the general look. For the general body text, I personally think we should update the style guide to say avoid using it (just like someone wrapping every paragraph in {{serif}} would be abusing it), but the passages highlighted talking about "fonts" doesn't cover it. These typically come with the existing font, just like I wouldn't describe æ and ae as coming from different fonts, or AE and AE. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to use it myself in such situations, but I also haven't bothered to use serif often as well, hence I don't have a strong opinion. As a text / typography heavy site I can understand why for things like title page people want to use more of the large set of font features available, including the six different different types of numbers that a font can come with which can be set: https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/open-type-syntax.html. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  Delete I've waited to hear arguments for keeping this template, but I don't find the supporting reasons convincing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep. To those who say that there's no legitimate usage for the template, Correct Composition/Chapter 4 has a discussion of old style numerals and a comparison to modern typed numerals, and shows an example of old style numerals leading to "mismating of characters" in the text ("YEAR 165 OF THE HEJIRA"). The passage would make no sense without the old style formatting. Arcorann (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • What it says there is "It was the weakness and the uneven alignment of the arabic figures made for old-style fonts that compelled printers to use bolder-faced roman numerals for all title-pages, chapter headings, dedications..." The section is an indictment of old-style, which is hardly a reason for us to continue to use it 120 years after this style guide condemned it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    We need to use it to reproduce the styling in works, it's not a normative template that recommends the usage of old style in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    I understand the assertion, but this is the only instance presented during this discussion that actually uses the template. And as I've pointed out, the template does not work for me, so its use in this one instance does not replicate the issue that the work is trying to show. I also note that the table displaying old style on the previous page was done using an image, and not with the template. With exactly one demonstrated use of this template, and that use being ineffectual, there is insufficient demonstration that the template is useful or should be kept. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    It's used many places. It's unfortunate that your browser doesn't recognize modern CSS, but that's no reason to remove the styling or possible semantic meaning for others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, it is used many places, but only one use has been justified as potentially meaningful, and that use appears in a discussion about the old style itself, which does not support the continued existence of this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    All of its uses are justified as reproducing the styling in the original works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that much of the template's other usage is misuse (such as in The King in Yellow/The Repairer of Reputations, where the template use is also inconsistently applied); I think a bot project to remove those would be a good idea. Nevertheless, I've shown that there are cases where old style numerals need to be distinguished from modern, and removing the template would require an alternative method of doing this. Arcorann (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  Keep per Arcorann. However, we may limit its usage in the documentation of the template for cases like the one mentioned above. I could live with the limited usage including title pages and alike, though it is imo not necessary and I personally do not do it. I would vote against unjustified usage inside works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:Constitution du Rwanda de 1991.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Scan index is not in English but French, and has not been transcribed on fr.WS since the Index there was set up two years ago. It is therefore not eligible for original translation here, and since the fr.WS Index has been idle for two years, any Index here is premature.

This document is not in English, and so, I understand, should not be here.

(It is also in the French wikisource.) -- Beardo (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:พรบ มธ ๒๕๓๑ (๑).pdf and Index:พรบ มธ ๒๕๓๑ (๒) ๒๕๔๑.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Both scans have now been transcribed and proofread at th.WS, which makes them eligible for use in creating a Wikisource-original English translation here.

They are not in English, should be handled as translations. @Asembleo see Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource_original_translations. Mpaa (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mpaa: They are handled as translations. I don't see the point of requesting their deletion. --Asembleo (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Asembleo, see the policy linked. They should be at least be under the Translation ns, plus there is the requirement of having them proofread at their home wiki. On this last requirement I would personally be not so strict, but as mentioned above to change it needs a policy discussion. Mpaa (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Asembleo, sorry, the Translation ns is for when they will be transcluded, my bad ... There is the point of the home wiki though. Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Works under the Translation namespace can be transcluded from indexes. There is plenty of examples, such as Index:Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies, Index:Gruner1921.djvu, Index:Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle, 1.djvu, etc. Also, the works in the above indexes do have the original text at their home wiki, though not yet proofread (but that can be done later). That's why I said I didn't see the point of requesting their deletion. --Asembleo (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Portal:1901–1903—Reforming the Army

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; no consensus. Extraneous material not present on the .mil website has been removed.

This collection of articles, first published here on the website of the US Army Centre of Military History, seems (in my opinion) to be toeing the line between government documents and self-published web content. What do you all think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  •   Delete and all the listed works, none of which identify the source. Well, one seems to indicate a non-government web page as the source, and there is no copyright statement of that page allowing us to host a copy. At best, these might have a source somewhere, in which case these are all secondary transcriptions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Hmm, interesting. I was under the impression that all five of the works in question were originally published on the CMH website (and in the public domain as PD-USGov). I do want to delete them, as out-of-scope, but if they are also second-hand then even more reason to be rid of them :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep on both scope and copyright grounds. Given that the articles were posted on a government Web-site, they are presumably in the public domain. If evidence arises to the contrary, that can be considered, but I think that this case shows a strong base likelihood of no copyright. As for scope, they were published by the U.S. government, which clearly is not “self-published” insofar as we allow all manner of similar works published by the government officials who authored them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
    While this is a valid point, I do not think that all web pages on all US government websites are automatically in scope just because they are published by the US Government. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    Except that only one of the pages identifies a source on the website, which appears to be a secondary transcription. None of the other articles have any indication of their source material. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey: Again, this indicates to me that the articles were written for the Web-site, not that they were written elsewhere and magically appeared there. Beleg Tâl: Why not? If we treat the U.S. government like any other publisher, the works are in scope because they were thus not self-published. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
      Except that the website isn't identified as a source for those other articles. There is only one article that indicates its source link. Maybe all the articles were on the website, and maybe they weren't. We don't have a pointer to the source URLs anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
      • EncycloPetey: I’m not sure that I understand your claim. Is it in reference to what is on Wikisource, or for the original articles? Here, at the portal, there is a hyper-link to the Army Web-site, which has the same listing as that at the portal. I don’t know why it would be necessary, if that is what you are claiming, to include a hyper-link on every article page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
        But the content of the Wikisource copies does not match the web pages. A quick visual inspection shows that, at the very least, there are added images, changes to paragraph breaks, and possibly other changes not spottable with a quick glance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The articles are all there on the CMH website that I linked to, and it is very easy to add the links to the articles (which, of course, I intend to do if the community decides to keep them). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Tangled web is Special:Contributions/CORNELIUSSEON. It was problematic at the time as the contributor was not really a communicator. So we have works like Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades. As these works are unfinished and we have no evident source, I would just say drop them all into the User:CORNELIUSSEON subpages and leave them there as the unusual contributions that they are. Maybe having some value, though not of a completeness or clear value to be in our main ns or our portals. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Maneuver and Firepower is available here as a complete PDF that we could create an index page and transclude: https://history.army.mil/html/books/060/60-14-1/index.html, (along with the other CMH publications which similarly were published). I am happy to spend the time setting up the index pages and sticking migrate to tags on them, but finding someone interested in actually proofreading and transcluding them to bring them in line with current standards is of course significantly more work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Where scans exist that demonstrate that they are within scope and able to be progressively proofread is all a start. As they are going to essentially be electronic works anyway, I think that we can more safely apply the "match and split" of the bot, which I am happy to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This is available as a PDF here, however I know we need to convert to DjVu for match and split. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
And match and splitted. On to the next of these ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@MarkLSteadman: What has been matched-and-split? To where? Nothing at the Portal shows backing by a scan. Was the result transcluded? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So far I have migrated to indexes:
Next I was planning to work on:
These are more of a project:
This was in reference to the "tangled web" User:CORNELIUSSEON work that are official government publications, not the Reforming the Army Portal works. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
So not any of the works listed at the Portal and directly relevant to the topic of the thread? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This thread started with "So we have works like Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades …" and the topic is what to do it with it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the thread drifted from the topic of the section and that these works should either be tagged for tagged for deletion and a new section open to discuss them or this particular thread should stop so that the main section can be resolved. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Shulchan Aruch

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Subpage listings inside category removed.

Work based category. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  Keep There is no proscription against work-based categories, and we have more than a few. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: We do have such a proscription, see Help:Categorization#Excluded categories: "Pages within a particular work (instead, provide a table of contents on the work's main page)." --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
That's not a ban on work-based categories; it is a proscription against listing the pages of a work within a category for the work. That would be enough to remove any page listings from a category, but not be enough to warrant deletion of the category itself. We do have work-based categories that do not simply list the pages of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  Comment In theory, a category like this could be used to contain all the works about a work... sort of a meta-category. For example, if you have a novel, you might have a category with 5 reviews of that novel in periodicals, and 2 academic papers analyzing the novel. We already have portals of this nature and, if I'm remembering correctly, Jan.Kamenicek has created some of those. So I don't know if I'd say the rule should exclude categories for works outright. However, of course, in this particular scenario, where the only content of the category is oodles of subpages of the same work, it's inappropriate. In order for my (possible) support, there'd have to be a number of works in the category that exist completely absently of the work in question, but happen to talk about the work in question. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the proposal is based on the fact that all the pages in the category are the work’s subpages. However, I am not convinced about work-based "meta-categories" either, as PseudoSkull has noted (although I could live with them): I consider the portal NS most appopriate for such lists, and if I am not mistaken it is also the most frequent current practice. The only exception which seems reasonable are categories matched with specific periodicals or encyclopedias (such as Category:Education articles in Popular Science Monthly or Category:EB1911:Cities), where the categorization is not meant to provide mere lists of chapters, but to allow various theme grouping. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
We also have Category:Bible, which is a category based on a work, and it is a large and important category given its many subcategories. See also Category:United States Supreme Court slip opinions which organizes the published opinions of the US Supreme Court as they appear by volume within the work. The reason for nomination: "Work based category" is insufficient to warrant deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
As I already specified above, the rationale of this proposal is work-based category containing only subpages of the work, which is not in accordance with Help:Categorization#Excluded categories. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
And as I stated above, that point is a rationale for removing those subpages from the category, and not a rationale for deleting the category itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
1) The link I provided says clearly that such categories are excluded from WS, and 2) if the category is emptied by removing all the subpages, there is really no reason to keep it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Your first point is not clearly stated at all; the section is called Excluded categories, but the relevant bullet point describes Pages rather than a category. Your second point is debatable; there are two separate copies of this work on WS, which could be listed in the category. And there may be works about this work that could also be listed. The fact that a category has been filled with forbidden content does not mean the category is not viable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You cannot separate the bullets from their heading. Bullets always have to be understood in the context of the text they are added to. Bullet "Pages within particular work" placed under the heading "Excluded categories", and under the text "the following types of categories … are not acepted:" (ended with a colon), clearly means "categories containing pages within particular work are excluded". However, it is also quite clear I will not convince you so let’s wait for more opinions to decide. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
If an otherwise valid category is loaded with subpages, that does not mean we then have to delete the category. I have clarified the confusing text, since it is not a policy page, but a Help page --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I've had the chance to properly research, and both Translation:Shulchan Aruch and Translation:Arukh ha-Shulchan belong in this category. They are not the same work, but the latter is a revision/restatement of the former work by a different author in the original Hebrew. So there are at least two valid members of this category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
No matter whether the emptied category remains or not, there seems to be consensus that the subpages should be removed from there. May I ask some bot operator to provide it, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: A bot has been used to remove those pages. Do you concur that this discussion can now be closed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: OK, agree, let’s close it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep per EncycloPetey. I was initially inclined to delete per Jan's rationale, but I also agree with PseudoSkull and the existence of Translation:Shulchan Aruch and Translation:Arukh ha-Shulchan as valid category members is sufficient to flip my stance. Whether we should have this type of category I am less certain of (I especially dislike the EB1911 categorization mentioned elsewhere here), but that's a discussion for a different forum. --Xover (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Speedied as redundant; incomplete scan for a work with a full scan at Index:King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care (2).djvu

Another copy of Index:King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care (2).djvu, which is later but has some work completed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  •   Keep These appear to be basically the same work—same source material, same text, and an English translation—but the later edition is much expanded, with almost twice as many pages. We do host multiple editions of works, and these are not identical editions. While there may be little need for a second edition of this work, all editions are in scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    •   Delete Talking a deeper look, the nominated scan appears to be a partial copy of the work, ending abruptly at page 288. The second scan is not an enlarged edition, but rather contains the full work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Mishneh Torah

The following discussion is closed:

Closed as premature. A new request for undeletion can be made when the original has been proofread at heWS. In this particular case you can also ask me or EncycloPetey (or in principle any active admin, but since we know the backstory...) directly without going by way of a community discussion.

Please undelete Translation:Mishneh Torah and all of its subpages. I would like to start working on continuing this translation and want the old text as a starting point. Thanks a lot, Sije (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What text will you be working from? Part of the problem with the previous copy was that it had no scan-backed copy on he.WS to work from. See Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations, which notes that one of the things we want in a user-created translation is a "scan supported original language work ... on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation". As far as we could tell, there is no scan-backed original copy on he.WS, and therefore no stable original copy exists from which to create a translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is not the practice of he.WS to provide scans of any books. Here is a 1566 edition of the first three sections of Mishneh Torah available at Google books. Would it be OK if I work from this text? Sije (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sije: While I am not familiar with the policies and practices og heWS, they do certainly use Proofread Page to transcribe scanned originals side-by-side. See e.g. s:he:Index:Hebrewbooks org 38168.djvu.
In any case, this undeletion request is premature; once the work has been proofread on heWS is the time to request undeletion here. Xover (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, current practice has also allowed direct translations from the scans, such as this one, and in such a case it imo might not be necessary to insist on the work being proofread in the original language Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
In such cases, the transcription already has happened on the parent language Wikisource. We are simply using the same scan locally to allow for side-by-side comparison of the text in the Page namespace, in order that the translation can be checked against the original language text. The text still exists on the parent language WS prior to local translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I created index pages at the heWS and one overhere as well, although I'm not sure about the technicalities. Any help on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot, Sije (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sije: Now you proofread the text at heWS. Each physical page in the scan is listed in s:he:Index:משנה תורה דפוס ווארשא-ווילנא כרך ראשון 1.pdf. Go to the first page (physical page 1, logically numbered 2) and transcribe the text and use the standard heWS templates etc. to format the page. heWS will have some guidance and help pages somewhere, or you can ask the community there for help at their village pump / scriptorium. Once you have it finished you change the page status to "Proofread" (the yellow radio button). Then continue to the next page and do the same, and so on until you have proofread every page in the scan. Once that is done you can use transclusion to combine the individual book pages together into one wikipage per chapter (or other relevant subdivision). When the book is fully proofread and transcluded on heWS you can come back here to request undeletion of the old text and start translating it here.
PS. This page (Wikisource:Proposed deletions) is for deletion/undeletion discussions. The best place to ask for assistance is Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, so I am going to close this thread shortly and you can open new threads there when you have questions. Note that we have limited ability to help with issues on heWS so you may want to find the equivalent place there to ask for help from the heWS community.
PPS. I see the scan has "www.hebrewbooks.org" branding. If that is anything more than them just slapping their branding on a scan of an otherwise public domain book you may want to double-check that there isn't a copyright issue there. If hebrewbooks.org have, for example, added commentary or something there could be parts of it that are covered by copyright. I can't tell, and it looks like a mere scan of an old book, but it's better to make sure before you put too much effort into it. Xover (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Do I have to wait until everything will be proofread (that's a lot of work) or can we do it one part at a time? For example, can the introduction be undeleted once the introduction at heWS will be proofread? Sije (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sije: Strictly speaking the policy only requires the work on the original-language Wikisource to be proofread as far as the user translation on enWS. That is, it permits just what you're suggesting here. However, based on experience and the fact that it is quite a lot of work to proofread the original, I am inclined to be very conservative in applying it to avoid having too many unfinished fragments sitting around. How about we do this in batches: work a little ahead at heWS compared to what we undelete here. Would that work for you? Based on the deletion rationale in the previous thread, you will have to do at least some work here on enWS too to make it conform to standards, so working in batches should be a practical way to divide up the task in manageable pieces. Xover (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an avid editor at hebrew wikisource and i fail to see the need to require the user to proofread every page of the scan for the following reasons:

  1. as you mentioned - you need a scanned back up in the original language. you have it - why further trouble the user to create also a digitial addition in hebrew? a backup is a backup.
  2. the digitial hebrew version of this book is already in existence in multiple (if not dozens) sources throughout the internet - one of them being on the he.wikisource itself! the fact that "the proofread box wasn't checked" seems like hardly a reason not to suffice with the 2 resource that are already in existence there 1. the scan of original printing + 2. the digital version of משנה תורה
  3. as was mentioned previously by Jan Kameníček - you already have exceptions to this rule - in light of the points mentioned previously it would make sense to include the current discussion also in said category and not insist on having the user proofread the OTR scan of the pdf which is inferior to the current digital text of the book that is already on hebrew wikisource anyway...

i ask for your further consideration of this topic. many thank to all the terrific work you do here and for the whole world at large. Roxette5 (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a policy question, and not part of the undeletion request. If you have a question about policies, the Wikisource:Scriptorium is the place to ask those questions. But I will address point 3: no, the item Jan Kameníček linked to as an exception actually does meet our current requirements, since it has a proofread scan on th.WS. So it is not an exception. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:Kaufmann Visayan-English Dictionary.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Scan made from a secondary transcription, and not a scan of the actual publication.

This is not the original source, but a copy of a different person’s transcription of the original. In addition, the actual original, while in the public domain in the Philippines (country of origin), had its copyright restored in the United States, and remains copyrighted for 95 years after the original date of publication (1934). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment The previous deletion discussion was closed on the basis of the work being published before 1923. However, I can find no information presented concerning the date of publication in the discussion. At the time, there was a simultaneous discussion at Commons, which resulted in the file being moved here. The commons discussion also does not present date information that I can find. Do we know the actual date of publication, or are we assuming the date of 1934 on the Index is correct? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey: Looking it up, I got the date wrong. The author died in 1942, so the copyright in the Philippines expired in 1993, which is before the URAA date (1996). Thus, there was no restoration, and the work is in the public domain in the United States. I find no proof anywhere of a pre-1923 date. However, I believe my non-deletion reason still stands, so I don’t think that the discussion should be closed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
      • The only reason I would close this early is if there were a Speedy reason in favor of deletion, or a clear copyright violation. Since the copyright seems OK, and there is no Index for the original publication, this will sit for (at least) the usual week before action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom (minus the resolved copyright issue). --Xover (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:William Shakespeare (1564-1616)/First Folio

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. List of plays with no links or content from the FF& encyclopedic content beyond scope.

This page merely lists the plays found in the First Folio, with information copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article. It does not (and never has) actually linked to the First Folio. Nor does it link to the facsimile of the FF, nor to copies of the plays found in a copy of the FF. As this is simply a list of Shakespeare's plays (which are listed at the author's page) with Wikipedia content, it is redundant and beyond scope, and serves no purpose here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete. This is really the job of the table of contents on a collective work (which in this case would be the Folio). PseudoSkull (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Slavery part 2 volume 6.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant.

According to the information filled in by Bob Burkhardt, this seems to be duplicitous of Index:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker volume 6.djvu, which is more or less entirely proofread and transcluded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  •   Keep. Unfortunately, the proofread scan misses page no. 323, while the nominated one has the page. So I suggest keeping the nominated scan, moving the proofread pages here, and deleting the other one. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment A scan repair on the proofread scan could also resolve the issue. A move to the other scan would require a page offset, since the page numbers relative to scan pages is not the same. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
      File fixed. Mpaa (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
      @Mpaa: Great! However, the file at Commons still links to the same source where this part of the scan is missing, which is quite confusing. Would it be possible to mention the repair and the source of the added part at the file's page at Commons? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
      @Jan.Kamenicek done, I added as a note. Yes, it is indeed worth while noting the source of the replacements we make on the files. It is not an established practice. We should find the best way to document it (e.e in summary of changes, as "note" in the description, etc..) Mpaa (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Page:Officers, 129th Field Artillery, at regimental headquarters at Château du Chesnay near Courcemont, France, March 1919. Cap - NARA - 530949.tif

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as out of scope.

Just a photo without text. The photo is in commons. -- Beardo (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:Isaac Herzog

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Modern author with no known works in English that are in public domain.

This is an author born in 1960, and the only item listed is a link to a page on the New York Times that's not free to access. As there's no free works or expectation thereof, we should delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete unless we can find some PD works. By the way, as this person was a government official, there is a possibility of some edicts existing in English, though it's a stretch. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:math tag

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unused, undocumented, abandoned template.

Unused, undocumented, abandoned since 2015, and should in any case not be used in its current form. Xover (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:The Mahabharata (Kishori Mohan Gangopadhyay, First Edition) Volume 1.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant (and missing pages); a replacement Index now exists.

This index (which has a number of duplicated pages) should be deleted in place of Index:The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (1884).djvu. Ideally, the name of the latter file should be harmonized with that of the whole set. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Without looking too closely, this can probably be speedied as redundant. Xover (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:An Account of the Scarabaeus Galeatus Pulsator, or the Death Watch, by Mr. Hugh Stackhouse. Communicated by John Harwood, L. L. D. R. S. S. (IA jstor-103765).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant; transcribed pages migrated to complete index.

A duplicate of pages from Index:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 033.djvu. The article should be moved to a subpage. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Tempest (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; unsourced copy, and we have four scan-backed editions of the same play.

An unsourced edition. We have three editions fully backed by scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Anthem (Santa Clara Broncos)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Internet website edition; redundant to scan-backed edition.

Non-scan backed edition, where a scan-backed version (of far better quality) does exist. It claims to have been taken from a website, and per the talk page of the edition, this is due to a transwiki from Wikipedia sometime back in the 2000s. We should stay as far away as possible from "website versions", especially where a scan-backed version does exist. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Verse in English from Eighteenth-Century Ireland/Song of the Angels at the nativity of our Blessed Saviour - formerly called While shepherds watched their flocks by night (1998)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copy from non-PD work; we have two copies of this same song from scan-backed works.

This edition is from a non-free collection, and is substantially identical to the two editions we have from free collections —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete, redundant. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Is there an update you should have posted to this thread? Xover (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: if you mean the fact that I renamed it from While shepherds watched their flocks by night (1998) to Verse in English from Eighteenth-Century Ireland/Song of the Angels at the nativity of our Blessed Saviour - I don't think that's particularly relevant to the discussion, though perhaps people might find it confusing.
To clarify, the deletion nomination is for Verse in English from Eighteenth-Century Ireland/Song of the Angels at the nativity of our Blessed Saviour formerly known as While shepherds watched their flocks by night (1998), for the reasons outlined above: the edition is from the non-free collection Verse in English from Eighteenth-Century Ireland and is substantially identical to two other editions we have from The Cambridge Carol Book and Our American Holidays - Christmas. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why the move was necessary/useful, as the page seems heading towards its deletion... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the history, the page was moved first, then the date of publication was discovered, then the page was nominated for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: It was indeed the page move. I was confused by the fact it was seemingly moved within a containing work while the proposal here said the containing work was ineligible for hosting, and about why you'd listed a redirect for deletion. It would probably have been less confusing to list it as Verse in English from Eighteenth-Century Ireland/Song of the Angels at the nativity of our Blessed Saviour (if EP's surmise above is correct). Anyways, thanks for clarifying. Xover (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The Akerman Steppe

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Work of unknown provenance; possible copyvio.

I am not sure whether this is the contributor's own translation or whether it has been copied here from somewhere. If the latter is true, there is no evidence of the text being in the public domain, as no information about the translator can be found anywhere, and so the text should be deleted as a potential copyvio. The contributor kept changing the translation, which suggests that it might be their own translation, or that they tweaked somebody elses translation. If it is a tweaked translation, it should be deleted as out of our scope. If it is contributor's own translation, it has not been based on a scan supported original language work present on the appropriate language wiki, as required by WS:Translations, and so it should be deleted anyway. Unfortunately, User:LucDar, the contributor who added the work, does not communicate. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right that it is the user's own translation. (There is a scan backed original on [7]). -- Beardo (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Hm, I see. Well, now it depends on whether we can rule out the other possibilities (especially the one of a tweaked translation), which I am really not sure about, or whether we can assume that Darek J. Jezierski and LucDar are the same person. But we can wait a while whether they answer either on their talk page or here (having been pinged above). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. If this should be treated as a WS translation, it needs a number of changes - and we can't make those based on a suspicion. btw, there is another version at Sonnets from the Crimea/The Ackerman Steppe -- Beardo (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned outdated subpages of Library of Congress Classification

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Obsolete pages from old schema; no incoming links.

While scrolling Category:Texts without a source I discovered that there were numerous subpages of Library of Congress Classification that are now orphaned, of the form Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HB -- Economic Theory and Demography. These are superseded by those of the form Library of Congress Classification/Class H if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if there are places still linking to those old pages, but can we get away with deleting them? (Redirects could work if necessary.) Arcorann (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

List of outdated pages
And the corresponding redirects from the even older format:
List of redirects
Arcorann (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The Flowers of the Forest (second hand)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as secondhand transcription, for which a scan-backed copy exists.

Second hand copy, of which we have a scan-backed version at The Book of Scottish Song/The Flowers of the Forest —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The System of the Stars

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned transcription with only one chapter and no identified source. A search found only poor-quality scans.

Abandoned since 2011 and consists of nothing but an unlinked toc and one very incomplete chapter subpage that's mostly uncorrected OCR (not to mention work-in-progress artefacts that have no place in our presentation namespaces). Xover (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete per nom. Even if someone wants to work on it now that it's been brought up here, the current page will not be helpful towards that end. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:Aleksandar Hemon

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied with consent of the original contributor.

A modern author with no known hostable works. This is one of several pages created by @Santasa99: for authors from Bosnia and Herzegovina. None of the pages list any hostable works, and most list no works at all. If they have no hostable works in English, I recommend deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  Delete No evidence of English works out of copyright in the US. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with nomination, it was my oversight and error.
Santasa99 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Speedied. Original creator agrees with nomination. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:Branko Ćopić

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied with consent of the original contributor.

  Delete No evidence of English works out of copyright in the US. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - Hedgehog's Home by Branko Ćopić is famous adaptation for English language and it's used as a case study for translation and adaptation. However, it is written in early 1950's. His earliest collection of short stories and poems are those written in 1930's.
Santasa99 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Santasa99: Unfortunately, since Ćopić's works were from after 1928 and published outside of the United States, those works are by default protected by URAA, meaning they're almost certainly under copyright in the US. We can only host uncopyrighted works per US copyright law, and hosting an author page with only currently copyrighted works is pointless. I think the time to have an author page for Ćopić is probably around the 2030s, when his first work goes public-domain. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Speedied. Original creator agrees with nomination. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied with consent of the original contributor.

  Delete No evidence of English works out of copyright in the US. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - Francis R. Jones is main translator of Mak Dizdar poetry, which means those are published in translation after 1950's. Is there any translation out of copyright I can't say without checking around first.
Santasa99 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Santasa99: A general rule of thumb for copyright law is, was it published before January 1928? If so, we can have them hosted. If not, in most cases, no. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Dizdar was born in 1917, Ćopić 1915, so probably no works before 1928, and I doubt any of their work has been released into public domain. Santasa99 (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Speedied. Original creator agrees with nomination. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Author:Ivo Andrić

The following discussion is closed:

After evidence that there exists at least one English-language translation of the author's work that is in the public domain, most participants in the discussion were in favour of keeping the author page. The rationales and strength of the position varied somewhat though: some considered the mere potential that an eligible text could exist to be sufficient to make an Author: page in scope, while others felt it was due to the actual existence of a concrete eligible text. Some questioned whether it was enough for an eligible text to exist elsewhere versus having it transcribed here while others expressed a weak keep vote on this basis.

On this precedent Author: pages for authors where it is known that at least one eligible work actually exists will generally tend to be considered in scope, and irrespective of whether we actually host the text yet or not. Author: pages for authors who have no known eligible works but where such works could exist in the future (as either a Wikisource translation or a compatibly licensed third-party translation) are here undetermined and would require community discussion to decide whether to keep or delete.

Weak   Keep I did find on their Wikipedia article the following poetry collections:

  • 1918 Ex Ponto. Književni jug, Zagreb.
  • 1920 Nemiri. Sv. Kugli, Zagreb.

The originals would be out of copyright so would be (in theory) in scope for the Translation namespace. But, there being an English translation out of copyright already in existence is unlikely. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  •   Delete. The mere possibility that works could exist is not sufficient. Unless a concrete work actually exists the author page is out of scope. A Wikisource translation once started would count as such a concrete work, but not a hypothetical future Wikisource translation. --Xover (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: I have no strong opinion towards this particular author either way, but by "exist" and "concrete work", do you mean anything with a transcription already available at Wikisource? Because if that's the case, we have a huge backlog of author pages created by primarily administrators to delete. Even prolific, long-time ones like Billinghurst, etc. add author pages to the site constantly, to prepare for future, hypothetical transcriptions (which I think is a good thing). I am not at all invested in translations, but I'm just hoping you're not suggesting this stringent measure against mainspace hypotheticals. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I interpret the remark as meaning there is demonstration of a published English translation of something they wrote, whether or not a scan has been uploaded and transcription started. If there are no known hostable works (published, in English, and in public domain) and no valid user translation is underway, then there is no value in having an Author page on the English Wikisource. I would grant a little leeway if we have evidence of a work that will shortly enter public domain, but what value is there to our readers in having Author pages listing only works that we can't provide to them? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I mean literally the difference between a work that already exists (because it was already published at some point, whether we have a scan of it somewhere or not) and a work that could potentially exist but currently does not. A Wikisource translation is an original work that either exists or does not. The same would go for a third-party published translation released under a compatible license: it could happen at some point, but until it does that's no argument for keeping an author page around.
We may have to rethink some of this stuff once Author: pages are backed by structured data (either on Wikidata, locally using something SDC-like, or a combination), but until then… Xover (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Ivo Andrić Foundation offers translated portions of novels and bunch of short stories, few essays, and other writings, while I suspect pre-1928 works should be available online since the author is planetary relevant.
    The English translations must also be in the public domain. There are many websites with translations under a license that is incompatible with Wikisource. In this case, the Foundation has copyright notice stating that all rights are reserved, so we cannot use their translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Even if they host some piece written before 1928? (Something doesn't make sense with their claim since the rights for three titles for which he received a Noble were actually transferred to Museum of Literature of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Library of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina by Andrić himself Further, are they owners of their own translations or copyright on works - this is so complicated that eludes me completely.) Santasa99 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    The person who made the translation holds the copyright. Copyright for most of Europe lasts until 70 years after the death of the translator. The translation has to be in public domain to be hosted here, and copyright on the translation is separate from the copyright of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Are you sure that their "all rights reserved" does not extend to authors original works, that it's just translation that they are protecting? Santasa99 (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Also, please check this version out - it seems copyright free; only it's in German :-( Santasa99 (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    And, this one is in English (1919), and The Damned Yard or Accursed Yard too.. Santasa99 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Santasa99: I don't know what you mean by "seems copyright free". Copyright automatically comes into being the instant something of sufficient creativity is fixed in some kind of tangible medium, and protects the work for some given term. For our purposes the most relevant copyright terms are defined as lasting 95 years from publication (in the US) and lasting 70 years after the author's death (most of the rest of the world). A translation is what's called a "derivative work": it takes the original text and transforms it into a new work. As such, two copyrights will apply to translations: the one of the original work, and the one for the translation. Both copyrights have independent terms and both can and usually do have different owners. In this scan—ignoring the fact it's in German and so out of scope for that reason—there is no evidence of publication date or identity of the translator. That means we can't determine the copyright term, not that it doesn't exist.
    The Bridge on the Drina was translated by Lovett Fielding Edwards. Edwards was born in 1901, so I very much doubt he had translations of Nobel prize-winning authors published when he was 18 years old (the translation seems to have actually been published in 1977). He died in 1984 so his copyright in most of the world lasts until 1984 + 70 = 2054, and in the US until 2072.
    Devil's Yard was translated by Kenneth Johnstone and published in 1962 in the US, so its copyright likely does not expire until after 2056. Xover (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    The short story "The Zepa Bridge" is in the public domain in the US, having been published in English in the Slavonic Review in 1926 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4202083 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Note the The Bridge on the Drina was published in 1959 and then copyright was renewed. The Vizier's Elephant was published in 1962 and renewed. Bosnian Story was published in 1958 in London so it is unlikely to be simultaneous publication. There was a collection published in 1957, Some Yugoslav Novelists which might contain some of his work. I found translations of Ex Ponto and A Dialogue in An Anthology of Modern Yugoslav Poetry by Lavrin but it is also published in London so also likely copyrighted in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment It has been shown above that some English language PD translations exist so I cannot vote for deletion based on current rules, although I would like to, as I do not find creating empty author entries without any links to their WS hosted works useful. Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep a public domain short story from 1926 exists. The broader question of the sequencing and process of staging the various pieces of work is a separate discussion, which probably would need at least a proposal to discuss, in general I prefer doing author pages early so that I can attach death date information to know where to upload works (WS vs. Commons), hence I would prefer to discuss a proposal to understand how others envisage the process working in a (upload --> index --> proofread --> transclusion --> author flow). MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Stronger   Keep per evidence provided by MarkLSteadman PseudoSkull (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep. Since we now have an extant work that is eligible for hosting, the Author: page is within scope. --Xover (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Keep Translation should be a first-class citizen; if it's good enough to have the possibility of a scan to have an Author page, then it should be good enough to have the possibility of being translated to have an Author page. At the very least, works with scan-backed transcriptions on other Wikisources should be eligible for Author pages, even if no timely translations were made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not so broadly generous, at least not without serious exceptions and qualifications. For example, I found a medieval poet who seemed to be a really good candidate, at first, for including here. But it turns out that what he's known for is his translation of Dante into his native language. Even if that were backed by a scan, it would be silly to translate his translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Note that what I argued above was not the possibility of a scan, but the actuality of one. The difference between a "scan" and a "Wikisource translation" is that the former represents something that actually exists, whereas the latter is a mere hypothetical. The practical implications of demanding the former is roughly the status quo, but for the latter it would be to allow entirely empty Author: pages for every single person that ever lived because we might hypothetically discover that they had once written something. For practical reasons there must be some kind of limitation: requiring a concrete artefact to actually exist would seem a reasonable place to draw the line. Xover (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

American Novel

The following discussion is closed:

Nominated as disambig page for linking based on subtitle. Converted to redirect by creator.

Disambiguation page, distinguishes Democracy: An American Novel from The American Novel.

I don't think that subtitles should be treated like titles in this way. (In fact, I don't think subtitles should be respected at all in our titling scheme, but that's another matter.) Except in cases where the subtitle contains "or," to indicate an alternate title to the same work, a subtitle is just an appendage to the title. I don't believe many would ever look up "An American Novel" thinking that was the exact name of Democracy.

Think about it like this: There are probably thousands of novels with the subtitle "A Novel". There are also probably thousands of biographies with the subtitle "The Man and His Work". But I think putting all of these in a disambiguation page for "Novel" and "Man and His Work" would be very messy.

Although, if there's some hard evidence that "An American Novel" is a common misconception for "Democracy: An American Novel", such as with "The Living Dead" and Night of the Living Dead, I'll change my vote.

Pinging @Neo-Jay: who created the page. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not delete. If subtitles should not be treated like titles, American Novel should be changed to a redirect page to The American Novel, and should not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete and redirect to The American Novel. I agree that subtitles should not, generally, be used as part of the wikipage name and should not be considered part of the title proper for disambiguation purposes. That means Democracy: An American Novel should really live at Democracy (1880) and be dab'ed at Democracy. Which in turn means it should be removed from the list of works on American Novel, and because that disambiguation page is then left with just one entry it can be changed into a redirect to The American Novel. Xover (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Or Democracy (Adams). PseudoSkull (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean "deleting the page and then creating a new redirect page", or "not deleting the page, just changing it to be a redirect page"? I, as the creator of that page, have changed the page to be a redirect page to The American Novel. Now we can discuss whether this redirect page should be deleted. In my view, it should not.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: In general, "delete" in discussions here primarily means "fundamentally change the content of a given wikipage". Sometimes that means outright technical deletion, sometimes it means technically deleting it to recreate it as something else, and sometimes it means just changing the content. In this particular case I mean just replacing the contents with a redirect. I believe that's also what PseudoSkull has in mind here. Xover (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

More Grimm's Fairy Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced duplicates of stories that each exist in more than one scan-backed editions

Nominating another small group of these that are redundant to now scanned copies. Should be non-controversial, but giving a chance for anyone to object before deleting them in bulk.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete Yes, please let's not keep these around. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Ginza Rabba

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned, incomplete, user-created translation without backing scan or transcription on Wikisource of original language.

I suggest deleting thiw work because of several issues:

  1. Translating work seems abandoned since September 2021
  2. The translation is not being done in accordance with our policy, i. e. based on a scanbacked original proofread at the appropriate language Wiki
  3. In fact it is not a translation of the original at all, it is a translation of a translation, which is imo a bad practice that enhances the risk of various imprecisions and shifts in meanings.

Pinging User:Nebulousquasar as the translator. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment German Wikisource does not have this work, though they do have a link to a scan of the German text. While translations of translations can be bad practice, we host more than a few, some of which are published translations of translations, such as the "King James" Bible and the Sommer translation of The Code of Hammurabi. And here, the source text is Aramaic, published in translation by a German translator, and a translation of that edition might be our best option for ever hosting the text, since we are unlikely to ever get an Aramaic copy hosted on any Wikisource and then have Aramaic translators here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    If I remember correctly, German Wikisource has a very poor practice for scan-backing, so I don’t think that it should be a strict requirement in that sense. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Subpages moved to be subpages of Harper's

Compilation of various editorials by Carl Schurz, partly taken from The Writings of Carl Schurz and mostly from other sources. The compilation should be deleted as out of scope, although it is possible to identify the sources of the individual editorials and split them under their original publications, if somebody undertakes to do it. Pinging Bob Burkhardt (although inactive since April 2022). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment This might be moved to the Author: namespace as a subpage. We have similar pages such as Author:Marcus Tullius Cicero/Speeches. But the individual editorials would need to be attached to the works from which they came, as they could not be so moved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    I would say a portal would be a more natural way to collect these as they're the intersection of an author and a specific publication. The Author: subpages we have are a bit of a mess and overall poorly managed (partly because we have no very clear guidance on them). Xover (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Does that mean moving these to the Author namespace? Otherwise there would be no basepage, since the listing page would be moved and the Harper's Weekly page was moved to the Portal namespace in 2021. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
      I mean that the wikipage Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz should be moved to Portal:Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz, and the subpages should be treated as if they were top-level mainspace pages. The subpages can be either preserved as top-level standalone works, or moved within the containing work if it can be identified and it is practicable to do so. According to the notes these are mostly Harper's Weekly, so we could (re)create Harper's Weekly and move these to Harper's Weekly/1893-03-18/The Annexation Policy etc. (the previous page at Harper's Weekly was presumably moved because it was a collection of extlinks, more suited to a WikiProject but just barely passable as a Portal:, not because we can't have a page there if properly formed).
      Hmm. Incidentally, or maybe more "tangentially", perhaps a better approach for Harper's would be Portal:Harper's Weekly as the main page, combined with each issue as a top level page ala. Harper's Weekly (March 18, 1893) and with subpages Harper's Weekly (March 18, 1893)/The Annexation Policy etc.? That would avoid having a constructed (non-scan-backed / transcluded) index portal type thingie at Harper's Weekly, and avoid the multi-level subpage hierarchy, all in all making this simpler for all involved. The page-dab'ed-by-date also jibes well with how we dab other stuff.
      And maybe we could divide the purpose of Portal: in two, narrowing Portal: into a more focussed topic hierarchy (LCCN etc.) and splitting off portals that are periodicals to a new sort of mainspace page (using a hypothetical {{periodical header}} to differentiate).
      Probably unworkable for some reason or other, but might be worth exploring if anybody has the spare cycles to think it through.
      Xover (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
      Oh, but to be clear, I am not opposed to deleting Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz outright, if that's the consensus, so long as we preserve the subpages somewhere. Moving it to Portal: is just an alternative to deletion; it can't stay in mainspace as is. Xover (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree the wikipage at Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz is out of scope and should be either deleted, migrate to a Portal:, migrate to a sub-page of Author:Carl Schurz, or be converted into a Harper's Weekly (cf. Portal:Harper's Weekly).
    The subpages then become just loose non-scan-backed texts with slightly confused provenance (e.g. at least one are from a later reprint of an editorial first published in Harper's). Given our general practice with such texts I don't think deleting them is appropriate (we'd be being stricter with these than with others), so moving them to non-subpage titles or to titles within a magazine structure would be more appropriate.
    Also, Bob Burkhardt, aka. Library Guy, has been active here on and off for a very long time. It is likely that they will become active again at some point, and leaving notifications on their user talk pages may elicit a response. I think we should try to get their input as a long-time contributor before making a final call on this. --Xover (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    I have left a notification at the talk pages of both Bob Burkhardt and Library Guy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the general sentiment about being overly strict here. For works in periodicals, the boundaries between Author: subpages, Portal: and Main: generally we lack clear guidance for organizing and then linking the scattered works across issues (e.g. we have The Strand Magazine/The Hound of the Baskervilles in Main: but the Holmes's short stories in Portal: as well as in Author:). Other contributors haven't places their works from periodicals under the periodical either, e.g. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821 isn't a subpage of The Literary Gazette or Her Chance (Wylie) isn't a subpage of Royal for example. I would be more in favor of tagging with a maintenance tag / having a discussion for improvement on the work talk page about how to improve things rather than deletion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Landon is a separate problem. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821 claims to be transcluded from Index:Literary Gazette Titles.pdf and backed by File:Literary Gazette Titles.pdf, which is a PDF file containing only the title bits and obviously created in Word on the contributor's own computer (it's not a scan, it's self-generated PDF). The subpages, e.g. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821/Stanzas On the Death of Miss Campbell, are transcluded from Index:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf backed by File:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf, which is—you guessed it—a PDF file generated from a Word file "compiled by Peter J. Bolton". All of which were uploaded by Esme Shepherd, whose user page begins "My real name is Peter J. Bolton." That is, this is a user-created compilation of arbitrary excerpts, hidden behind a sheen of scan-backing. And this is just the tip of the iceberg: the user has a particular obsession with Landon and has been creating these self-published collections and custom editions for years. At some point we'll have to go through their entire contribution history to weed out these, but I just don't have the spare capacity to try to unravel this mess (and the contributor does not react well to stress, so both patience and a firm hand are needed). Xover (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
My general feeling is that these type of moves are handed by adding maintenance tags ({{standardize}}?) rather than deletion if it is mostly around moving things around and creating the appropriate larger apparatus (portals, index pages, front matter and contents etc.) adding another big pile of work to the backlog... MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete. And these could easily fit on an author page or author subpage, which is where these probably really belong IMO. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    Rather than outright deleting the page and its contents, there have been proposals to make it a Portal or an Author sub-page. Most of the discussion is now on how to handle the listing and its items. The linked articles are currently organized as subpages, so deleting the base page would leave an auto-generated redlink to that location from each of the article pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2017.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. User-compiled files are not published works, and therefore are not acceptable as sources.

I am pretty sure that this volume (and the 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 volumes) are not actual volumes, but user-created compilations. In any case, the original Web-site is broken (for some reason), so there’s no way to confirm. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The Indian Gazette site is currently https://egazette.gov.in/ - but I can't see any annual volumes of laws. -- Beardo (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: -- Annual volumes have been officially published upto 2016 (https://lddashboard.legislative.gov.in/text-central-acts-year-wiseunder-updation). The volumes under discussion are user-made compilations of items electronically published in India's official gazette. I had made similar compilations for US and UK laws (e.g. Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 132 Part 1.pdf and Index:The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1802 (42 George III).pdf). No objection from me if deletion is decided. Hrishikes (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thanks. User-compilations are out of scope, but it'd be a shame to not have some sensible structure around this. You wouldn't happen to have any ideas of what that might be? If they're published in the Gazette, would it be practical to primarily use the issues of the Gazette as the content framing structure, and then possibly use a Portal: for a more index-like structure to replace these PDFs? Xover (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Xover: -- For every item within those compilations, Gazette links are available. You will get all the gazette links by opening the individual items under d:Q77828588 (these are old links; now http to be replaced by https and nic.in by gov.in). Please inform if you want any specific action from me. Hrishikes (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Delete: the user-compiled files are not acceptable sources. BUT…
    …the tables of contents of the files are probably a good Portal:, and the rest of the content of the files are individually hostable. I am consistently baffled whenever I try to navigate Indian legislative publications, but what seems to be going on is that each Act, when adopted, gets published individually as if it were itself an issue of their Gazette. I think each act essentially becomes an issue of that year's volume of the journal. e.g. The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 is No. 2 and "The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017" is No. 3. That probably suggests a structure like The Gazette of India/2017/Issue 2, with a redirect at The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (and possibly also a named subpage redirect for convenience of linking). --Xover (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. WS:OR (copied from Wikinews), As a WikiNews article, it belongs at WikiNews, it does not meet WS criteria for digital-born media hosted on WikiSource.

WS:OR (copied from Wikinews). 沈澄心 (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, interesting issue. We do permit born-digital texts; but do we permit ones "published" on our own sister projects? Almost everything on Author:Adrianne Wadewitz is from The Signpost or foundationwiki. While still a wiki, The Signpost does operate along the lines of a traditional publication: it has a responsible editor, and its articles are essentially static after publication. On the other hand, we add very little value by mirroring wikipages from Wikipedia (or Wikinews) as wikipages on Wikisource. Personally I question whether we should include born-digital texts at all for that reason.
Note that if we should bend the rules for any works it's the ones we have for Awadewit. The works we have were added in a flurry after her untimely death, and there's a reason people were so engaged by that. She was… irreplaceable. Xover (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete, with all respect to Wadewitz of course...a very sad story.
In general, I don't think that a publication that happened on a wiki should be included, even if it had a formal editor, because they can (at least theoretically) be changed or updated at any point.
I'm not familiar with the Signpost really, since I'm not involved with Wikipedia. But, a closer look at some fairly recent Signpost entries as samples that the Signpost entries aren't even indef-protected, meaning that they can be edited by anyone at any time. And that particular page has been edited just yesterday, despite having been posted on December 5.
And in the case of posts that originated on Wikinews, well... I was never an editor there, so again, I'm going off of a lack of familiarity with their community. But, I believe they indefinitely protect any news articles they create a few days after they're released. Even despite that, it's still a wiki, and in theory an admin could still edit them, for maintenance etc. so I don't think Wikinews articles should be included just because of that unique protection practice of their wiki.
But in all manner of practicality, the articles are mirrors of existing wiki pages. I think that alone should make them beyond scope at least practically, because what's the use of having to repost a Signpost article or Wikinews article here every time they're created at their own respective sites? I think archiving is important, but Wikisource is certainly not the place for their archives. The Internet Archive, along with many other online archive projects for the web, are probably better fits if preservation alone is the goal of the hosting at WS. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  Delete Linking to the sister sites is supposed to be via WD, which removes the need to mirror content. We already reject and speedy delete as out of scope WP article mirrors that turn up here. I don't see that Wikinews (or Signpost) should be treated any differently. At the distance of 10 years, the extensive list of off-site links on the related Author: page is also out of scope as a link farm and needs to be culled as we can't host the sources for another 85 years at a minimum. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having looked over the remaining articles on her Author:-page, they should all be deleted, along with that page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    Not everything on the Author page. We do have "Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed", which is a Featured Text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    • EncycloPetey: Actually, it was defeatured a few months ago, but nobody actually removed the template. As it is self-published (on her blog, I believe), it should also be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
      It is a blog article, yes, but it's not her personal blog (she didn't have one), it is Impact of Social Science published by the London School of Economics. So it has a responsible editor, is published by an entity that would be considered a "reliable source" by Wikipedia, and not just anyone gets invited to write an article for this blog (Awadewit was an academic IRL, in addition to her Wikimedia-related work). But it is a blog, rather than an actual academic journal, and as Jan.Kamenicek has aptly pointed out in the discussion to de-feature the text their publishing criteria are not particularly stringent. I think that as long as we treat born-digital works as first class citizens this would necessarily be within scope; it's just that I am personally very sceptical that we should do so. Xover (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
      Besides what has been mentioned above, I am very hesitant about including various blog and other purely Internet texts to Wikisource for one more reason: these sources are often not very stable, various unnoticed minor changes may be made there any time, or they can be completely rewritten without a trace of the previous text, or they may completely disappear overnight. So if such a text should be allowed here, we should require a link to its stable archived version. We might also start requiring an independent (admin?) confirmation that the added work is identical with this stable version to avoid future disputes if even such stable version disappeared for some reason. However, I would not be against their complete exclusion either. This does not apply to Wikinews or other Wikimedia projects articles, whose mirroring is quite useless and which should never be hosted here. (All this being written with deep respect to Adrianne Wadewitz.) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:The Serfs

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Scan of the original play is now fully proofread at sl.WS.

Quite a harsh judgement of this translation has been recently written at Translation talk:The Serfs. I cannot say whether it is right or not, but the truth is that the translation was not based on a scan-backed text at the Slovenian Wikisource, as required by WS:Translations#Wikisource original translations, although the rule had been in effect for a long time when the translation was added here. So I suggest its deletion. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2023&oldid=14173064"