Testwiki:Proposed deletions/Archives/2023
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Category:BDA:Army Officers
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
PD-art
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Comment Template:Ping please convert it to a redirect and mark this as Template:Tl 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)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The complete works of Count Tolstoy
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 1 July 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
PD-old-X templates
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 4 July 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Obsolete CSS pages
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:47, 23 July 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 28 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 28 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,
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Template: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)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced Grimm's Tales
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Monthly Challenge
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 18 October 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
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 20 October 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/
Template:Closed/s Back when the Open Access movement was young and hopeful, WikiProject Open Access tried to use Template:Ul2 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)
- Template: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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Vd This is an abandoned project with no progress to make the dumps usable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Additional pages at Index:Notes on the State of Virginia (1853).djvu
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)}} Template:Closed/e
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- 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)
Did a partial trawl through these and I see
- Author:Emerson
- Author:Dickens
- Author:Tolstoy
- Author:Austen
- Author:Churchill
- Author:Roosevelt
- Author:Obama
- Author:Dickinson
- Author:Einstein
- Author:Huxley
- Author:Linnæus
- Author:Hazlitt
- Author:Sumner
- Author:Shelley
- Author:Burns
- Author:Gauss
- Author:Neruda
- Author:Fisher
- Author:Fischer
- Author:Kvapil
- Author:Fairchild
- Author:Mourek
- Author:Svoboda
- Author:Mayer
- Author:Šrámek
- Author:Pichon
- Author:Villani
- Author:Scheiner
- Author:Staněk
- Author:Brož
- Author:Hilbert
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)
- Template:Vk. 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Vd. 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).Template:PbrBut 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 Template:Vd, 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wikidata is also searchable. I have used it on multiple occasions to find authors.
- 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:
- 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:Closed/s This template is unused and redundant to Template:Tl plus index CSS, and having it creates an undesirable maintenance burden. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template: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)
- Template:Vd per nom. No longer in use. --Xover (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template: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 Template: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)
- 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 Template: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)
- Template:Vd the works as well, per EncycloPetey. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now, I feel like the change in discussion focus is a bit much. To my knowledge, this was a standard process for early music transcription. I would be happy to actually transcribe the music, but with one question: is there a good system for cross-page transclusion of music? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: By "cross-page" do you mean sheet music that spans multiple pages in the source scan? In any case, I'm useless when it comes to LilyPond issues, but my go-to for questions about it is Beeswaxcandle. There is also a help page at Help:LilyPond but I can't tell whether it's up to date or whether it addresses your question. Xover (talk) 05:50, 29 September 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.Template:PbrAll 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)
- 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.Template:PbrAll 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template: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)
- Xover: Given this, I am not able to transclude them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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) Template:Closed/e
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:PingTemplate:CquoteTemplate:Cquote
- 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.) Template:Tl? 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 Template:Tl to Template:Tl to the various stylings of Template:Tl. 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 Template:Tl but not old style numerals? Just makes no sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 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)
- "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 Template:Tl to Template:Tl to the various stylings of Template:Tl. 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)
- Keep. Just like Template:Tl, 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)
- 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template: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 Template:Tl / Template:Tl / Template:Tl / Template:Tl 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 Template:Tl 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 Template:Asc 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Template:Vk 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Comment If someone proofreads the copy on fr.WS, the Index can be used here to support an English translation. However, no progress has been made in transcription on fr.WS for fr:Livre:Constitution du Rwanda de 1991.pdf in the two years since the Index was set up there, so no local translation on en.WS can be started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- Template:Ping They are handled as translations. I don't see the point of requesting their deletion. --Asembleo (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment The Index:Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies has a scan-backed copy on the de.WS, so it meets the requirements, but Index:Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle, 1.djvu is not transcribed on fr.WS, and so it could be nominated for deletion. Before hosting a Wikisource created translation here, the original language copy must be transcribed on the original language Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ping The standard is that the work must first exist on the home language WS, before it is translated here. Both works can be saved if the Indexes are transcribed at th.WS --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
Template: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)
- Template:Ping 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 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)
- 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- And match and splitted. On to the next of these ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:58, 17 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)
- 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 section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s Work based category. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd PseudoSkull (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vk There is no proscription against work-based categories, and we have more than a few. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Re 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)
- Template:Re 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)
- Template: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Re OK, agree, let’s close it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Vk 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
Template:Vk 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)- Template:Vd 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
Template:Closed/s 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.Template:PbrIn 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.Template:PbrPS. 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.Template:PbrPPS. 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)
- 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: 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.Template:PbrPS. 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.Template:PbrPPS. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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.Template:PbrIn 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)
- 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)
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:
- 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.
- 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
- 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template: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)
- 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd. 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)
- Template:Vd per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
Template: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)- Template: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)
- Template:Re 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)
- Template:Re 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)
- File fixed. Mpaa (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template: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)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s Just a photo without text. The photo is in commons. -- Beardo (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Template:Closed/e
Template:Closed/s 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)
- That speech might be
PD-ILGov—at least, the same user who created this page uploaded a similar speech citing that as a rationale. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC) - Template:Comment The same user created Author:Mohammed bin Zayed, which needs serious cleaning up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd unless we can find something authored by him that is in English and is in PD. A look at the WikiQuotes page turns up only quotations cited from news articles; and Hebrew Wikisource has only a single external link, as we do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Vd per nom. --Xover (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Xover: My nomination was in the hope that someone would feel compelled to get the names sorted out, which takes redirect-quash privileges. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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) Template:Closed/e
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s An unsourced edition. We have three editions fully backed by scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd per nom MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd PseudoSkull (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd per nom. I do agree we should stay away from "website versions", especially from the unstable ones which may appear and disappear in any moment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:04, 13 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)
Template:Closed/s This edition is from a non-free collection, and is substantially identical to the two editions we have from free collections —Beleg Âlt Template:Sup/sBTTemplate:Sup/e (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd per nom. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd, 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)
- Template:Re 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)
- 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)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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 [1]). -- 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)
- 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)
![[1]](https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Strona:PL_Adam_Mickiewicz-Sonety_Adama_Mickiewicza_028.jpeg){kind=link}
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned outdated subpages of Library of Congress Classification
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Comment If you can provide a list of the pages, it will be a lot easier to check them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I used a prefix search to check -- I count 75 pages that use the old format, plus the corresponding redirects from the even older format. I did see a few links to the otherwise orphaned pages (for example, Judaism links to Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BM -- Judaism), so we might need to make them redirects instead. Arcorann (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- The redirects in general appear to have no incoming links, and the subpages appear to have few and fairly random links (a WikiProject temporary subpage somewhere, talk pages, etc.). Are any of these actually need for anything? Xover (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ping I've found that prefix searches are unreliable. For example, they will regularly fail to list redirect pages in favor of the redirect targets. And without a list, it's hard to determine exactly which items are nominated for deletion and which aren't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a list then. It's in a collapsed box due to length. I haven't checked these fully for any links there may be to them.
- I used a prefix search to check -- I count 75 pages that use the old format, plus the corresponding redirects from the even older format. I did see a few links to the otherwise orphaned pages (for example, Judaism links to Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BM -- Judaism), so we might need to make them redirects instead. Arcorann (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BD -- Speculative philosophy
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BF -- Psychology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BJ -- Ethics
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BL -- Religions. Mythology. Rationalism
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BM -- Judaism
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BP -- Islam. Bahá'ísm. Theosophy
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BQ -- Buddhism
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BR -- Christianity
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BT -- Doctrinal Theology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BV -- Practical Theology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass BX -- Christian Denominations
- Library of Congress Classification/Class B, subclass B -- Philosophy (General)
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DA -- History of Great Britain
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DB -- History of Austria, Liechtenstein, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DC -- History of France, Andorra, and Monaco
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DD -- History of Germany
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DF -- History of Greece
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DG -- History of Italy and Malta
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DH -- History of the Low Countries and Benelux
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DJ -- History of the Netherlands
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DK -- History of Russia, The Soviet Union, Former Soviet Republics, and Poland
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DL -- History of Northern Europe and Scandinavia
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DP -- History of Spain and Portugal
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DQ -- History of Switzerland
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DR -- History of the Balkan Peninsula
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DS -- History of Asia
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DT -- History of Africa
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D, subclass DU -- History of Oceania
- Library of Congress Classification/Class D -- General History
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GA -- Mathematical geography. Cartography
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GB -- Physical geography
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GC -- Oceanography
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GN -- Anthropology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GR -- Folklore
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GT -- Manners and Customs (General)
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass GV -- Recreation and Leisure
- Library of Congress Classification/Class G, subclass G -- Geography (General). Atlases. Maps
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HB -- Economic Theory and Demography
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HD -- Industries, Land Use, and Labor
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HE -- Transportation and Communications
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HF -- Commerce
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HG -- Finance
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HJ -- Public Finance
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HM -- Sociology (General)
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HQ -- Family, Marriage, Woman, and Sexuality
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HS -- Societies
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HT -- Communities, Classes, and Races
- Library of Congress Classification/Class H, subclass HV -- Social Pathology, Social and Public Welfare, and Criminology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PB -- Modern languages and Celtic languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PC -- Romanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PD -- Germanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PE -- English language
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PF -- West Germanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PH -- Uralic and Basque languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PJ -- Oriental philology and literature
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PM -- Hyperborean, Indian and artificial languages
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PN -- General Literature
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PR -- English literature
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PS -- American Literature
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PT -- Germanic literature
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass PZ -- Fiction and juvenile belles lettres
- Library of Congress Classification/Class P, subclass P -- Philology linguistics
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QA -- Mathematics
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QB -- Astronomy
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QC -- Physics
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QD -- Chemistry
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QE -- Geology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QH -- Natural history - Biology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QK -- Botany
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QL -- Zoology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QM -- Human anatomy
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QP -- Physiology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass QR -- Microbiology
- Library of Congress Classification/Class Q, subclass Q -- Science (General)
- And the corresponding redirects from the even older format:
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BD -- Speculative philosophy
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BF -- Psychology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BJ -- Ethics
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BL -- Religions. Mythology. Rationalism
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BM -- Judaism
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BP -- Islam. Bahá'ísm. Theosophy
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BQ -- Buddhism
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BR -- Christianity
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BT -- Doctrinal Theology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BV -- Practical Theology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BX -- Christian Denominations
- Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass B -- Philosophy (General)
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DA -- History of Great Britain
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DB -- History of Austria, Liechtenstein, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DC -- History of France, Andorra, and Monaco
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DD -- History of Germany
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DF -- History of Greece
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DG -- History of Italy and Malta
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DH -- History of the Low Countries and Benelux
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DJ -- History of the Netherlands
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DK -- History of Russia, The Soviet Union, Former Soviet Republics, and Poland
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DL -- History of Northern Europe and Scandinavia
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DP -- History of Spain and Portugal
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DQ -- History of Switzerland
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DR -- History of the Balkan Peninsula
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DS -- History of Asia
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DT -- History of Africa
- Library of Congress Classification:Class D, subclass DU -- History of Oceania
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GA -- Mathematical geography. Cartography
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GB -- Physical geography
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GC -- Oceanography
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GN -- Anthropology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GR -- Folklore
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GT -- Manners and Customs (General)
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass GV -- Recreation and Leisure
- Library of Congress Classification:Class G, subclass G -- Geography (General). Atlases. Maps
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HB -- Economic Theory and Demography
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HD -- Industries, Land Use, and Labor
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HE -- Transportation and Communications
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HF -- Commerce
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HG -- Finance
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HJ -- Public Finance
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HM -- Sociology (General)
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HQ -- Family, Marriage, Woman, and Sexuality
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HS -- Societies
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HT -- Communities, Classes, and Races
- Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HV -- Social Pathology, Social and Public Welfare, and Criminology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PB -- Modern languages and Celtic languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PC -- Romanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PD -- Germanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PE -- English language
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PF -- West Germanic languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PH -- Uralic and Basque languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PJ -- Oriental philology and literature
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PM -- Hyperborean, Indian and artificial languages
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PN -- General Literature
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PR -- English literature
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PS -- American Literature
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PT -- Germanic literature
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass PZ -- Fiction and juvenile belles lettres
- Library of Congress Classification:Class P, subclass P -- Philology linguistics
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QA -- Mathematics
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QB -- Astronomy
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QC -- Physics
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QD -- Chemistry
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QE -- Geology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QH -- Natural history - Biology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QK -- Botany
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QL -- Zoology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QM -- Human anatomy
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QP -- Physiology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass QR -- Microbiology
- Library of Congress Classification:Class Q, subclass Q -- Science (General)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s Second hand copy, of which we have a scan-backed version at The Book of Scottish Song/The Flowers of the Forest —Beleg Âlt Template:Sup/sBTTemplate:Sup/e (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd per nom. --Xover (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Comment Is the linked scan usable? Has anyone checked? If it is, I'm willing to set up an Index page so that, following deletion, this might enter the MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Based on a cursory look, Template:GBS and Template:GBS look better than Template:IA, but none of the scans have a very clear image of the diagram in the front of the book. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The first of those is the first edition, but there is significant distortion of the text on multiple pages. The second is the second edition, but the illustrations are poor, suffering from moire effects among other problems. This is a work I wouldn't want to proofread from a poor scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hathi's scans are the same poor ones from Google Books listed above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Based on a cursory look, Template:GBS and Template:GBS look better than Template:IA, but none of the scans have a very clear image of the diagram in the front of the book. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s A modern author with no known hostable works. This is one of several pages created by Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
Template:Closed/s Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- Speedied. Original creator agrees with nomination. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s
Weak Template:Vk 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)
Template:Vd. 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)
- Template:Ping 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.Template:PbrWe 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- 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.Template:PbrThe 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.Template:PbrDevil'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)
- 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)
- @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.Template:PbrThe 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.Template:PbrDevil'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 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)
- 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 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)
- Template: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)
- Template:Vk 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 Template:Vk per evidence provided by MarkLSteadman PseudoSkull (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vk. 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)
- Template:Vk 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)
Template:Closed/s 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. Template:Smaller 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 Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- Template:Smaller
- 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
Template:Closed/s 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.
- The Wolf and the Man (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Wolf and the Man
- The Fox and the Cat (Grimm, unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Fox and the Cat
- The Twelve Huntsmen (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Twelve Huntsmen
- Thumbling as Journeyman (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Thumbling as Journeyman
- The Three Feathers (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Three Feathers
- The Three Sons of Fortune (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Three Sons of Fortune
- Gossip Wolf and the Fox (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Gossip Wolf and the Fox
- Clever Hans (without source) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Clever Hans
- The Pink (unsourced) duplicative of Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Pink
MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd per nom. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment Several of these are linked from versions pages, so the incoming links from those pages should also be removed at deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd 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)
Template:Closed/s I suggest deleting thiw work because of several issues:
- Translating work seems abandoned since September 2021
- The translation is not being done in accordance with our policy, i. e. based on a scanbacked original proofread at the appropriate language Wiki
- 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)
- Template: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)
- It's not that it isn't scan-backed there; it doesn't exist there at all. They have one small portion, and the rest of the contents are red-linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 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)
Template:Closed/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)
- Template: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).Template:PbrTemplate:Smaller block/sHmm. 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.Template:PbrAnd 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 Template:Tl to differentiate).Template:PbrProbably unworkable for some reason or other, but might be worth exploring if anybody has the spare cycles to think it through.Template:Smaller block/e 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)
- 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).Template:PbrTemplate:Smaller block/sHmm. 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.Template:PbrAnd 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 Template:Tl to differentiate).Template:PbrProbably unworkable for some reason or other, but might be worth exploring if anybody has the spare cycles to think it through.Template:Smaller block/e Xover (talk) 11:28, 9 December 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 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)
- Template: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).Template:PbrThe 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.Template:PbrAlso, 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 Template:Ul2, 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 (Template:Tl?) 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)
- 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 Template:Ul2, 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)
- Not sure where Xover is coming from here. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821/Stanzas On the Death of Miss Campbell, is transcluded from Page:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf/4, which is a scan from The London Literary Gazette 1821: 22nd Sept 1821, page 602, which is not a Word file at all and is far from arbitrary, having been searched out comprehensively. These texts are not my own work and this method was approved of in the first instance.Esme Shepherd (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the mentioned Page:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf/4, it seems to me that only the part titled "Original poetry" has been extracted from the newspaper, the text above seems added and if I were asked to guess, I would guess it was done in Word. The same can be said about all the pages of the "scans". Also the alleged title page really looks like written in Word and so does the Contents. So it really looks like a self-made compilation of poems, not a published poetry collection. This can be very confusing to our readers, who have been accustomed to the fact that our indexes have been created from published works, and thus may assume that a collection called "Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821" was really published by somebody somewhere. Although it is beyond any doubt that the compilation was made in good faith, it should be deleted from both the main NS and the index NS (and maybe also from Commons?) as out of scope. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- As those pages are not relevant for the question of the item under consideration, perhaps they warrant a separate discussion? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the mentioned Page:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf/4, it seems to me that only the part titled "Original poetry" has been extracted from the newspaper, the text above seems added and if I were asked to guess, I would guess it was done in Word. The same can be said about all the pages of the "scans". Also the alleged title page really looks like written in Word and so does the Contents. So it really looks like a self-made compilation of poems, not a published poetry collection. This can be very confusing to our readers, who have been accustomed to the fact that our indexes have been created from published works, and thus may assume that a collection called "Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821" was really published by somebody somewhere. Although it is beyond any doubt that the compilation was made in good faith, it should be deleted from both the main NS and the index NS (and maybe also from Commons?) as out of scope. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure where Xover is coming from here. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1821/Stanzas On the Death of Miss Campbell, is transcluded from Page:Landon in The London Literary Gazette 1821.pdf/4, which is a scan from The London Literary Gazette 1821: 22nd Sept 1821, page 602, which is not a Word file at all and is far from arbitrary, having been searched out comprehensively. These texts are not my own work and this method was approved of in the first instance.Esme Shepherd (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vd. 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)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Template:Comment These appear to be electronic-only publications, and never had a physical print, if I'm reading the website correctly. As the files were uploaded by one of our administrators, I'm reluctant to delete based on a person's hunch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Hrishikes: Can you help clarify here? I see File:Acts of the Parliament of India 2017.pdf lists a top level website as source (no direct link to this particular file), and has a Google Drive link outside the info template. What is the actual source of this file? Who is formal publisher of it? Xover (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ping -- 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)
- Template:Ping -- 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)
- @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)
- Template:Ping -- 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)
- Template:Vd: the user-compiled files are not acceptable sources. BUT…Template:Pbr…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)
Template:Closed/s 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.Template:PbrNote 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)
- Template:Vd, 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)
- Template:Vd 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s 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)
- Keep. That is, of course, the opinion of one person only. The page should be marked with Template:Tlx and Template:Tlx. The nature of translations is such that a knowledge of the original language is necessary to understand the accuracy of the translation, there will always be some who will not be able to tell whether the translation is accurate. If we allow translations, there will always be this issue; given that we allow them, that cannot be an objection to this work. Given that this translation predates the change in policy, it should be not be deleted on the grounds of the change in policy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I had written it clearly, but apparently I had not, so lets be more clear: it does not predate the change in policy, the policy was established long before this translation was added here (in fact the policy was accepted in 2013, while the translation was added in December 2020). The denouncing comment was only the first impulse, and is used here as an argument together with violating the policy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment The commentary on Talk pages is irrelevant for the discussion; we get comments like that posted on our scan-backed works as well. Is there no scan available to be used, or has no one looked? With a dramatic work, it should be relatively easy to transfer to the Page namespace of a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- The work present in Slovenian Wikisource (sl:Hlapci) is not scan-backed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- The scan of the 1910 original can be found in HathiTrust. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- If someone is willing the upload a usable scan to Commons, it should not take long to salvage this play, and make it workable. It has about 100 printed pages, with at least a dozen of those blank or merely the number of an act in the play. With lines all beginning with the name of the character, quick work can be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is this File:Ivan_Cankar_-_Hlapci.pdf OK? Mpaa (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- It looks as though that file has all the text, but has had the covers and endsheets removed. It should work for the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Transcluded from Index:Ivan Cankar - Hlapci.pdf as a start. Mpaa (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I should have time to start working on this by the weekend, both here and on the home-language Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have proofread and transcluded all of Act I. at sl.WS, and it has been interesting to discover which commonly used templates they did not have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Transcluded from Index:Ivan Cankar - Hlapci.pdf as a start. Mpaa (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- It looks as though that file has all the text, but has had the covers and endsheets removed. It should work for the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is this File:Ivan_Cankar_-_Hlapci.pdf OK? Mpaa (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- If someone is willing the upload a usable scan to Commons, it should not take long to salvage this play, and make it workable. It has about 100 printed pages, with at least a dozen of those blank or merely the number of an act in the play. With lines all beginning with the name of the character, quick work can be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s Duplicative of Weird Tales/Volume 3/Issue 1/The Picture in the House, starting discussion to decide whether to remove or migrate the librivox recording. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Gah. Tough call.Template:PbrThe two texts are not the same. Both Weird Tales in 1924 and the 1937 reprint use Template:Tqi, but the unsourced text uses Template:Tqi. LibriVox for once actually gives a source, and in the case of File:LibriVox - picture in the house lovecraft sz.ogg that source is The Picture in the House (unknown) (modulo a page move after the fact here), and the audio narration does match (uses "elms"). The change to "elms" seems to be a later innovation, possibly applied by an editor as late as 1982 (Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and the Macabre, the earliest use of "elms" there I could find right now), and the likely ultimate source of our text. The texts differ in other ways too, but up to this point the difference could be explained by transcription errors, lack of scan-backing and validation, etc.).Template:PbrSo… I don't think we can move the LibriVox file over to our new text (different edition). And because the nominated text is from an indeterminate edition and we have a scan-backed version of this work, we should Template:Vd The Picture in the House (unknown) too.Template:PbrBut it's really annoying that when LibriVox for once both gives the source text they have used for their reading and actually links back to us, we have to delete the page. I wish they'd coordinate more with us on issues like this so we could get the maximum benefit out of our respective volunteer efforts. Xover (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I guess that the LibreVox versions dates to when this was the only version available. Can we put the LibreVox link on The Picture in the House ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, no, I don't think so. We can't start amassing random multimedia versions of texts at the dab pages. Eventually we want spoken-word versions of our texts automatically linked from data on Wikidata, and that requires control over which specific edition the spoken-word version is from. Xover (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I guess that the LibreVox versions dates to when this was the only version available. Can we put the LibreVox link on The Picture in the House ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment The earliest copy I found with "...elms..." is a Best Supernatural Stories of H.P. Lovecraft on Google books, p. 122, which the site dates to 1945. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- weak Template:Vd - it would probably be better for us to just start from scratch, although I recognize its value as being linked to from LibriVox, so maybe it could just be redirected to the current scanned version instead of outright deleted. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- But start from scratch using what? The issue is that our scan-backed copy has a different text from the LibriVox recording. The text of the nominated copy can be attested, but not (yet) from a volume dated before 1945. Ideally, we would find a PD volume with the current text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Template:Closed/s This specific index is one of many such indexes; I nominate it as an example, but should the rationale be found sound, I will endeavor to make a list of all such indexes.
This index (and many others) were created by now-absent User:Languageseeker. My main concern is that the pages of these indexes have been added via match-and-split from some source, likely Project Gutenberg, which does not have a defined original copy. Because of this absence of real source, and the similarity of the text to the actual text of any given scanned copy, proofreading efforts would likely have to either not check the text against the original source or scrap the existing text entirely to ensure accuracy to the original on Wikisource. In light of this, I think the easiest approach is to delete the indexes and all pages thereunder; if there is organic desire to scan them at some point in the future, the indexes may be re-created, but I do not see a reason to keep the indexes as they stand. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment Hmm. I don't see the Index: pages as problematic. But the "Not Proofread" Page: pages that were, as you say, created by Match & Split from a secondary transcription (mostly Gutenberg, but also other sources), I do consider problematic. We don't permit secondary transcriptions added directly to mainspace, so to permit them in Page: makes no sense. And in addition to the problems these create for Proofreading that TE(æ)A,ea. outlines, it is also an issue that many contributors are reluctant to work on Index:es with a lot of extant-but-not-Proofread (i.e. "Red") pages.Template:PbrWe have around a million (IIRC; it may be half a mill.) of these that were bot-created with essentially raw OCR (the contributor vehemently denies they are "raw OCR", so I assume some fixes were applied, but the quality is very definitely not Proofread). Languageseeker's imports are of much higher quality, but are still problematic. I think we should get rid of both these classes of Page: pages. In fact, I think we should prohibit Not Proofread pages from being transcluded to mainspace (except as a temporary measure, and possibly some other common sense exceptions). --Xover (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Xover: Assuming the status of the works to be equal, I would actually consider Languageseeker’s page creations to be worse, because, while it would look better as transcluded, it reduces the overall quality of the transcription. My main problem with the other user’s not-proofread page creations was that he focused a lot on indexes of very technical works, but provided no proofread baseline on which other editors could continue work—that was my main objection at the time, as it is easier to come on and off of work where there is an established style (for a complicated work) as opposed to starting a project and creating those standards yourself. As to the Page:/Index: issue, I ask for index deletion as well because these indexes were created only as a basis for the faulty text import, and I don’t want that to overlook any future transcription of those works. Again, I have no problem to work (or re-creation), I just think that these indexes (which are clearly abandoned, and were faulty ab origine) should be deleted. As for transclusion of not-proofread pages, I don’t think that the practice is so widespread that a policy needs to implemented (from my experience, at least); the issue is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, or rather an user-by-user basis (as users can have different ways of turning raw OCR into not-proofread text, then following transclusion and finally proofread status). But of course, that (and the other user’s works, the indexes for which I think should probably be deleted) are a discussion for another time. (I will probably have more spare time starting soon, so I might start a discussion about the other user’s works after this discussion concludes.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding what fault there is in the Index page. If the Page: pages had not been created, what problem would exist in the Index: page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: This isn’t a case where the index page’s existence is inherently bad; but the pages poison the index, in terms of future (potential) proofreading efforts and in terms of abandonment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: Just to be clear, if the outcome here is to delete all the "Not Proofread" Page: pages, would you still consider the Index: pages bad (should be deleted)? So far that seems to be the most controversial part of this discussion, and the part that is a clear departure from established practice. Xover (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Xover: Yes, I think those are also bad. They were created en masse for the purpose of adding this poor match-and-split text, and there is no additional value in keeping around hundreds of unused indexes whose only purpose was to facilitate a project consensus (here) clearly indicates in unwise. The main objection on that ground is that indexes are difficult to make; but that is not really true, and in any case is not a real issue, as a new editor who wishes to edit (but not create an index) can simply ask for one to be created. Another problem with these indexes is that they are not connected with other information (like the Author:-pages) that would help new editors find them. Insofar as they exist like this, the only real connection these indexes have to the project at large is through Languageseeker, who is now no longer editing. I don’t think that every abandoned index is a nuisance, but I do believe that this (substantial) group of mass-created indexes is a problem. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: Just to be clear, if the outcome here is to delete all the "Not Proofread" Page: pages, would you still consider the Index: pages bad (should be deleted)? So far that seems to be the most controversial part of this discussion, and the part that is a clear departure from established practice. Xover (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: This isn’t a case where the index page’s existence is inherently bad; but the pages poison the index, in terms of future (potential) proofreading efforts and in terms of abandonment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding what fault there is in the Index page. If the Page: pages had not been created, what problem would exist in the Index: page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Xover: Assuming the status of the works to be equal, I would actually consider Languageseeker’s page creations to be worse, because, while it would look better as transcluded, it reduces the overall quality of the transcription. My main problem with the other user’s not-proofread page creations was that he focused a lot on indexes of very technical works, but provided no proofread baseline on which other editors could continue work—that was my main objection at the time, as it is easier to come on and off of work where there is an established style (for a complicated work) as opposed to starting a project and creating those standards yourself. As to the Page:/Index: issue, I ask for index deletion as well because these indexes were created only as a basis for the faulty text import, and I don’t want that to overlook any future transcription of those works. Again, I have no problem to work (or re-creation), I just think that these indexes (which are clearly abandoned, and were faulty ab origine) should be deleted. As for transclusion of not-proofread pages, I don’t think that the practice is so widespread that a policy needs to implemented (from my experience, at least); the issue is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, or rather an user-by-user basis (as users can have different ways of turning raw OCR into not-proofread text, then following transclusion and finally proofread status). But of course, that (and the other user’s works, the indexes for which I think should probably be deleted) are a discussion for another time. (I will probably have more spare time starting soon, so I might start a discussion about the other user’s works after this discussion concludes.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I support deleting the individual pages of the index. As for the Index page itself, I am OK with both deleting it as abandoned or keeping it to wait for somebody to start the work anew. I also support getting rid of other similar secondary transcriptions. If a discussion on prohibiting transclusion of not-proofread pages into main NS is started somewhere, I will probably support it too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment I've always felt uncomfortable with the tendency of some users to want to bulk-add a bunch of Index pages which have the pages correctly labelled, but are left indefinitely with no pages proofread in them. I feel like a "transcription project" (as Index pages are labelled in templates) implies an ongoing, or at least somewhat complete, ordeal, and adding index pages without proofreading anything is really just duplicating data from other places into Wikisource. Not to say there's absolutely no value in adding lots of index pages this way, but the value seems minimal. The fact that index pages mostly rely on duplicate data as it is is already an annoying redundancy on the site, and I think most of what happens on Index pages should just be dealt with in Wikidata, so I think the best place to bulk-add data about works is there, not by mass-creating empty Index pages. I know my comment here is kind of unrelated to the specific issue of the discussion (being, indexes with pages matched and splitted or something), but the same user (Languageseeker) has tended to do that as well. I am struggling to come up with any specific arguments or policies to support my position against those empty index pages... but it just seems unnecessary, seems like it will cause problems in the future, and on a positive note I do applaud Languageseeker's massive effort—it shows something great about their character as an editor—but unfortunately I think their effort should have been more focused on areas other than the creation of as many Index pages as possible. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Bulk-adding anything is probably a bad idea on Wikisource, because so much of what we do here requires a human touch. That being said, so far as I know the Index: pages Languageseeker created were perfectly fine in themselves, including having correct pagelists etc. This step is often complicated for new contributors, so creating the Index: without Proofreading anything is not without merit. It's pointing at an already set up transcription project onsite vs. just (ext)linking to a scan at IA for some users. The latter is an insurmountable effort for quite a lot of contributors. We also have historically permitted things to sit indefinitely in our non-content namespaces if they are merely incomplete rather than actually wrong in some way.Template:PbrThat's not to say that all these Index: pages are necessarily golden, but imo those that are problematic (if any) should be dealt with individually. Xover (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, also, what we host on Wikidata vs. what's hosted locally in our Index: pages is a huge and complicated discussion (hmu if you want the outline). For the purposes of this discussion it, imo, makes the most sense to just view that as an entirely orthogonal issue. If and when (and how and why and...) we push some or all our Index: page contents somewhere other than our current solution, it'll deal with these Index:es as well as every other. Xover (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Bulk-adding anything is probably a bad idea on Wikisource, because so much of what we do here requires a human touch. That being said, so far as I know the Index: pages Languageseeker created were perfectly fine in themselves, including having correct pagelists etc. This step is often complicated for new contributors, so creating the Index: without Proofreading anything is not without merit. It's pointing at an already set up transcription project onsite vs. just (ext)linking to a scan at IA for some users. The latter is an insurmountable effort for quite a lot of contributors. We also have historically permitted things to sit indefinitely in our non-content namespaces if they are merely incomplete rather than actually wrong in some way.Template:PbrThat's not to say that all these Index: pages are necessarily golden, but imo those that are problematic (if any) should be dealt with individually. Xover (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment I do not support creating them, but since they exist, I try to make good use of them. I usually proofread offline for convenience and when I add the text I check the diff. If anything differs, it is an extra check for me as I could be the one who made mistakes. So I would keep them.
- BTW, nobody forbids to press the OCR button and restart. Mpaa (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- While that is true, my experience is that the kinds of errors introduced by a mystery text layer is insidious, and most editors are unaware of the issue, or fail to notice small problems such as UK/US spelling differences, changes to punctuation, minor word changed, etc. So, while a person could reset the text, what would alert them to the fact that they should, rather than working from the existing unproofed page?
- H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon is a prime example. A well-meaning editor matched-and-split the text into the scan. Two experienced editors crawled through making multiple corrections to validate the work, yet as recently as this past week we have had editors continue to find small mistakes throughout. Experience shows that match-and-split text is actually worse for Wikisource proofreading than the raw OCR because of these persistent text errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- In my workflow, I start from OCR, then compare what I did with what is available. It is an independent reference which I use for quality check. The probability that I did the same error is low (and the error would be anyhow there). It is almost as if someone is validating my text (or vice-versa). For me it is definitely a help. I follow the same process when validating text. I do not look at what is there and then compare. Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Right. You do that, and I work similarly. But experience shows that the vast majority of contributors don't do that; they either don't touch the text due to the red pages, or they try to proofread off the extant text and leave behind subtle errors as EncycloPetey outlines. Xover (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- We could argue forever. I do not know what evidence you have to say that works started from match-and-split are worse than others. I doubt anyone has real numbers to say that. IMHO it all depends on the attitude of contributors. I have seen works reaching a Validated stage and being crappy all the same. If you want to be consistent, you should delete all pages in a NotProofread state and currently not worked on because I doubt a non-experienced user will look where the text is coming from when editing, from a match-and-split or whatever.
- Also, then we should shutdown the match-and-split tool or letting only admins to run it, after being 100% sure that the version to split is the same as the version to scan.
- I am not advocating it as a process, I am only saying that what is there is there and it could be useful to some. If the community will decide otherwise, fine, I can cope with that. Mpaa (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Tqi Anecdotal evidence only, certainly. But EncycloPetey gave a concrete example (H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon), and both of us are asserting that we have seen this time and again: when the starting point is Match & Split text, the odds are high that the result will contain subtle errors in punctuation, US/UK spelling differences, words changed between editions, and so forth. All the things that do not jump out at you as "misspelled". Your experience may, obviously, differ, and it's certainly a valid point that we can end up with poor quality results for other reasons too.Template:PbrYour argumentum ad absurdum arguments are also well taken, but nobody's arguing we go hog-wild and delete everything. Languageseeker, specifically, went on an import-spree from Gutenberg (and managed to piss off the Distributed Proofreaders in the process), snarfing in a whole bunch of texts in a short period of time. All of these are secondary transcriptions, and Languageseeker was never going to proofread these themselves (their idea was almost certainly to either transclude them as is, or to run them in the Monthly Challenge).Template:PbrFor these sorts of bulk actions that create an unmanageable workload to handle, I think deletion (return to the status quo ante) is a reasonable option. The same would go for the other user that bulk-imported something like 500k/1 mill. (I've got to go check that number) Page: pages of effectively uncorrected OCR. For anything else I'd be more hesitant, and certainly wouldn't want to take a position in aggregate. Those would be case-by-case stuff, but that really isn't an option for these bulk actions. Xover (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- We could argue forever. I do not know what evidence you have to say that works started from match-and-split are worse than others. I doubt anyone has real numbers to say that. IMHO it all depends on the attitude of contributors. I have seen works reaching a Validated stage and being crappy all the same. If you want to be consistent, you should delete all pages in a NotProofread state and currently not worked on because I doubt a non-experienced user will look where the text is coming from when editing, from a match-and-split or whatever.
- Right. You do that, and I work similarly. But experience shows that the vast majority of contributors don't do that; they either don't touch the text due to the red pages, or they try to proofread off the extant text and leave behind subtle errors as EncycloPetey outlines. Xover (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- In my workflow, I start from OCR, then compare what I did with what is available. It is an independent reference which I use for quality check. The probability that I did the same error is low (and the error would be anyhow there). It is almost as if someone is validating my text (or vice-versa). For me it is definitely a help. I follow the same process when validating text. I do not look at what is there and then compare. Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, nobody forbids to press the OCR button and restart. Mpaa (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment I am agianst deleting the Index. Indexes are one of the most tedious work to do when starting a transcription. Having index pages prepared and checked against the scan will save a lot of work. Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Vk the Index, but Template:Vd the pages. None of the bot-created pages have the header, which is a pain to add after-the-fact unless you can run a bot. The fact that they were created by match-and-split, instead of proofreading the text layer is poor practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are many recently added "new texts" with no headers. Mpaa (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- What percent of editors want headers; and what percent do not care? Do you have data? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am only stating is not a good argument for deletion in my opinion, unless it is considered mandatory. Mpaa (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is a good argument if most potential editors want to include the headers, and are put off working on proofreading by the fact that pages were created without the headers in place. There are works I've chosen not to work on for this reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that on its own the lack of headers is not a good argument for deletion. But I read it here to be intended as one additional factor on the scales that added together favour deletion. Which I do think is a valid argument (one can disagree, of course). Xover (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am only stating is not a good argument for deletion in my opinion, unless it is considered mandatory. Mpaa (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mpaa: That is the result of the efforts of one user, who has declared headers superfluous. I was going to start another discussion on that topic after this one (only one big discussion at a time for me, please). I think that, for all editors who want headers (most of them), not having them (because of the match-and-split seen here) is bad. Also, in response to your other comments above about proofreading over existing text, I usually do that as well, but I prefer proofreading on my own, without needing to check against a base—that’s why I focus on proofreading, not validation. For that same reason, I avoid all-not-proofread indexes like those at issue here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- What percent of editors want headers; and what percent do not care? Do you have data? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are many recently added "new texts" with no headers. Mpaa (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment in the future, if anyone feels blocked for the lack of headers, or wants to add headers, please make a bot request.Mpaa (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Comment I am proofreading this specific text. This discussion can be as reference for the other indexes, as TE(æ)A,ea. mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. BTW, a list would be useful, so I can fetch before a (possible) deletion. Mpaa (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed your discussion-closure notice, EncycloPetey, because I created this discussion as a general issue, not tied to the specific index at hand. Mpaa, just to be clear, you would like a list of the indexes with match-and-split pages, or would you like a more general listing of that user’s indexes? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per the description at the top of this page: "This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works." This discussion was closed because the decision was to Keep Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu now that it is proofread. Do you disagree with that decision? Because this page is not for discussing general issues. That needs to happen in the Scriptorium, not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea. those with match-and-split pages that could be deleted. Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- To sum it up, it seems to me that most contributors denounce match-n-splitting texts from secondary transcriptions like Gutenberg or others to our Page: pages. Unless objected, I am going to close this discussion with the conclusion that such attitude to transcriptions has been rejected and the individual pages of the indexes (not the indexes) can be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea. those with match-and-split pages that could be deleted. Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per the description at the top of this page: "This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works." This discussion was closed because the decision was to Keep Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu now that it is proofread. Do you disagree with that decision? Because this page is not for discussing general issues. That needs to happen in the Scriptorium, not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)