Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.

Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu

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)

• Reply
  • 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)

• 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)

Reply

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.

That'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)

 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)

I do not know what evidence you have to say that works started from match-and-split are worse than others. 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.

Your 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).

For 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)

Reply

• Reply

  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)

  • 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)

    I was thinking the same about headers, it would be good to have a consistent approach about works, in all their parts/namespaces. Mpaa (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply

Reply

• 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)

The Picture in the House (unknown)

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.

The two texts are not the same. Both Weird Tales in 1924 and the 1937 reprint use Reply

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)

• Reply

weak Reply

• 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)

Official Journal of the European Union, L 042I, 23 February 2022

Excerpt of just parts of the title page (a pseudo-toc) of an issue of the journal of record for the EU. Xover (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 078, 17 March 2014 Xover (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 087I, 15 March 2022 Xover (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 110, 8 April 2022 Xover (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 153, 3 June 2022 Xover (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 066, 2 March 2022 Xover (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 116, 13 April 2022 Xover (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Reply

  That's not the contents page of the online journal, it's the download page for the journal that happens to display the first page of the PDF (which is the title page, that also happens to list the contents). See here for the published form of this work. What we're hosting is a poorly-formatted de-coupled excerpt of the title page. It's also—regardless of sourcing—just a loose table of contents. Xover (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand. You're saying that it matches the contents of the journal, yet somehow it also doesn't? Yet, if I click on the individual items in the contents, I get the named items on a subpage. How is this different from what we do everywhere else on Wikisource? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  They are loose tables of contents extracted from the title pages of issues of a journal. They link horizontally (not to subpages) to extracted texts and function like navboxes, not tables of contents on the top level page of a work. That their formatting is arbitrary wikipedia-like just reinforces this.

  The linked texts should strictly speaking also be migrated to a scan of the actual journal, but since those are actual texts (and not a loose navigation aid) I'm more inclined to let them sit there until someone does the work to move them within the containing work and scan-backing them. Xover (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  So, do I understand then that the articles should be consolidated as subpages, like a journal? In which case, these pages are necessary to have as the base page. Deleting them would disconnect all the component articles. It sounds more as though you're unhappy with the page formatting, rather than anything else. They are certainly not "excerpts", which was the basis for nominating them for deletion, and with that argument removed, there is no remaining basis for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation:La Serva Padrona

There is no scan supported original language work present on the appropriate Italian Wikisource, as required by Wikisource:Translations. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reply

  I've started the Italian transcription at it:Indice:La serva padrona - intermezzi due (IA laservapadronain00fede).pdf --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've set up the English translation match at Index:La serva padrona - intermezzi due (IA laservapadronain00fede).pdf --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reply

Contracts Awarded by the CPA

Out of scope per WS:WWI as it's a mere listing of data devoid of any published context. Xover (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply

(And it should be renamed to "CPA-CA Register of Awards" to accurately reflect the document.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's still just a list of data devoid of any context that might justify its inclusion (like if it were, e.g., the appendix to a report on something or other). Xover (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should write a user essay on this, since this is something I've had to justify in other discussions, so I can just link to that in the future.

I don't take the policy to mean we don't want compilations of data on principle, or else we'd be deleting works like the US copyright catalogs (which despite containing introductions, etc., the body is fundamentally just a list of data). The policy says the justification on the very page. What we're trying to avoid is, rather, "user-compiled and unverified" data, like Wikisource editors (not external publications) listing resources for a certain project. And if you personally disagree, that's fine, but that's how I read the sentiment of the policy. I think that whether something was published, or at least printed or collected by a reputable-enough source, should be considered fair game. I'm more interested in weeding out research that was compiled on the fly by individual newbie editors, than federal government official compilations.

But to be fair, even in my line of logic, this is sort of an iffy case, since the version of the document I gave gives absolutely no context besides "CPA-CA REGISTER OF AWARDS (1 JAN 04- 10 APRIL 04)" so it is difficult to verify the actual validity of the document's publication in 2004, but I would lean to keep this just because I think the likelihood is in the favor of the document being valid, and the data is on a notable subject. And if evidence comes to light that proves its validity beyond a shadow of a doubt, then certainly. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of validity: The search metadata gives a date of April 11, 2004, and the parent URL is clearly an early 2000s web page just by the looks of it. My keep vote is sustained. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Athenaeum

This has been an empty page since it was created in 2015. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would suggest speedy deletion (no notable content or history). However, we do appear to have two articles from The Athenaeum that should be moved to subpages of that work: Folk-lore (extracted from The Athenaeum 1846-08-22) and Folk-lore (extracted from The Athenaeum 1876-08-29). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we do have justification to keep the page and convert it into a base page for the periodical (though the subpage convention might need to be worked out -- the periodical doesn't have numbered volumes and but does number issues continuously). While we're here, do we have conventions on how to handle "æ" in work titles (since The Athenæum was always written as such)? Arcorann (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a strict convention, there are benefits to both arguments (faithfulness vs accessibility). Ether way, redirects should be created so that both spellings direct you to the correct work. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate O. Henry Stories.

Nominating in bulk stories that have been proofread in collections

• The Handbook of Hymen, Heart of the West/The Handbook of Hymen
• Christmas by Injunction, Heart of the West/Christmas by Injunction
• Hearts and Crosses, Heart of the West/Hearts and Crosses
• Seats of the Haughty, Heart of the West/Seats of the Haughty
• A Chaparral Prince, Heart of the West/A Chaparral Prince
• Hygeia at the Solito, Heart of the West/Hygeia at the Solito
• An Afternoon Miracle, Heart of the West/An Afternoon Miracle
• The Higher Abdication, Heart of the West/The Higher Abdication
• The Caballero's Way, Heart of the West/The Caballero's Way
• The Sphinx Apple, Heart of the West/The Sphinx Apple
• The Missing Chord, Heart of the West/The Missing Chord
• A Call Loan, Heart of the West/A Call Loan
• The Princess and the Puma, Heart of the West/The Princess and the Puma
• The Indian Summer of Dry Valley Johnson, Heart of the West/The Indian Summer of Dry Valley Johnson
• A Retrieved Reformation, Roads of Destiny (1909)/A Retrieved Reformation
• Whistling Dick's Christmas Stocking, Roads of Destiny (1909)/Whistling Dick's Christmas Stocking
• Two Renegades, Roads of Destiny (1909)/Two Renegades

MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I know I've been pushing for Proposed Deletion in such cases since they are technically different editions ... but I had another look at WS:CSD and I do think that these fall under the criteria for speedy deletion as Redundant unless they are substantially different. Reply

It takes you a while, but you do usually see sense eventually. :) Xover (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The plan was always to convert these to redirects once my little O. Henry project was complete. It's very likely that there will be more batches of these in future, but I haven't mapped what non-scan backed dross we have sitting around. In any case, Reply

A History of the Civil War, 1861-1865

Unformatted copydump that has not been fixed since it was added in 2008. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but aside from one single issue, the formatting looks pretty ok to me. The one issue is that the HTML character entities are not being rendered correctly—and I'm not sure why that is, but I'm sure that once I figure it out it will be a pretty quick fix. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Turns out it was just using the wrong character numbers (it was using Windows-1252 encoding which differs from Unicode in those places).

Anyway I've fixed that particular issue. I'm not sure whether you would still consider this a copydump worth deleting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-unrelated—do we know how good Bartleby's transcriptions are? If they are sufficiently faithful to the source material, here is the scan of the edition that this transcription is based on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know, but the general principle here is that we do not accept secondhand transcriptions, so we would require evidence that Bartleby's transcriptions are highly accurate. If this particular one is highly accurate, and if we know the specific edition source, then it is a potential candidate for a match-and-split. However, from an initial inspection, I can see that the entire Preface is missing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A missing preface isn't an issue, since the preface is present on Bartleby and can easily be imported.

I have worked on some poetry collections that were on Bartleby, and I do know that those poetry collections are highly accurate. That being said, without some sort of published guidelines from Bartleby that suggest their standards are at least as high as ours, I'd be hesitant to assume that that level of accuracy applies across the board. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How did you determine that the particular scan you found is the edition the Bartleby transcription is based on? The title page information is different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

... you're right, the title page information is different. Friggen IA lol. The Bartleby edition is digitized from the New York MacMillan 1917 printing, which is what I thought I had confirmed that scan was, but actually the scan is of the 1919 printing. All the other scans on IA are poor quality early Google digitizations.

I have found a scan of the 1917 edition on HathiTrust, however: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011726042&seq=13 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Irpin Declaration

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. No evidence of meeting WS:WWI requirements for publication; no evidence of license release.

Added with an internet link as the source. There is no other information aside from what was included in the initial post. According to the Wikipedia article, the document comes from an alleged political union, in which one of the members denies being a member and another is unconfirmed to exist. I have not seen any copyright statement, but this cannot qualify as a government edict, so it may fail on copyright grounds as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Addendum: Looks like the copy on Russian Wikisource has been deleted [1]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Come,_Thou_Almighty_King_(unsourced)

Scan backed version in "Come, Thou Almighty King" in The Army and Navy Hymnal, 1920 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have speedied this long ago, but for one thing: we don't have a scan-backed edition that includes the second verse beginning "Jesus, our Lord, arise". For this reason, I am conflicted about deleting the unsourced version, and my !vote is Reply

I found a source that includes the second verse, although the typography is not quite the same: [2] --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Abandoned table of contents; no meaningful content; secondhand transcription.

Just the ToC. Abandoned immediately after its creation in November 2023. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Last Will of James Squire of Kissing Point

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Nomination withdrawn after the scan was uploaded and the index page created.

I am quite hesitant about this. Added here in 2009, it was sourced by a second-hand transcription uploaded to English Wikipedia as w:File:Last Will of James Squire.pdf. Second-hand transcriptions were forbidden here much later and those added earlier are usually tolerated, but this one has absolutely no sign of its real origin. Besides, it was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2016, and only now it was just temporarily renewed upon my request. The only other source containing this text I managed to find was https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/squire/james/133137 , where it was added by a contributor in 2017, and I suspect it was copied there from Wikisource, comparing it with our 2009 version, where the name "William Cardefs" (including the question mark in brackets) appears. However, the original probably contains a different name, that is "William Careless", see a later edit done by a contributor claiming to have checked it.

To sum it up, our second-hand transcription is based on a very dubious source, containing various typos (besides the above mentioned name some long ſs were misinterpreted (Kissing having been mistyped as Kifsing), without the original being available anywhere, and so we have to rely on one contributor who claims to have checked the original and corrected all the errors, without us being able to check it again, because the original last will has probably never been published. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Now it is already accessible (it was not yesterday), and yes, it does contain the document, although there are some differences, such as in punctuation, paragraphing, or the note in the end, so it might be better to transcribe it anew. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a fresh transcription would be the best way to proceed with this one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And here you go: Index:Squire, James (Sr) - Probate package.pdf —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Given this, I am withdrawing the nomination. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A Patriotic Manifesto for a European Future

Digital-born document. I have not seen any copyright statement, but this cannot qualify as a government edict, so it may fail on copyright grounds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Also noting that this appears to be a translation of a text originally in German, and I do not believe that either the original nor the translation are freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Diary of a Lunatic

Added in 2010 without a source. There is no source indicated on the Author page, nor on the author page for the translator. A search at IA turned up nothing either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Template:Vertical header

Cut&paste import from enWP, made in good faith by Matrix in April. Currently unused, and I'd like to keep it that way because…

…the template is inherently problematic from a technical perspective. Web standards (and hence web browsers) provide no native way to rotate table headers. So all the ways to achieve the apparent same effect are various degrees of hacks, with big drawbacks and that are prone to breaking. In particular this template makes assumptions about font size and line height that are neither guaranteed in the long term nor even accurate currently, and does not integrate well with our standard table formatting tools. Or put another way, it's a handy template for use in some specialised cases on enWP, but on enWS it's problematic. Xover (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Reply

I agree with Arcorann - if you can show what to use for vertical headers in cases that would be appreciated. A lot of templates like this are just straight up hacks, but we need a solution even if it is a bad one. The reason I created this template was because I saw a table in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (I can't remember the page number/volume) that required it, so I c&p imported the template from enwiki but then I just forgot. —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)