“ In the Index: and Page: namespace there is absolutely no rush and you can work at whatever order, interval, and pace suits you, and it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will propose anything for deletion (short of copyright violations) . Even if the result of these current discussions are all to delete, nothing would actually be deleted in the Index: and Page: namespaces, and nothing would prevent recreating the deleted pages (if that is the most appropriate page title) once the work is actually proofread and ready for transclusion. ”

“ Computers, and software, are bone stupid in general. A computer program faced with interpreting ... distinctions like émigré (use—mention distinction) , émigré (emphasis) , Émigré (title of work) , and émigré (foreign loan-word) is only going to be able to observe that the rendered text is in italic type, and that the HTML source used the émigré markup, whose semantics (defined in the HTML standard) is "emphasis". All our subtle semantic hints from the "Manual of Style" example are gone. ”

“ If you think there are some significant Senate floor speeches from the Clinton Impeachment Trial then please point them out for us or publish them. No one is stopping you. As far as being "not scan-backed" I looked at the policy beforehand and there is no suggestion lacking a scan is worthy of deletion. The Featured Text guidelines says a scan is ideal, but that an online source satisfies the criteria. If linking the relevant source material on the talk page is appropriate sourcing for a document appearing on the front page, then it is obviously appropriate for inclusion. ”

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

“ Text included with strikethrough formatting has been deliberately included in that way. Markup like ... carries semantics that are interpretative and therefore inappropriate here; makes no sense technically because re-styling the tag with CSS would change the formatting of our reproduction; and would mislead and confuse vision-impaired readers by hiding part of the work from them. HTML on the web has been in a long, slow, and tortuous road towards more semantic markup for going on three decades now, which has led to some strongly ingrained reflexes to eschew physical markup. ”

“ Beyond the law, there is however an argument that hosting this text would be irresponsible and unethical of us. Any claim that Paul does not here deliberately identify the whistleblower is either hopelessly naïve or deliberately obtuse. Any argument that hosting this will not contribute to harassment and risk of physical harm to the whistleblower is not reality-based.
However, one can certainly argue that our contribution to that risk is small. The identity is published in the Congressional Record, and has been published in several places that do not apply mainstream journalistic standards. ”

“ This is impenetrable semantics to a computer, but perfectly clear to humans. It is also a consequence of the kind of project we are: since Wikisource reproduces old books, a physical and visual medium, we can't escape mostly physical or visual formatting. A lot of the semantics of our source works are also inconsistent, contradictory, and unclear; so we couldn't produce pure semantics if we wanted to. ”

“ Incomplete works that are abandoned and not scan-supported are truly problematic and we have been trying to fix this problem, not add to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC) The works are already proofread, and could be easily validated. The abandoned works that I am currently proofreading are left in a worse situation, as, unlike the works I have added, there is minimal relative indication of their existence, and are thus inferior to the works as they existed in their original form, (on Internet Archive, Google Books, or HathiTrust.) ”

“ Compared to the effort to proofread a text, creating the resulting mainspace transclusion pages is trivial, no matter how many or few works are being discussed. I'm not sure what the concern is here! JesseW (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC) It is why we have the Index:/Page: namespace, and why we designate them the workspace. We have no issues with incomplete works in those namespaces, they are there and can be worked on ever so incrementally and exposed when ready. We don't like garbage in our presentation space, especially unlabelled and misrepresenting itself as a complete work. ”

“ A Senator of the United States giving a speech on the Senate floor is not in anyway prohibited, nor anyone else for that matter, from naming a government official whose name has been publicly reported for many years over matters unrelated to the impeachment proceedings, especially when the government official is named solely to ask questions about his conduct as an official years before any alleged whistleblower complaint. ”

“ It is not obviously an excerpt, even though it is a single-page form. While the original (non-form) text is brief, it does not appear to be simply data or tables. It is not an evolving work. It is not a previously unpublished scientific work. And so forth. That being said, I am, personally, not sure that this should be in scope: it sits in a grey area where good arguments might sway me in either direction.
What is clear to me is that if we are to keep this we need to set up an index for it and move the translation to the Page: namespace ”

“ If there's only one, then you have no choice. If you discover missing or duplicate pages when doing the page list, use {{missing pages}} or {{Remove pages}} as needed, which puts the index in a backlog of works needing attention. If you have two scans and both are missing bits, and in total they make a complete work, make a note in the missing page template and someone can synthesise a complete scan. You can still proofread if the scan is incomplete, pages can be moved around by admins if you need. ”

“ The creation of the pages was not a request for the upload of the scans; the appropriate way to do that is to request that the scans be uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) "Upload the scan" is not in the imperative mood. It is a !vote, not a command. If what you say is correct, then "keep" and "delete" would be in the imperative mood. If you do not like "upload the scan", how would you like me to phrase my !votes? The created pages had links to external scans. Adding a link to an external scan is a request for upload. There is no other reason to add such a link. ”

“ Not being a policy is not a reason for deletion. It's not not procedure—I don't think any of it is controversial. The first section just copies some relevant verbiage from WS:WWI. The second is purely informational, defining terms without advancing any policy or guidance. So the proposer's rationale isn't great, but this page as it stands isn't useful. If there is a settled consensus on multilingual works, it would be good to document it ”

“ Purely physical markup—of the kind that was typical in the 1990s—was hopeless for accessibility tools and there was a real risk that web technology, with all its potential for giving people with disabilities equal access to information and services, would shut out the very people that could most benefit from it. ”

“ As you may know, thousands of government documents are produced by hundreds of institutions a day. WS is not a government document archive system. Also, official documents of the Korean government are not assigned a single designated license. Basically, it is not PD, and there must be a separate designation by the institution. However, this document is an interagency liaison letter, and such license designations cannot be confirmed. I recommend deleting it for reasons, out the scope and copyright. It seems like a stagnant discussion, excuse me, but I ping you, billinghurst. ”

“ There is a ... element (tt=teletype here) , but it has no inherent semantics: its meaning was specifically "format this the same text was formatted on a teletype display". That is, like ... and ... it describes how this should look rather than what this means.
"Semantic markup" is important in order to let computers treat information intelligently. For example, with correct semantic markup a computer can automatically extract a citation, or an address, or a phone number from a web page. ”

“ If we need to kill the links interwiki links in {{header}} and {{author}}, then that just becomes a simple task of killing those visible link components s in the respective header templates, and not fussing about removing until someone is maintaining those pages. We can put tracking categories in place. If we need to kill templates in the body of works, we can just neuter the templates, and then run a bot through to remove. ”

“ We don't need numerous templates that just do the same thing, it confuses the punters. Convert it to a redirect as we are unlikely to have KBD for a large multiparagraph div. No need to replace it. I am happy to hear how and why the long-existing template does not meet needs. If the semantics are truly needed, they just use the tags, no requirement to template them, and little to no difference to code. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC) @Billinghurst: Why would it be better to have HTML in the page instead of templates? ”

“ It is roughly analogous to a single volume of a periodical†. Do we want: Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case) . This gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel. Personally, I lean gently towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. ”

“ For example (picking a page at random) we could move Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide to User:James500/Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide until you had completed extracting what you needed from it. In situations like that you can pretty much always just say "I need more time in order to ..." and we'll hold off. And as a safety-valve, if something is deleted (for whatever reason) before you'd finished we'll always be happy to temporarily undelete (unless there's copyright violation or other "hard" delete reason involved) so you can get what you need. ”

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

“ In any case, only if the original is by Selassie and the translation here was contributed by the same person who translated it at jah-rastafari.com, is the text actually compatibly licensed. In either case it is an excerpt; it has unclear sourcing; unclear attribution; is not scan-backed; and has, at best, unclear copyright status (I was this close to speedy under CSD § G6 but there's a theoretical set of circumstances where it's not a copyvio so best to let the community look at it first) . ”

“ I have several thousand pages worth of such "migrate to scan" tasks to do for other people's works (nevermind my own proofreading projects that I would like to get to at some point) so I'm not adding any more to my backlog unless it's something I really want to retain, and certainly not anything that's complicated by hard to come by scans and complex periodical structure. --Xover (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Alternatively, Xover, a scan could be created exclusively for scan-backing these sections. ”