This work has been identified as an English translation where the translator is unknown. Without information about the translator, it is impossible to determine the copyright status of this work, making it a potential copyright violation. By identifying the translator or locating another translation which meets Wikisource's Copyright Policy, you may remove this notice and prevent the deletion of this work. See also Wikisource:Translations.
This work has been identified as an English translation where the translator is unknown. Without information about the translator, it is impossible to determine the copyright status of this work, making it a potential copyright violation. By identifying the translator or locating another translation which meets Wikisource's Copyright Policy, you may remove this notice and prevent the deletion of this work. See also Wikisource:Translations.
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I know I err too far on the side of inclusion sometimes, but I think I'd like to see "will be deleted" changed to "may be deleted" - it seems less harsh and authoritarian, and allows for some more leeway. We're not Wikipedia, we don't have five million members watching all the articles to help search for sources, check their libraries, upload references, etcetera - progress is slower here, and while Wikipedia's templates saying "This image will be deleted in 7 days unless its copyright status is made clear" is good for WP, it would be disasterous for WS to even tread on similar surface. There are some works out there, like say for example my very first attempt at WS, History of Joseph the Carpenter, that I frankly don't remember what my source was off-hand, but even if I googled and was unable to find it (I'll do that in a minute, btw :P ), I would rather see it given some "benefit of the doubt", that given the age and nature of the text, chances are that the "common" translation is within the public domain. All of this is basically just a rant now, so I'll shut up...but yeah, "may be deleted". :) Sherurcij(talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN)06:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do not see how any text may be kept if we do not know who the translator was. If a text is very old it should not be a problem to replace it with a known PD translation. That said they texts are not about to be deleted tommorrow, so there is time to find the translator or an alternate translation--BirgitteSB19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think there are cases where the translator is not known and it's OK to host the work on Wikisource. We have at least one of these cases on the French Wikisource for a translation of the Bhagavad Gita. The text comes from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so it's quite safe to assume that it's public domain, but the translator is not known. Yann19:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Certainly these cases will all be run through proposed deletions and any special circumstances can be discussed. The template is meant to encourage contributors to do the research on translators and not leave this work on the shoulders of deleting admins.--BirgitteSB19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Note, also, some of these translations may come from Gutenberg. I've come across many translated works which don't identify a translator, but which PG says is public domain in America. I would say, in this case, even though the translator can't be identified, we still keep it. They are usually very good to their word about copyright.—Zhaladshar(Talk)20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with that and I also trust Sacred Texts on copyright issues. Doesn't PG give the physical edition the etext was proofread with? I would think the translator or a least a publication date could be obtained from that.--BirgitteSB21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
