Wikisource:Proposed deletions

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

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)

Note: I have changed these pages' formatting to conform to that of the source. — Alien  3
3 3 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep This isn't an excerpt; it matches the Contents page of the on-line journal and links to the same items, which have also been transcribed. The format does not match as closely as it might, but it's not an excerpt. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept: now supported by a scan at itws

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)

•  Comment There is an 1862 Italian copy of the libretto on IA, with just 26 pages and no music score to transcribe, if any is willing to transcribe it on it.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

•  Comment In trying to match the translation to the Italian text, I've run into large difficulties. The text lacks most stage directions, and the one version of the opera I've now watched does not match either our translation nor the Italian text. Correctly translating the text is therefore near impossible, since I have no context for many of the lines. They appear to depend upon the "business" on stage for understanding what is meant, who the line is spoken to, and there may be some significant differences between 19th-century Italian and modern Italian. There are certainly some culturally dependent context phrases, such as "chocolate" probably meaning "hot chocolate drink" and not simply a confection. I do not think I am likely to finish work on this; is anyone else willing and able to make an attempt? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 20:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

 Keep if scan-backed to this PDF document. Since the PDF document is from 2004, a time when the WWW existed but wasn't nearly as universal to society as today, I find the thought that this wasn't printed and distributed absurdly unlikely. And the copyright license would be PD-text, since none of the text is complex enough for copyright, being a list of general facts. Also, this document is historically significant, since it involves the relationships between two federal governments during a quite turbulent war in that region. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(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)

Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement

No source, no license, no indication of being in the public domain —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Found the source: [1] — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The text of the source does not match what we have. I am having trouble finding our opening passages in the link you posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(At least, a sentence matched). @EncycloPetey: Found it, the content that corresponds to our page starts in the middle in the page 44 of that pdf, though the delimiting of paragraphs seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That means we have an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, it appears that the PDF is a compilation of several different, thematically related documents. His statement (English’d) is one such separate document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  In which case we do not yet have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • No, that is the source; it’s just that the PDF contains multiple separate documents, like I said. It’s like the “Family Jewel” papers or the “Den of Espionage” documents. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I meant to say that we do not have a source for it as an independently hosted work. To use the provided source, it would need to be moved into the containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Well these document collections are bit messy, they were originally independent documents / works but they are collected together for release, e.g. because someone filed a FOIA request for all documents related to person X. I don't think it is unreasonable if someone were to extract out the document. I wouldn't object if someone was like I went to an archive and grabbed document X out of Folder Y in Box Z but if someone requested a digital version of the file from the same archive they might just get the whole box from the archive scanned as a single file. Something like the "Family Jewels" is at least editorial collected, has a cover letter, etc., this is more like years 1870-1885 of this magazine are on microfiche roll XXV, we need to organize by microfiche roll. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @EncycloPetey since this PDF is published on the DOD/WHS website, doesn't that make this particular collection of documents a publication of DOD/WHS? (Genuine question, I can imagine there are cases -- and maybe this is one -- where it's not useful to be so literal about what constitutes a publication or to go off a different definition. But I'm interested in your thinking.) -Pete (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Why would a particular website warrant a different consideration in terms of what we consider a publication? How and why do you think it should be treated differently? According to what criteria and standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Your reply seems to assume I have a strong opinion on this. I don't. My question is not for the purpose of advocating a position, but for the purpose of understanding your position. (As I said, it's a genuine question. Meaning, not a rhetorical or a didactic one.) If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative of course.

    I'll note that Wikisource:Extracts#Project scope states, "The creation of extracts and abridgements of original works involves an element of creativity on the part of the user and falls under the restriction on original writing." (Emphasis is mine.) This extract is clearly not the work of a Wikisource user, so the statement does not apply to it. It's an extract created by (or at least published) by the United States Department of Defense, an entity whose publishing has been used to justify the inclusion of numerous works on Wikisource.

    But, I have no strong opinion on this decision. I'm merely seeking to understand the firmly held opinions of experienced Wikisource users. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    You misunderstand. The page we currently have on our site is, based on what we have so far, an extract from a longer document. And that extract was made by a user on Wikisource. There is no evidence that the page we currently have was never published independently, so the extract issue applies here. We can host it as part of the larger work, however, just as we host poems and short stories published in a magazine. We always want the work to be included in the context in which it was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    OK. I did understand that to be TEaeA,ea's position, but it appeared to me that you were disagreeing and I did not understand the reasons. Sounds like there's greater agreement than I was perceiving though. Pete (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unclear what you are referring to as a "longer document." Are you referring to the need to transcribe the Russian portion? That there are unreleased pages beyond the piece we have here?. Or are you saying the "longer document" is all 53 sets of releases almost 4000 pages listed here (https://www.esd.whs.mil/FOIA/Reading-Room/Reading-Room-List_2/Detainee_Related/)? I hope you are not advocating for merging all ~4000 pages into a single continuous page here, some some subdivision I assume is envisioned.

    Re the policy statement: I am not sure that is definitive: if someone writes me a letter or a poem and I paste that into a scrapbook, is the "work" the letter, the scrapbook or both? Does it matter if it is a binder or a folder instead of a scrapbook? If a reporter copies down a speech in a notebook, is the work the speech or the whole notebook. etc. I am pretty sure we haven't defined with enough precision to point to policy to say one interpretation of "work" is clearly wrong, which is why we have the discussion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    The basic unit in WS:WWI is the published unit; we deal in works that have been published. We would not host a poem you wrote and pasted into a scrapbook, because it has not been published. For us to consider hosting something that has not been published usually requires some sort of extraordinary circumstances. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    From WWSI: "Most written work ... created but never published prior to 1929 may be included", Documentary sources include; "personal correspondence and diaries." The point isn't the published works, that is clear. If someone takes the poem edits it and publishes in a collection its clear. It's the unpublished works sitting in archives, documentary sources, etc. Is the work the unpublished form it went into the archive (e.g separate letters) or the unpublished form currently in the archives (e.g. bound together) or is it if I request pages 73-78 from the archives those 5 pages in the scan are the work and if you request pages 67-75 those are a separate work? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    I will just add that in every other context we refer to a work as the physical thing and not a mere scanned facsimile. We don't consider Eighteenth Century Collections Online scanning a particular printed editions and putting up a scan as the "published unit" as distinct from the British Library putting up their scan as opposed to the LOC putting up their scan or finding a version on microfilm. Of course, someone taking documents and doing things (like the Pentagon Papers, or the Family Jewels) might create a new work, but AFAICT in this context it is just mere reproduction. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    In the issue at hand, I am unaware of any second or third releases / publications. As far as I know, there is only the one release / publication. When a collection or selection is released / published from an archive collection, that release is a publication. And we do not have access to the archive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    We have access, via filing a FOIA request. That is literally how those documents appeared there, they are hosted under: "5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(2)(D) Records - Records released to the public, under the FOIA," which are by law where records are hosted that have been requested three times. And in general, every archive has policies around access. And I can't just walk into Harvard or Oxford libraries and handle their books either.

    My point isn't that can't be the interpretation we could adopt or have stricter policies around archival material. Just that I don't believe we can point to a statement saying "work" or "published unit" and having that "obviously" means that a request for pages 1-5 of a ten report is obviously hostable if someone requests just those five pages via FOIA as a "complete work" while someone cutting out just the whole report now needs to be deleted because that was released as part of a 1000 page large document release and hence is now an "extract" of that 1000 page release. That requires discussion, consensus, point to precedent etc. And if people here agree with that interpretation go ahead. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    For example, I extracted Index:Alexandra Kollontai - The Workers Opposition in Russia (1921).djvu out of [2]. My understanding of your position is that according to policy the "work" is actually all 5 scans from the Newberry Library archives joined together (or, maybe only if there are work that was previously unpublished?), and that therefore it is an "extract" in violation of policy. But if I uploaded this [3] instead, that is okay? Or maybe it depends on the access policies of Newberry vs. the National Archives? Or it depends on publication status (so I can extract only published pamphlets from the scans but not something like a meeting minutes, so even though they might be in the same scan the "work" is different?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    If the scan joined multiple published items, that were published separately, I would see no need to force them to be part of the same scan, provided the scan preserves the original publication in toto. I say that because there are Classical texts where all we have is the set of smushed together documents, and they are now considered a "work". This isn't a problem limited to modern scans, archives, and the like. The problem is centuries old. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    So if in those thousands of pages there is a meeting minute or letter between people ("unpublished") then I can't? MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way beyond my ability to follow it. However, I do want to point out that we do have precedent for considering documents like those contained in this file adequate sources for inclusion in enWS. I mention this because if the above discussion established a change in precedent, there will be a large number of other works that can be deleted under similar argument (including ones which I have previously unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

for example, see the vast majority of works at Portal:Guantanamo —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(@EncycloPetey, @MarkLSteadman) So, to be clear, the idea would be to say that works which were published once and only once, and as part of a collection of works, but that were created on Wikisource on their own, to be treated of extracts and deleted per WS:WWI#Extracts?

If this is the case, it ought to be discussed at WS:S because as BT said a lot of other works would qualify for this that are currently kept because of that precedent, including most of our non-scan-backed poetry and most works that appeared in periodicals. This is a very significant chunk of our content. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, that would classify encyclopedia articles as extracts, which would finally decide the question of whether it is appropriate to list them on disambiguation pages (i.e., it would not be appropriate, because they are extracts) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extracts are only good for deletion if created separately from the main work. As far as I understood this, if someone does for example a whole collection of documents, they did the whole work, so it's fine, it's only if it's created separately (like this is the case here) that they would be eligible for deletion. Editing comment accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We would not host an article from an encyclopedia as a work in its own right; it would need to be part of its containing work, such as a subpage of the work, and not a stand-alone article. I believe the same principle applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of our non-scan backed poetry looks like this A Picture Song which is already non-policy compliant (no source). For those listing a source such as an anthology, policy would generally indicate the should end up being listed as subworks of the anthology they were listed in. I don't think I have seen an example of a poetry anthology scan being split up into a hundred different separate poems transcribed as individual works rather than as a hundred subworks of the anthology work.

Periodicals are their own mess, especially with works published serially. Whatever we say here also doesn't affect definitely answer the question of redirects, links, disambiguation as we already have policies and precedent allowing linking to sub-works (e.g. we allow linking to laws or treaties contained in statute books, collections, appendices, etc.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

They are non-policy compliant, but this consensus appears to have been that though adding sourceless works is not allowed, we do not delete the old ones, which this, if done, would do. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

La Comédie humaine

This is a list of links to various works by Balzac. I think this is supposed to be an anthology, but the links in it do not appear to be from an edition of the anthology, so this should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if it's not an anthology, but rather a list of related works, it should be moved to Portal space instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a Schrödinger's contents: All of the listed items were published together in a collection by this title, however the copies we have do not necessarily come from that collection, and meny of the items were published elsewhere first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

None of the copies we have come from that collection, which is why I nominated it for deletion. The closest is Author's Introduction to The Human Comedy which is from The Human Comedy: Introductions and Appendix. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There are also a LOT of links to this page, and there is Index:Repertory of the Comedie Humaine.djvu, which is a reference work tied to the work by Balzac. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of the incoming links are through section redirects, so we could just make a portal and change the redirect targets to lead to the portal sections.

As for Index:Repertory of the Comedie Humaine.djvu, it goes with Repertory of the Comedie Humaine, which is mentioned at La Comédie humaine as a more specific, detailed and distinct work. — Alien  3
3 3 19:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a distinct work, but it is a reference work about La Comédie humaine, containing links throughout to all the same works, because those works were published in La Comédie humaine, which is the subject of the reference book. This means that it contains the same links to various works issue that the nominated work has. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We could make the unusual step of creating a Translations page despite having no editions of this anthology. This would handle all the incoming links, and list various scanned editions that could be added in future. It's not unprecedented. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

These novel series are a bit over the place, things like The Forsyte Chronicles and Organon get entries, while typically The X Trilogy does not. My sense it that current practice is to group them on Authors / Portals so that is my inclination for the series. Separately, if someone does want to start proofreading one of the published sets under the name, e.g. the Wormeley edition in 30 (1896) or 40 (1906) volumes. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes there is no clear distinction between a "series of works" and a "single multi-volume work", which leaves a grey area. However, when the distinction is clear, a "series of works" does not belong in mainspace. To your examples: The Forsyte Chronicles is clearly in the wrong namespace and needs to be moved; but Organon is a Translations page rather than a series, and Organon (Owen) is unambiguously a single two-volume work, so it is where it belongs (though the "Taken Separately" section needs to be split into separate Translations pages). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I support changing the page into a translations page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Which translations would be listed? So far, I am aware of just one English translation we could host. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The translation page can contain a section listing the translation(s) that we host or could host and a section listing those parts of the work which were translated individually. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. I know what a translation page does. But if there is only a single hostable translation, then we do not create a Translations page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Although there might not be multiple hostable translations of the whole work, there are various hostable translations of some (or all?) individual parts of the work, which is imo enough to create a translation page for the work. Something like the above discussed Organon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Organon is a collected work limited in scope to just six of Aristotle's works on a unifying theme. La Comédie humaine is more akin to The Collected Works of H. G. Wells, where we would not list all of his individual works, because that's what an Author page is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this work also has some unifying theme (expressed in the title La Comédie humaine) and so it is not just an exhausting collection of all the author's works. Unlike The Collected Works of H. G. Wells it follows some author's plan (see w:La Comédie humaine#Structure of La Comédie humaine). So I also perceive it as a consistent work and can imagine that it has its own translation page, despite the large number of its constituents. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A theme hunted for can always be found. By your reasoning, should we have a Yale Shakespeare page in the Mainspace that lists all volumes of the first edition and a linked list of all of Shakespeare's works contained in the set? After all, the Yale Shakespeare is not an exhaustive collection. I would say "no", and say the same for La Comédie humaine. The fact that a collection is not exhaustive is a weak argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You pick one little detail from my reasoning which you twist, this twisted argument you try to disprove and then consider all my reasoning disproved. However, I did not say that the reason is that it is not exhaustive. I said that it is not just an exhausting collection but that it is more than that, that it resembles more a consistent work with a unifying theme. The theme is not hunted, it was set by the author. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Then what is your reason for wanting to list all of the component works on a versions / translations page? "It has a theme" is not a strong argument; nor is "it was assembled by the author". Please note that the assemblage, as noted by the Wikipedia article, was never completed, so there is no publication anywhere of the complete assemblage envisioned by the author. This feels more like a shared universe, like the Cthulhu Mythos or Marvel Cinematic Universe, than a published work. I am trying to determine which part of your comments are the actual justification being used for listing all of the component works of a set or series on the Mainspace page, and so far I do not see such a justification. But I do see many reasons not to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have written my arguments and they are not weak as I see them. Having spent with this more time than I had intended and having said all I wanted, I cannot say more. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why it is different from the Cthulu Mythos or Marvel Cinematic Universe. E.g.

1. It is a fixed set, both of those examples are open-ended, with new works being added. Even the authors are not defined.

2. It was defined and published as such by the original author. Those are creations of, often, multiple editors meaning that the contents are not necessarily agreed upon.

3. It was envisioned as a concept from the original author, not a tying together of works later by others.

etc.

The argument, "it wasn't completed" is also not a particularly compelling one. Lots of works are unfinished, I have never heard the argument, we can't host play X as "Play X" because only 4/5 acts were written before the playwright died, or we can't host an unfinished novel as X because it is unfinished. And I doubt that is really a key distinction in your mind anyways, I can't imagine given the comparisons you are making that you would be comfortable hosting it if Balzac lived to 71, completed the original planned 46 novels but not if he lived to 70 and completed 45.5 out of the 46.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: "It was defined and published as such by the original author". Do you mean the list was published, or that the work was published? What is the "it" here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"It" is the concept, so both. You could go into a book store in 1855 and buy books labeled La Comedie Humaine, Volume 1, just like you can buy books today labeled A Song of Ice and Fire, First Book.

But that is my general point, having a discussion grounded in the publication history of the concept can at least go somewhere. Dismissing out of hand, "it was never finished" gets debating points, not engagement. I may have had interest in researching the history over Balzac's life, but at this point that seems futile.

In general, to close out my thoughts, for the reasons I highlighted (fixed set, author intent, enough realization and publication as such, existence as a work on fr Wiki source / WP as a novel series) it seems enough to be beyond a mere list, and a translation page seems a reasonable solution here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Shulchan Aruch

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept: being migrated to a scan from hebrew wikisource

The work is incomplete and abandoned, and because there is no scan supported original language work present on the Hebrew Wikisource, it cannot be finished under current rules of WS:Translations. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep. I began working on the scans both here and at the Hebrew Wikisource. Sije (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 20:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Inter-Collegiate Football Rules (1876)

Just an excerpt from Davis, Parke H. (1911). Football: the American Intercollegiate Game. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 461–467. The source given at the talk page is unavailable, but it can be seen also e. g. here. Besides, the text does not contain the leading paragraph of the excerpted part, does not contain original notes from the source, but it contains other notes not present in the original instead, which seem to be taken from some other source, not speaking about original Wikisource annotations. As a result it fails all WS:What Wikisource includes#Extracts, WS:What Wikisource includes#Annotations and WS:What Wikisource includes#Compilations. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As that source indicates, this is just a re-publication of a complete work (the 1876 rules) which was separately published. It would be preferable to have a scan of the original rules, rather than a later reprint, but that is not grounds for deletion, nor are the other particulars you raised. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  1) How do you know it is a re-publication of the "complete" work from 1876 without having a source of this 1876 publication? 2) The given source is not only a re-publication, it contains various notes, which the contributor omitted and replaced them with completely different notes without giving their source + with Wikisource annotations. Such practice is explicitely forbidden. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Earliest publication I can find is this 1883 publication by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. That already has 23 less rules than Football: the American Intercollegiate Game's version. I am starting to suspect that that book's version is actually not the 1876 rules, and so can have had no separate publication. At any rate, the amendments listed by the book from the conventions of 1877 to 1883, do not account for the disappearance or merge of 23 rules. — Alien  3
  3 3 13:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agreed that we need a clear source. DevoutHeraldist (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Old New Land

This work was deleted as a suspected copyvio, but after more research done as a part of its undeletion request it was found out that it is in the public domain as not renewed and so can be undeleted, see the discussion here. However, the work does not seem to comply with other standards we have, see a few chapters which were undeleted to enable this discussion.

• This non-scanbacked second-hand transcription is sourced by https://zionism-israel.com/an/altneuland.html, but currently only one page of the book seems accessible in the linked source.
• Although originally it was posted here before the rule forbidding second-hand transcriptions was adopted, should we renew it now?
• The text would need to be standardized anyway, for example all the numbers of pages added there manually by the Wikisource contributor, which are not present in the source, would have to be removed throughout the work.

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we even certain which English translation of Altneuland this is? The provenance of this text seems very unclear. Omphalographer (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be this one. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As the one who requested undeletion, I would be willing to obtain a scan of the work. As a point of fact, the information needed to keep the work was raised in the original deletion discussion but ignored without cause, which is why I started the undeletion discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  That would be great. However, having the scan, is it necessary to undelete the work? Would it not be better to enable a new transcription from scratch? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Given that the deletion was on the grounds of copyright, it would be improper to ignore the conclusion of the discussion (wrong though it was) to create a new version. In any case, it is better not to delete the old version in any case; it gives an incorrect sense of the historical progression of the Web-site in terms of attribution and whatnot. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    I would nominate it for deletion anyway, we should not be hosting such copypastes, so let's wait for the result of this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

All the so far transcribed parts were undeleted because copyvio was not proven. Now the bad state of the transcription is even more visible. I am adding two more arguments in favour of its deletion: the work is incomplete and has been abandoned since 2012. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: given that it's basically an OCR dump, would you agree to delete that version of the text? It is essentially unusable for transcription (only as useful, at most, as fresh OCR would be), and so as far as attribution and/or the progress of the text is concerned it would not cause issues. — Alien  3
3 3 08:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Alien: I stand by the statement I made to Jan Kameníček earlier: if this copy is deleted, I won’t bother with scanning it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  It would be really good to have the scans, so if TE(æ)A,ea. is willing to scan it, I will nominate the index for the Monthly Challenge afterwards. Under these conditions I am changing my vote to  Keep. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček, Alien: I have uploaded the scan here. Incidentally, it is called Old-New Land, so it will need to be moved, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  All pages have been moved to the corrected title Old-New Land. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Middle English)

This work has no source text, and I suspect it is an inaccurate transcription of an old print edition, because it frequently substitutes "z" where "ȝ" exists in other source texts. It was added to the site, fully-formed, in 2007, by an IP editor, so I don't think we'll be able to get much context for it. I think it should be blanked and replaced with a transcription project should the source be identified, and if not, deleted. See further details on identifying its source on the talk page. EnronEvolved (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The ultimate source is, by unavoidable implication, the British Library MS Cotton Nero A X/2, digital copies of which exist (and may well have existed in 2007). It is possible that the manuscript may be the proximal source, too, though it may be Morris. The substitution of a standard character for an unusual one is common in amateur transcriptions but an old print edition would be unlikely to be that inconsistent. Could we upload a scan of the original source and verify the text we have matches (almost certainly better than an OCR would)? Then we can correct the characters and other errors. HLHJ (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• HLHJ: Does this work? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Should we choose that, or Morris, as the "source"? I think the IP could be taken to have implied the MS, but if Morris is closer that would be fine too. I've now noticed that we do have another ME version, Index:Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - Tolkien and Gordon - 1925.djvu. HLHJ (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Both Morris and Madden have annotations (footnotes, marginal notes) not shown here. So perhaps taking it as a transcription of the MS makes more sense. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  We ought to bear in mind that Sir Gawain is only a small part of the larger Pearl manuscript. Would that make using the MS directly an extract? EnronEvolved (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Further points against using the MS: I'm not sure how many of Wikisource's users could transcribe it accurately given how heavily faded, archaic, and abbreviated it is. The lack of abbreviation in the Wikisource text is a point in favour of Morris, too: the IP knew how to expand the abbreviations, but kept confusing "ȝ" for "z"? That sounds implausible to me. EnronEvolved (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  • EnronEvolved: I think that there wouldn’t be an issue with uploading the entire Pearl manuscript just for this, as there would probably be interest in the remaining works at some point. It may simply be an inaccurate transcription of an old photofacsimile of the manuscript, although in any case the original would be of much value. As for users, that is certainly an issue; even my experience with a borderline Middle/Modern English text wouldn’t help me, as I would still need a lot of practice parsing the light hand. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re being an extract, there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other, as has come up in other contexts. For example, if it is published in 5 separate parts by the holding library (or even separate libraries), is putting them the five separate scans back together again a prohibited user created compilation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would be interested in proofreading this text, mostly because I thought that "The Green Knight" was a great movie. —FPTI (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the Versions page includes a link to our on-going transcription of the edition co-edited by Tolkien, which edition includes the Middle English, copious notes, and a vocabulary list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Mazatlán, 1908 and Marina, 1907

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. User-created translations with no scan-backed originals on Spanish Wikisource.

User created translations of works whose originals were not proofread and scanbacked at the appropriate language Wikisource. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Keep the poems are from a notable writer DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We can keep when they are compliant with policy, i.e. scan-backed at Spanish Wikisource MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

https://es.m.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa:Obras_de_Enrique_P%C3%A9rez_Arce&oldid=1489804 DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The works are present in Spanish WS, but unfortunately they are not scanbacked, which is a required condition for user translations. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Ayil Meshulash

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Abandoned incomplete Wikisource-original translation not compliant with WS:T because no scan-supported copy exists on the Hebrew Wikisource.

Incomplete work abandoned since 2013.

Only the Discourses 1-7 fall under the WS:T#Grandfather rule, Discourse 8 was created shortly after the rule WS:T#Wikisource original translations was adopted and so should be deleted as not based on a scanbacked original. Discources 9 to 11 have not been added at all.

Because it is impossible to complete the work without having the scanbacked original I suggest deleting the work. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (as to all discourses). The source has been given since translation began, so it is certainly not “impossible to complete.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  In fact what I wrote was "it is impossible to complete the work without having the scanbacked original", which is true. First we need somebody to proofread and scanback the original for the Hebrew Wikisource, and only then, based on this proofread original it would be possible to translate the rest of the work for Wikisource.

  However, this was only one of the reasons that I mentioned. The other reason is that the work was abandoned 11 years ago without any substantial progress. Per WS:T "works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion", which applies to any abandoned translation, including those which are being translated based on scanbacked originals. Here it is even worse, because we do not have the scanbacked original. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents abridged

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Self-published abridged edition.

• The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 1610-1639, Abridged
• The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 1640-1655, Abridged
• The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 1656-1675, Abridged
• The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 1676-1764, Abridged

To quote the note field of these pages: A modern, abridged 2016 edit by John Swapceinski, created by @Jswap, which probably means that this is their own work and is not a copyright issue. It is, though, self-published. — Alien  3
3 3 07:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete in favor of the scan at https://archive.org/details/cihm_07535/page/n21/mode/2up which we should proofread sometime instead. Duckmather (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note the comments at User_talk:Jswap#The_Jesuit_Relations_and_Allied_Documents. One of the books on Amazon can be seen here - https://www.amazon.com/Jesuit-Reports-North-America-1610-1764-ebook/dp/B01DTN9R9O -- Beardo (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We'd probably need to a) get OTRS, and b) find to what degree the content we have is the books' (namely, the book description does not include the word "abridged".) — Alien  3
3 3 08:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole Jesuit Relations is 73 volumes. Proofreading the whole unabridged set is a massive undertaking (that is more volumes than the DNB for example), and even so the ordering and context will be quite different as the original volumes are not strictly chronological (never mind the recessions, standardizations, rewordings, translations from Latin, etc. listed on the Amazon description). This is plenty enough to make it qualify as a "new edition". Its suitability should depend on the self-publishing question and whether an Amazon ebook or some other adequate source can be found. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as an annotated text for the sake of accessibility. —FPTI (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To quote WS:ANN, which is official policy: A "clean" text, in the context of this policy, is the original work with no user-added annotations. A clean text must exist on Wikisource before an annotated version of the same text can be created. So, this can't be kept. (The reasoning behind that is also given: Any user annotation without such a base work being hosted somewhere in the Wiki-World, if not on en.WS itself, at the same time is of little added-value to the potential reader and of questionable fidelity at best in regards to the quality standards of Wikisource.). — Alien  3
3 3 09:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If this were like the case of The Case Against Vaccination, which was an annotated version that I replaced with a scan-backed version, I would agree. But as this work contains 72 volumes, according to The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, The, a huge project we have not started at all, I think keeping this text presents added value to a potential reader.

Regarding questionable fidelity, the only fully transcribed version I can find of all the volumes notes that "The volumes on this site were not professionally scanned and proof read (sic) so if you are using them for publication purposes it is best to recheck them against the original volumes as there are some errors in them". There is a digital version available upon subscription to a library service, apparently, but it can't even be paid for by individuals.

My conclusion is that the source text is very long and no quality transcribed version is currently easily accessible. PG has only 7 volumes. So, self-published or not, I think that removing these texts would diminish the accessibility of the text for historians and interested parties. Keeping these texts is valuable for potential readers and editors looking for citations. — FPTI (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Before deleting it, you may want to at least read the foreword to get a feel for what I did to modernize and abridge it. It took me over a year and there are quite a few modernizations in terms of units of length, currency, place names, and tribe names, among other things. And yes, it is self-published. I published it also as an ebook on Amazon but there were so few sales, I thought I would just release it here. I renamed the work to "The Jesuit Reports" when it was published on Amazon. It's no skin off my nose if it's deleted, but I thought some people might enjoy it. -- John Swapceinski 50.49.30.72 07:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource does not accept self-published texts, but there is likely some place on the Internet that would gladly accept hosting this text, and where you could release it. — Alien  3
3 3 08:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Archive.org would definitely facilitate downloads if we took it down, which I think we shouldn't, at least not before we have an alternate scan-backed version. It was previously self-published, but I think it would be fine here as long as we marked that it was annotated. FPTI (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. and Alien333. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Lapis Lazuli Texts

All the texts here are self-published translations from https://lapislazulitexts.com/. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep These are public domain, highly useful quality translations of various texts, some of which are rather obscure. The website does not have self-promotional content either. Florificapis (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Being in the public domain is just one of conditions for a text to be hosted here, but it is not sufficient, see WS:WWI. Among others, we do not host self-published texts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe could be moved to translationspace? — Alien  3
  3 3 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Although we know nothing about who is behind Lapis Lazuli Texts (see home page: [4]) , there are interesting translations. I have read several and compared some of them with others available (e.g. [5]) and I found that there is concordance. I agree with Florificapis and at the same time with Jan Kameníček, but it's not clear to me that these are "self-published texts".

As Lapis Lazuli points out (see link : [6]), many Buddhist texts have never been translated from Chinese into English. They want to fill this gap, which is a good thing. As Florificalis says, this is very useful. Consequently, it seems to me that we can keep the translations proposed by Lapis Lazuli, despite the reservations expressed by Jan Kameníček, which I share. However, these translations are reliable. Or, to avoid total deletion, perhaps they could be transferred to the translation space, as suggested by Alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.245.31.232 (talk)

These texts were not published in a verifiable [and] peer-reviewed forum (as required by WS:WWI), and so are not eligible for inclusion as published works. This is what is implied in "self-published".

However, the Translation namespace appears to me to fit this; it is intended for translations, made by themselves, of eligible works in other languages, that users want to add them to Wikisource. (There are requirements for new translations, buy these, which were added in 2010, before WS:T was established, do not have to meet them, and so can I gather be kept in translation namespace.) — Alien  3
3 3 18:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Alien for the answer. Frankly, I'm not really aware of all the constraints concerning the question. Yesterday I gave my simple opinion. As for the next step concerning Lapis Lazuli, I have full confidence in the community to make the best consensual decision. Keeping it in translation namespace does seem to be the best solution in this case.

The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire

Looks like transcription of some screenshots of web pages. Not in our scope per WS:WWI#Reference material: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text" ... "Some examples of these include... Tables of data or results".

Besides, the PDF file contains two pages with two tables from two separate database entries, so it is a user-created compilation, which is again not possible per WS:WWI.

(Besides all this, I still believe that our task is not transcribing the whole web, as this creates unnecessary maintenance burden for our small community. But it is not the main reason, though it is important, the main ones are above.)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – These reports are published specifically by the United States government at least 3 months after a natural disaster that serve as the finalized reports. There is an entire page specifically about these sources. The PDF is Wikipedian-made but the tables are not. The U.S. government divides every report by county and by month. The fire was in a single county, but occurred in April & May 2024, therefore, NOAA published an April 2024 and a May 2024 report separately. The PDF was the combination of the two sources. To note, this is an official publication of the U.S. government as described in that page linked above: "Storm Data is an official publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which documents the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and/or disruption to commerce." Per WS:WWI, this is a documentary source, which qualifies under Wikisource's scope per "They are official documents of the body producing them". There is way in hell you can argue a collection of official U.S. government documents does not qualify for Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The definition of the documentary source in WS:WWI says that "documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries." Pure tables without any context are refused by the rule a bit below, see my quotation above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is how the National Weather Service, a branch of the United States government publishes finalized results...Like every single fucking natural disaster in the United States is published in that format. File:Storm Data Document for the 1970 Lubbock, Texas Tornado.jpg is a 1970 publication (pre-Internet) and this is a physical paper that was physcally scanned in. That to is in a chart and table. If charts and tables produced by the US government are not allowed, then y'all need to create something saying no U.S. government natural disaster report is allowed because tables is how the U.S. government fucking publishes the information. Yeah, good bye Wikisource. There is literally no use to be here. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is absolutely OK that they publish tables, but our rule does not accept such screenshot-based material. Being rude or shouting with bold or red letters won't help. Although you have achieved that opposing arguments are less visible, it will not have any impact on the final result. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If/when this is deleted, please make a note somewhere that Storm Data is not covered under Wikisource's scope, since both the 2024 wildfire and 1970 tornado document above are from Storm Data and they would not be under the scope. There needs to be some note about that somewhere that the U.S. document series Storm Data is not under Wikisource's scope. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not, it is not a matter of publisher. Besides, our rules are worded generally, we never make them publisher-specific. Speaking about Storm Data, they publish a monthly periodical, see an example which would definitely be in our scope. Unlike screenshots of their web. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So Storm Data is allowed, but screenshots of Storm Data is not allowed? Is that correct? WeatherWriter (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

More or less. We don't accept extracts or user-created compilations, but if you have a government work as a whole, we'll generally take it. Screenshots of works aren't specifically in violation, but it's a horrible way to get a whole work. You can use podman on the HTML, or print it directly from your browser, and that will let the text be copyable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested author-requested speedy deletion on it. No use to try to argue or debate. I know you are an administrator who clearly knows it isn't in scope and needs to be deleted. I don't want to argue or debate it anymore and just want to be done with Wikisource transcribing. I do indeed lack the competence to know what is or is not allowed for Wikisource, despite being a veteran editor. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, I would lean towards  Keep for reports by federal governments on official events. I know that we keep for example Civil Aeronautics Board / NTSB reports. Presumably, the NTSB dockets could also be added if so inclined. This seems to be the NOAA equivalent where the differences seem to be some level of "lack of narrative / description" and the proper formatting of the sourcing from the DB for structured data. I don't really think the first is particularly compelling to merit deletion, and the second is really about form not content. E.g. it might make sense to download the DB as a csv and then make each line a sub page to be more "official" but this seems fine to me (might make sense to upload the 1 line CSV anyways for posterity). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• On this topic, I want to throw 2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report into the mix. This is a nearly identical format Wikisource collection (and Wikisource validated collection) for the NOAA finalized report on the 2024 Greenfield tornado. I am wanting to throw this into the mix for others to see a better-example of NOAA's finalized report. Also noting the Wikisource document is listed on the EN-Wikipedia article for the tornado (see the top of w:2024 Greenfield tornado#Tornado summary). WeatherWriter (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not the NOAA finalized report; it's a stitched together collection of NOAA reports. It's not entirely transparent which reports were stitched together. It's clearly not Storm Data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Every URL is cited on the talk page. See Talk:2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report in the "Information about this edition". To also note, the "Notes" section actually says, "This tornado crossed through four counties, so the finalized report consists of four separate reports, which have been combined together." I do not know how that is not transparent enough to say which reports are in the collection. The reports "Event Narrative" also make it clear for the continuations: For example, one ends with "The tornado exited the county into Adair County between Quince Avenue and Redwood Avenue." and the next starts with "This large and violent tornado entered into south central Adair County from Adams County." NOAA is very transparent when it is a continuation like that. If you have any suggestions how to make it more transparent, I am all ears! WeatherWriter (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also quick P.S., this is in fact Storm Data. You can read the Storm Data FAQ page. Everything regarding what is an "Episode" vs "Event" (as seen in the charts aforementioned above) is entirely explained there. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I missed those URLs because they're not listed on the PDF page. Someone should archive completely that Storm Data database, but that's not really Wikisource's job. We store publications, not user-created collections of material from a database. There is no "2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report" from NOAA; there are four separate reports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator misreads the relevant policy. The fact that a document is in tabular form does not mean that it needs must be excluded; this is a good example of that fact. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  ...and besides that it is a user created compilation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Upon my request, the two reports compiled in our pdf have been archived by archive.org, see here and here. Archive.org is the service which should be used for web archiving, not Wikisource, where the two screenshot-based tables are now redundant and without any added value. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It might make sense to add these to field to wikidata for storm events, assuming the event itself is noticeable, given that it is built for handling structured data. But that is a question for the wikidata commmunity. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Poems in Weird Tales

This is a work-based category, and therefore qualifies for speedy deletion. However, this is best done be someone with bot or automation, since there are 99 items in the category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Novellas in Weird Tales also. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I am curious about the speedy deletion component. I am trying to grasp the reasoning behind SD rule #8, the relevant portion of which states: "Work-based categories: Categories solely intended to contain pages within a particular work (instead, provide a table of contents on the work's main page)." In a case such as this, where the "work" is a multi-year periodical and the subset is not made readily apparent in a table of contents (which would not typically help the reader easily find all poems or all novallas within a relatively large collection), it seems to me there is great value. I can understand why "works published in Weird Tales" would be redundant of a well-structured TOC, but these categories add new information that isn't readily available through the TOC. The other portion of rule #8 explicitly identifies an exception in the case of authors, which it seems to me respects this principle: "There are exceptions for categories where the person's name signifies an administration (the administration associated with a specific US president), regnal period (the government of a given British monarch), or similar, which are not subject to speedy deletion under this criterion." That example seems analogous to the present case, since the categories carry information that would not be readily available elsewhere. So I'm not sure I understand the reasoning that would make these particular categories speedy-able. Could you elaborate? -Pete (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We have a search function available that permits searching within a work. I fail to understand how works in the form of a poem are analogous to a government's administration. The exception is made because the governing individual is not actually the author in most cases, but is used to refer to edicts made under a specific administration. How is "poem" analogous to that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As of now, Category:Poems in Weird Tales contains 99 works. Are you suggesting there is a search string that would produce the same (or even roughly similar) list? If so, I'd like to know what it is, I haven't been able to come up with one. -Pete (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I think I've figured out what I was missing, enough to inform my !vote. If, as is proposed, we were to simply delete the category from all 99 pages, we would lose the information that these items are poems (while retaining, by virtue of the naming convention, the information that they were published in Weird Tales). Works like this one are not categorized as poems, apart from the category in question. (As I hope is clear from this comment, I was not making a claim comparing the provenance of government works to the literary form of poetry, so I don't really know how to answer that question.) Pete (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

: Replace with Category:Poems or Category:Modern poetry. To delete without doing so would eliminate useful metadata, namely the classification of these works as poems. (Worth noting, some of these works, such as Weird Tales/Volume 29/Issue 2/Song of the Necromancer, are already so classified.) -Pete (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(And if that is the desired outcome, I'm happy to do it.) -Pete (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

All works on Wikisource ought to be categorized by form. The deletion proposal is only for the Category based on the containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata is designed with searches like this in mind. Using their tools, you should be able to set a request for items published in Weird Tales that are poems, provided the data has been entered into Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"All works on Wikisource ought to be categorized by form" -- yes. And all works currently in the categories mentioned are so categorized. Some of them, only by virtue of the category you propose to remove. Which is why it is important to change the category, as opposed to simply removing it. Especially for a (semi-) automated task. -Pete (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

With regard to Wikidata, if the categories are removed, even Wikidata will lack the underlying data that would enable such a search. The fact that they are poems will no longer be preserved in any structured way. -Pete (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It would, admittedly, be nice to be able to do a search based on periodical without having to go all the way to Wikidata. As far as I remember, the way to do this on Wikidata is to use SQL-like queries, which can be difficult for non-technical users. So, I don't think the category Category:Poems in Weird Tales is needed, but I wish there was an easier way to search a work through categories like that on Wikisource itself. I could've sworn Special:WhatLinksHere could do something like this, but I guess not. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing that initially gave me pause. The speedy deletion edict cited suggests that a table of contents can serve the same function, which as far as I can tell is prohibitively impractical in this instance. -Pete (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Noting here that there seem to be four work-based categories in Category:Poems in periodicals, and also Category:Novellas in Weird Tales, so maybe we need to expand the scope of this discussion to lay a more consistent precedent. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I think that EP is saying that replace the category with something else is fine, but that we need to delete the category page, itself, as well as removing all instances of it being used (though their uses can be replaced with some other categories at any point). SnowyCinema (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, and that would be fine. I come to this from the perspective of trying to implement something that was presented as a request for speedy but complex action, i.e. removing the category tag from the individual pages. In order to implement it I need to know precisely what I'm doing, and I'm finding that simply performing the task would remove date from Wikisource, which I'm loathe to do. I don't object to the overall goal, but I don't want to cause harm that was unintended (by me, EP, or anyone else) in the process. Maybe I'm coming across as tendentious, but my desire is to fulfill the task requested. To do so, precision is important. -Pete (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Just checking back on this one. It seems to me like we used a lot of words to ultimately arrive at compatible positions, but I want to make sure you agree before acting on this request. Concisely: Shall I run a process to delete the relevant categories, while replacing with a parent category if it's not present? I'm happy to do so with all the subcategories mentioned by SnowyCinema. I'm inclined to use Category:Poems rather than Category:Modern poetry, since some (like the Baudelaire poem linked above) were published too early to be classified as "modern." At worst, this approach might result in some cases of slight overcategorization. But IMO this is much better than losing, for others, the structural information that they are poems (i.e., better than the consequences of simple deletion). -Pete (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep until a wider discussion on the topic, determining what is possible, takes place at Scriptorium. The current practice is that periodicals are taken a bit differently than other works, and works included in periodicals have always been a subject of categorization inside the periodical, see e. g. Category:Articles in Popular Science Monthly. E. g. Category:Fables in Popular Science Monthly, Category:Speeches in Popular Science Monthly or Category:Lectures in Popular Science Monthly have existed since 2015. I do not mean that old categories cannot be deleted, I just want to point out that this practice is very long and quite widespread (I have also created Category:Poems in The Czechoslovak Review quite a long time ago) and so to change it we need a wider discussion about our policy towards this first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Popular Science Monthly has often been an outlier on issues. Is there some reason the issue cannot be resolved with the current discussion? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep per Jan K. above. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

All works should be categorized by base form, regardless of other categorization. The fact that a work is "Modern poetry" does not mean it shouldn't be categorized in "Poems". Commons categorizes using the "plinko" method, where an item trickles down to the lowest possible location in the category tree and is removed from all parent categories. Here, we retain the top category for form, date, and (where applicable) topic, even when other more specific categories are applied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of this difference, and indeed I've always assumed that the approach taken on enwp, meta, commons etc was in force here as well. (I have trouble finding a policy page fleshing this out, or about categories at all. I do see that Help:Categories covers this concept though.) -Pete (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Dada Manifesto (1918, Tristan Tzara)?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Not done. The previously deleted text was of questionable authenticity and dubious origin, as well as still under copyright.

Seeing as it was made in 1918, it has been in the public domain in the United States since 2013. Norbillian (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. The deletion discussion notes that the translator died in 1963, so the translation is still under copyright. Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2006-07#Dada Manifesto (1918, Tristan Tzara) I note from looking at the deleted text that the date cannot be correct, since the uploader included a signatory date of 1921 on a work supposedly from 1918. I get the sense that there was concern that the work was not genuine because no source was ever identified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Aah. Thanks for the info. Norbillian (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also compared the IP translation against the anonymous one linked via the Wikipedia article w:Dada Manifesto. There is little to no similarity. However, I cannot support using that linked English translation as a source either, because it too lacks bibliographic information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I found the french-language original: it's there, and on the following pages.

I can (as a french speaker) confirm that the deleted text has pretty much nothing to do with the original.

The translation linked to on enwp, and present elsewhere, would be pretty accurate, but it [...]s large parts of the text. — Alien  3
3 3 06:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that the European Caravan (1931) has what looks like a complete translation (pp. 92-7), I haven't checked the renewal status but that seems the best bet for a PD translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not renewed, I believe.

Do you know where a scan of it could be found? Not seeing any at first glance. — Alien  3
3 3 09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Alien: I could probably borrow a copy through ILL, if you would be interested in proofreading it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Might as well, why not? — Alien  3
  3 3 07:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Alien: Here you go: File:European Caravan.djvu. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks! — Alien  3
    3 3 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Faust: A Tragedy

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept: these two editions are not redundant, as they're different

After looking at the title page again, I realized that there is no copyright notice, just a publication date. For that reason I ask for the index page to be deleted, so that another one, with a 1912 edition with copyright can take its place. HendrikWBK (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't delete an edition simply because another one is available. Wikisource is open to hosting multiple editions of the same work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would it matter if there were or were not a copyright notice for something that is so old ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Well it is also missing pages... but assuming the two differ only slightly upload the new one and mark this one as redundant, like the nomination above. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The 1889 copy was printed in London. Might we want to keep that unless we can find an earlier edition ? And was the 1912 copy a US edition ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@HendrikWBK - is the 1912 edition in Commons ? Or where is it ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, here. There is also an index here at Wikisource. HendrikWBK (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The existence of another edition is not a reason to delete one.

The nominations above are for identical editions, which these are not at all.

(On the license side, all are {{PD-US}}. Copyright notices don't matter for stuff this old.) — Alien  3
3 3 13:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@HendrikWBK - so one is a UK edition and the other US. -- Beardo (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

So I say  Keep both editions. -- Beardo (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 06:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Author:Ijaz Hussain Batalvi

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Recent author with no known works in English.

A Pakistani author who apparently died last year. Do we have any evidence of works in English? (The images on the page are all in Arabic/Urdu script) Do we have any evidence of works not currently under copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

( Comment: The death date seems to be 2004: the author page says 2004, which is confirmed by d:Q125918014.) — Alien  3
3 3 18:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Index:Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.pdf (not the mainspace page) deleted as a user-generated PDF

The source PDF here is a print-out of the Web-site; a proper copy sourced to the Federal Register is available at Executive Order 14149. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as we don't want webpages that are repurposed as PDFs as indexes.  Comment Maybe ideally we need something in deletion criteria that explicitly states, "no screenshots of webpages, no print-outs, no HTML pages converted to PDF directly by any means, etc." All these just seem to me like a misapplication of the goals of an Index, which are primarily for works that explicitly need to be treated in iterative form (usually scans of books). SnowyCinema (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this best made into a redirect to the copy sourced from the Federal Register ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

How are we supposed to see the difference between two pdf files, one generated as a print-out of a website (assuming the print-out split it in multiple pages), and one published as a pdf? All modern documents look alike (at least to me). — Alien  3
3 3 06:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Beardo: I made this request so that the Index: and Page: could also be deleted; after that, I will ask for them to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Alien: The Federal Register PDF is a digital copy of an actual, physical, printed item. It’s simply easier to use the digital-first copy (which has all the text correct without OCR) then obtain the right issue of the Federal Register, scan the right pages, get poor OCR, and manually correct it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks.

  Note, for the federal register: oughtn't we upload whole issues, rather than extracts? — Alien  3
  3 3 16:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Alien333 - Are there whole issues ? Where do you find them ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whole issues can found at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr. ToxicPea (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea. - surely deleting the main page doesn't automatically delete the index and pages - you need to propose those for deletion. But I don't see why you can't delete the index and pages whilst making the main page a redirect. (I am going to make that a redirect anyway, as that is what should have been done). Also, you haven't tagged any pages with a delete tag. -- Beardo (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Beardo: Redirection is not infrequently the result of deletion discussions, so I don’t see the point of separation. I thought a discussion was important in case anyone had a strong argument for keeping the Web-site copy. In this case, whole issues are generally not uploaded, as is the case with certain United Nations work as well; it is simply established practice at this point. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea. - you still need to propose the Index for deletion if that is what you want, and mark the pages with the delete template. -- Beardo (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo: No, putting {{delete}} templates on all the pages of an Index has not been a common practice here. On top of being extremely time-consuming (remembering that our works range in page counts from one single page to over 1000 pages!!!!), if an indexed work were to be kept, then the pages would all have to have their {{delete}} templates removed as well after the fact. Maybe the index can get a {{delete}} template, but putting it on all the pages seems frivolous.

Also, the question of "Shouldn't we just make a redirect rather than deleting the page?" is a common enough question that I think we should explicitly write at the top of WS:PD, and possibly WS:CV and in our policies, that when we say we want to delete a work, it doesn't necessarily always include using the MediaWiki delete feature outright, but is more about deleting (as in removing) the current content of the page in favor of something more acceptable for the situation (like a redirect). The point is we want to get rid of what's currently there, and whether we need to use the delete button to do this should—while it is the most common scenario—not be the only assumed option. We don't have a "Wikisource:Proposed changes to redirects" for a reason—it's fundamentally the same practice as deletion in a different form. SnowyCinema (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema - yes, I didn't mean to have the delete templateon all the individual pages, but I think it should be on the Index page. And in this case, the {{tl:delete}} template was not placed anywhere, not on the index page nor on the main page.

Whilst making a page into a redirect might be a common conclusion to a deletion discussion, it seems to me unwieldy to have to go through a deletion discussion in order to make the page a redirect. -- Beardo (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 18:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted the index (not the mainspace page) because it is a user-generated PDF

Same reason as request above.ToxicPea (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it the policy that we don't want .pdfs taken from the White House website ? If so, then yes, Index:Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness - The White House.pdf should be deleted. (It could probably be speedy deleted now as redundant.) -- Beardo (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Current opinion is that we do not accept user-generated PDFs from web content, based on previous discussion concerning this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Then  Delete the PDF, I think, but  Keep the mainspace page (we can just copy-paste the executive order, or maybe get it from the Federal Register instead). Duckmather (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The mainspace page redirects to a version properly sourced from the Federal Register. So  Keep that, but  Delete the Index and associated pages. -- Beardo (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Song of the Battle of Abin

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as an extract

This appears to be an extract from a two-volume work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As a song, wouldn't that have an existence in its own right and so be acceptable ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No, since this is a journal extract, and no because it's not actually a song. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 18:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bronx and Its People/William Henry Steinkamp

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept. Now backed by a scan,

Was nominated for speedy deletion by @Norbillian, as an extract. As this does not fall under WS:CSD#G5, which only covers pages whose content has obviously no place here, whereas this piece of a scanned book that is in scope, I am bringing it here instead. (@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), as creator). — Alien  3
3 3 19:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep I am the uploader. We have discussed this on several other occasions. If it can be read in its entirety it is not an excerpt. We are not required to host entire magazine issues or host entire newspaper issues. We host self contained magazine articles and we host self contained newspaper articles. If a short story is contained in an anthology we are not required to host the entire anthology, if a book is part of a series, we are not required to host the entire series. When the Harry Potter books go into the public domain in the US, we are not going to wait for all 7 books to go into the public domain before we start hosting them. --RAN (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete It's very marginal; this is a single biographic entry from a biographical dictionary. It's more like a extract than a single short story. I'd like to discourage loading one piece of a magazine or a newspaper; in this case, there's absolutely no reason we couldn't host the whole book. From a librarian perspective, stuff like Portal:Abraham Oldrin Salter and Portal:William Henry Steinkamp feel like vanity projects. They're not whole books or influential articles; they're one page snippets.

I start with keep, quickly went to neutral, and eventually to delete. Wikimedia projects are built by many people working on many things, but they're going for one unified work, and putting up one page snippets of books isn't helping us be a better library. I might make an exception for obituaries--my local library copied all the obituaries from the local newspaper before getting rid of decades of them--but there's no justification for one obituary out of a book of obituaries, or in this case one biography out of a book of biographies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

"My local library copied all the obituaries from the local newspaper before getting rid of decades of them". I great book to read is w:Double Fold where the British Library microfilmed their newspaper archives with high contrast film then discarded the originals. They didn't have the foresight to recognize that digital scanning was just around the corner, that preserved the images, not just the text. See:Commons:File:Thomas Patrick Norton II (1920-2011) and Vincent Gerard Norton (1923-2005) in the Jersey Journal on May 29, 1944.png (scan) versus Commons:File:Vincent Gerard Norton (1923-2005) on the wounded list printed in the Jersey Journal of Jersey City, New Jersey on October 9, 1944.png (high contrast 35 mm Kodak microfilm). --RAN (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment—while I am of RAN’s opinion (that this should be considered an individual work), when I did this in the past everything was deleted. So, I support keeping it with the knowledge that it is against historical consensus. I also disagree with Prosfilaes’ opinion—those portals are quite helpful, especially because the subjects aren’t the subject of lengthy books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

We should be re-examining those that were deleted, consensus changes over time. --RAN (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a reason the subjects aren't the subject of books. Or Wikipedia. This is part of what the rule about excerpts was made to avoid, people pulling out one section about their issue instead of doing the whole work, or at least setting up the whole work to be done. As long as the book is all available to work on, I won't request what's there be deleted. I'm not going to fight over the portals, but would support a move to delete any portals subnotable for Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep but only if a scan / index for the containing work is set up. Any reference work we host must start somewhere, and this is backed by a scan of the relevant page. While this is far from ideal, the page name is already set to indicate the containing work for this entry, and it is ready to be converted to scan backing. I found scans for all three volumes on IA: Vol I (external scan); Vol II (external scan); Vol III (external scan) --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep per EP. Scan index started here. -Pete (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep as original nominator. As it's now scan-backed in a larger source, I see no reason it should be deleted. Norbillian (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Executive Order in Response to Russian Hacks.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Consensus to delete

Just like #Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship above, this is a pre-Federal Register print of Index:Executive Order 13757.pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete - though couldn't that one be put for speedy deletion as redundant ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Redundancy would be for identical (or extremely similar) files. Here it's two versions of it, one of which we're probably not going to host, but they're distinct (formatting is different for instance). — Alien  3
3 3 06:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So  Delete per nomination. -- Beardo (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 18:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:75 FR 43825 anti-circumvention exemption.pdf

An excerpt of the issue, which is referenced on the versions page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two transcribed pages in the Index nominated for deletion. Can these please be transferred to an Index for the volume prior to the deletion? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Chanchal Sarkar

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied, as beyond scope for consisting of external links only. No evidence that the works are in PD.

Both links are dead and cannot be recovered from archive.org (even after stripping away the |a part). Also, the author page, Author:Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, is also up for deletion. So I suggest deleting this as well. Duckmather (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I've corrected the links, but it's not clear to me that these are 1) freely licensed or 2) published works - they're a pair of personal letters written in 1994 and 1997. Omphalographer (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete - that page is just a couple of links to webpages. As such it doesn't belong in main space. And as mentioned, I those works look like they would still be in copyright and so not hostable here anyway. -- Beardo (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Al Mawakeb Research Center(AMRC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per precedent discussion by EncycloPetey

Looks like self-promotion. However, this still hasn't been deleted since the deletion discussion last December (and the associated PDFs were gotten rid of on Commons in January). We should get rid of this once and for all. Duckmather (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It was deleted. This page has been re-created since it was deleted. Since the previous discussion stands, and since no new discussion has occurred, I will act to speedy it now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Duckmather (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

James Cook and South Georgia in 1775

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedying per WS:CSD#G4: redundant, already in the chapters of the parent work

This is just an extract from a Gutenberg book. AS I understand it, we don't want extracts like this. -- Beardo (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

See A Voyage Towards the South pole and Around the World/Volume II/Chapter 5 and A Voyage Towards the South pole and Around the World/Volume II/Chapter 6 where it is already contained in the containing work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 09:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Enzikiriza Y'omusiraamu Entuufu.djvu

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied. Not in English, and thus beyond scope.

This document is not in English, and so does not belong here. -- Beardo (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal

This is an OCR dump (whicl1, responsibi1ity, sha11). These errors are in the document linked to, which is in fact just a PDF version of OCR text. — Alien  3
3 3 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There must be some proper sources that we can use for this. It is included here https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm?os=f&ref=app - which includes the Annex omitted from the version that we have. But is that the best source ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are (or someone else is) willing to transcribe it, feel free to, but what is up for deletion here is the current content of this page, and that won't be much use to anyone. — Alien  3
3 3 10:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Most subpages of A Dictionary of Islam

As OCR dumps (and unsourced, too, as doesn't match the scan's OCR):

• A Dictionary of Islam/'Idu 'l-Azha
• A Dictionary of Islam/'Ismah
• A Dictionary of Islam/'Umar
• A Dictionary of Islam/'Usman
• A Dictionary of Islam/Ahaditah
• A Dictionary of Islam/Ali
• A Dictionary of Islam/Ihdad
• A Dictionary of Islam/Immaculate Conception
• A Dictionary of Islam/Infants
• A Dictionary of Islam/Istibrah
• A Dictionary of Islam/Raihanah

(The two other subpages have been proofread.) — Alien  3
3 3 12:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Mxt

On the assumption that this is an unused, unnecessary template copied from Wikipedia. I assume that {{monospace}} serves the same basic function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)