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

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)

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)

Wikimedia and the new collaborative digital archives

Self-published (blog post) — Alien  3
3 3 21:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Keep My general position is that if it fell into the public domain naturally in any sense (in this case, being a federal government document), then we should be extremely lenient on its inclusion, since so few modern works actually have the ability to fall under this umbrella. (And the general rule of thumb is, the more modern the work, the higher the page views we get for its transcription are. This one got 23 views this month...) Also, a federal government employee's work essentially has their stamp on it, giving it an inherent sense of documentary/academic legitimacy. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reason: it’s not a work of Wikipedia, so it doesn’t that sort of concern. In addition, for the most part, we don’t consider works created by governments to be “self-published” as that would prevent most laws, rules, regulations, &c. would be banned. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  My problem is that it's a blog post, not an official document. — Alien  3
  3 3 16:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, just a blog post. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Keep, the very terse nomination seems to include two points, but both points invite further consideration. (a) It is not self-published; it is composed by one person (McDevitt-Parks), at the invitation of another part of the NARA organization. To use the language from WS:WWI, "editorial controls" are present. Its classification as a "blog" is a mere technical method of publication. The editorial structure of the publication, and the social impact of the document, are germane to consideration. It's possible a good argument could be made for removal, but it would take more than the four words above. (I would be inclined to vote "keep" regardless, on the basis that Wikisource is a significant thing in the world, and that a document written by an expert on its functions, and published by a national organization with a mission distinct from Wikisource, helps expose that significance to a general audience.)

Pete (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

(The nomination is short because it was originally part of a mass nomination (that one), and some wanted to treat three pages separately so I split it, and then readded a bit of nom for context.)

Can you indicate where editorial control is indicated? Suppose for example that IA let a volunteer (as WiRs are not paid) write up something on their blog. It would still be self-published in that a parent organisation likely would not exercise much editorial control on its own members.

On Wikisource, I was about to say, that it would be nice if we were a significant thing in the world, but as it stands, we are not. Then I checked, and actually I was wrong. Compared to PG, WS (with all subdomains, as PG also hosts multiple languages) has about 2.4 times PG's traffic, which is probably a relevant metric as far as measuring significance in the world. — Alien  3
3 3 08:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I did find that helpful context after I posted my comment. Now that they've become separated by archiving, it seems especially worthwhile to have that link. Since your comment above the other discussion has been archived; here is the new one.

Having had several of my own blog posts published by several organizations, I would gently push back on your general characterization; in some cases what you say would be accurate, in others it is not. It's hard to know for certain without a lot of research, but personally I tend to assume that organizations (like NARA) that are specifically oriented toward responsible stewardship of information would have more stringent standards. In some cases I have found blog publishers to exert much stronger editorial standards on me than well known and respected commercial news outlets. Also, I would personally draw a distinction between blog posts that are about the organization itself vs. posts that aim to educate the public via the expertise of people associated with the organization. This post seems more like the latter.

Re: the importance of Wikisource, yes, I agree that the readership is one relevant metric. Another factor (more difficult to demonstrate objectively/quantitatively) which to me seems more relevant is the transparent and diligent processes of Wikisource. The librarians and archivists I have interacted with are generally very enthusiastic about Wikisource's dedication to scan-backing, tracking specific editions of works published in various places/times, etc. These things put Wikisource in dramatic contrast to a (not unworthy) project like Gutenberg. As Wikisource editors, we know this well and it impacts many of our decisions locally. But these editorial practices are also relevant to the specialist and general public they ultimately aim to serve. My point is that there are few places that an ordinary person, or even a trained librarian, can easily learn about such distinctions. With that in mind, I see special value in this blog post; it documents something that is important, highly relevant (i.e., about) our work, and largely obscure to the outside world. It's a pretty specific reason that wouldn't apply to the vast majority of works here on Wikisource, but speaking for myself I would consider it significant and actionable. -Pete (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe not the most important point, but I think worth noting for thoroughness -- how many blog posts contain formal citations to multiple published works! -Pete (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note (will reply in detail later): you might not be aware, but if you go for ex to WS:PD#Correct! Great message!, MW automatically finds and gives you the link to the archive where it's hosted (you need to reload the page if you're already on it). This means that we do not have anymore to replace links to discussions by links to archives, as it's taken care of. — Alien  3
3 3 20:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

On editorial control in blog posts: yeah, I suppose we can't really know how much.

On relevance for works about our work: what I always say, in all cases like this, is that we are not here to document ourselves (or, at any rate, not in mainspace). We are here to document published works. These texts about us can be informative, yes, but there's no need and often (in this precise case it's more gray) not much justification putting it in workspace. We can put it in projectspace and link to it from Help:Contents or another page, or put it at meta, or just link to the original source (if it's still up, else link to web.archive.org versions) from one or both of these places, &c, if the purpose is to document ourselves. — Alien  3
3 3 18:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all this:

- I did notice the new automatic link to archive, and it helped me update the link! It's the first I'd seen it, so I wasn't sure it was something to be relied on, or some gadget only I happen to have enabled, etc. Thanks for your assurance.

- On relevance, I doubt it will persuade you, but to clarify my own reasoning. I agree that WS does not exist to document "us" and I would not vote to keep something that is internally significant but esoteric as far as the outside world is concerned. Conversely, I would vote to keep, e.g., a document with iffy "publication" status analogous to this, that does a good job explaining, in lay terms, a widely important mathematical proof that has not been well explained elsewhere. To me, the decision point here is the combination of (a) publication status that is somewhat robust, and (b) my admittedly subjective assessment that the subject matter is worthy. -Pete (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2025 (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 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)

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)

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)

Mazatlán, 1908 and Marina, 1907

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)

Translation:Ayil Meshulash

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)

More simple tweets

Other twitter posts a single sentence long (following Correct! Great message):

• NWS Tornado Test Tweet
• NPS – Please be patient
• NWS Dodge City No
• NWS – Same tbh
• (Add others if you find them)

— Alien  3
3 3 08:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom - any reason NWS – Same tbh wasn't included as well? Omphalographer (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, missed it while I was searching for tweets in the pages WeatherWriter had created. Going to add. — Alien  3
3 3 06:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - and we could just throw all the Twitter posts in here I think. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have others, feel free to. We could also do a proposal to put explicitly in WWI that social media posts are not in scope. — Alien  3
3 3 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd want to exclude everything posted on social media; occasionally there are substantial texts posted on social media which are worthy of preservation. What makes these "texts" feel most inappropriate here is their extreme brevity, to the extent that they don't convey any information on their own. I don't know how to codify that as a policy, though. Omphalographer (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. While I do support the expansion of Wikisource's weather-related texts, including pointlessly random, absurdly short, and almost contextless posts from the social media division of the National Weather Service isn't the way to do so. Norbillian (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete — Delete all except NWS Tornado Test Tweet.  Keep NWS Tornado Test Tweet — is a deleted and non-existent digital tweet. The wayback machine failed to archive it properly (due to Elon messing with X bots at the time). That makes it valuable for Wikisource. I am perfectly content with all the other being deleted, but I am strongly opposed to that one being deleted as currently, there is no digital copy of that tweet except on Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is this information (about the NWS tweet) documented anywhere? If so, it seems important to include links that would help somebody who doesn't already know to grasp the significance. If not, I don't really perceive the value preserving a tweet that is pretty much devoid of meaning internal to its own contents. Can you elaborate, either way? Pete (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to object vociferously to the assertion that a text is valuable simply because it is no longer available online. To be perfectly clear, the text we are discussing here is, in its entirety, "This is a test tweet". It's not a text which was ever meant to convey any information to anyone, and transcribing it here serves no purpose. Omphalographer (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is exactly what Wikisource’s scope covers, unless I was lied to yet again. Wikisource is for official publications and documents that have not been digitized yet. That tweet is not archived or digitized anywhere except for on Wikisource now. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact it is nowhere to be found means it cannot be verified. This is one of the reasons why we should not be mirroring Internet sources, which may disappear (or sometimes also change) any time. Wikisource contributors must always be able to check the source of any previous contribution here. BTW, if it disappeared without anybody having it archived, it probably was not important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  All things produced by the U.S. government are indeed verifiable by anyone. Just wanted to correct that factual error that you mentioned. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents abridged

• 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)

Maynesborough Charter

Unsourced OCR dump. — Alien  3
3 3 13:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The contents of the charter were republished here: https://archive.org/details/provincialstatepv24newh/page/n525 (p. 477) and run for 4 pages so I likely will just scan back it easily enough. It would be nice if we could find an image of the actual charter (apparently at the the NH Historical society) MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you still plan on doing so? and, I didn't understand, do you object to deletion of this version or not? Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 19:48, 13 January 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)

Template:Esszett

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Consensus to delete

I'm not usually a fan of ligature templates, but this goes a step beyond. The German letter ß is not a long s-s ligature. They may look similar, and ß may have originated from a long s-s ligature, but it's a distinct character only used in German (and archaic Lithuanian, Polish and Sorbian orthographies). But the only possible encoding of long s-s in English is just that or ss. I won't fight a template to mark long-s s ligatures, but it should not conflate ß with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. If it is present in English text, it is probably because the author wants to make some specific distinction from regular s, e.g. they might be trying to explain three different sounds as s, z and ß in a transliteration scheme, or referring to it is a symbol in a drawing or something, in such a situation it might cause confusion to do the conversion. If it is present in a block of German text, we probably shouldn't be messing with it: even if standard orthography says ss is correct, that is not necessarily true in all cases and even so, we shouldn't be correcting older orthography anyways. For example, it may be written SZ when capitalized instead of SS. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. I can think of no reason why ß should be transliterated today. In the typewriter era (back when I was studying German at school), it was transliterated when the character wasn't available. However, it is available in all operating systems and major browsers today. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment If we delete the template, we should review existing uses to replace them with the appropriate character(s)—ß, ſs, possibly something else depending on context. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

(There are only 66, won't be too hard.) — Alien  3
3 3 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

(Note: this has been done by a generous soul.) — Alien  3
3 3 20:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Having looked over how the template has been used, I agree with this reasoning (and also think ligature templates are mostly a bad idea, but that should be a separate discussion). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 January 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 20:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665-1886) and subcategories (not subpages)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedy-deleted under WS:CSD#G8

These are all work-based categories, I think. If they are, then they are be speediable under WS:CSD#G8, but I'm not sure whether this counts as work-based. (Are different volumes of a periodical different works? I don't think so, but maybe others disagree.) — Alien  3
3 3 13:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are work-based categories and should all be reachable from the parent page for the periodical. Once that's been checked, then speedy G8. If other organisation is needed, then a Portal and/or a WikiProject should be created. [As a side note, the categories were set up before we'd definitively settled not to have such categories.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Done —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:52, 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)

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)

Undelete Dada Manifesto (1918, Tristan Tzara)?

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)

Index:John Falkirk's cariches (2).pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G4 as redundant

I believe that this is the exact same edition as Index:John Falkirk's cariches (3).pdf (which is the more complete, in any case). (2) and (3) are, however, clearly different from (1) and (4), which are both different editions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedied as redundant per WS:CSD#G4.

Also noting, that (2)'s content, despite being marked as proofread, was below that standard (paragraphs not separated, line-break hyphenations not removed, &c), and that (2)'s scan of this same edition crops some of the content, whereas (3) does not. — Alien  3
3 3 18:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and, please remember to tag items you bring here with {{delete}}. Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 18:21, 22 January 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 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-published translations from stihi.ru

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G7–author's request

Here is a list of some recentrly added previously selfpublished translations from stihi.ru. I suggest their deletion for the following reasons:

1. WS does not accept selfpublished work, which is a reason that should be sufficient on its own
2. The author first released the text under a free licence, but later tried to withdraw it. Although I am aware of the fact that such withdrawal is not possible, I do not think we should keep it against the authors' will.
3. We should not probably move it to the translation namespace, because there the translations can be further edited and tried to be improved by any contributor, which is what the author explicitely does not wish. Quoting two statements of the contributor here:
   • Do you think to persuade me to play with your "team" in that game again, as an author of some "dynamic, available translation of the work"? When both "poetry and rhyme" are abandoned and instead some "spirit of time" the readers would get "collaborative shit" of self-proclaimed Wikipedia peer-reviewers, without any appropriate background in Middle Age history and folklore?
   • I'd prefer to see all my works deleted than crippled by some zealots and knows-nothing.

The quoted statements also suggest that the contributor was not really aware what the licence under which he originally released the texts really mean, and that they allow anybody to adapt their work.

Here is the list of the works in question:

• Liebesprobe
• Das Todaustreiben
• Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär
• Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn)
• Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli
• An einen Boten
• Rätsel

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to place the delete tag on those separate pages. -- Beardo (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

True, done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The only way we can accept these translations as they are right now is in the Translation: namespace. If the contributor does not wish that to happen, then deletion is the only recourse. The alternative is to first publish them in a medium that permits further use (CC or PD), such as a journal or book, and then host them here with that medium as the scan. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I moved one of the works to the Translation space. The user moved it back with the comment "That wouldn't work: either you accept my contribution, as in Ru-wikispurce, or deny: I cannot let anyone cut and cripple my poetic "children"" - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Liebesprobe&diff=prev&oldid=14807889 -- Beardo (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Go forth. Remove that right now: you have your own "excellent and excelsior" wiki-poets, my shameless and ungrateful "friends". --Tamtam90 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed all those English translations from my CC-pool. You have no right to delay. --Tamtam90 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that once you have released the works under a free licence and OTRS confirmed it, the further life of the works is no longer in your hands and we have the right to deal with the works under the terms of the licence. Despite that I think we should show some courtesy, especially as you apparently did not understand what the release really means for the works. However, our processes need their time and it is you who has no right to tell us what we should or should not do. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Mr. You are mistaken — the permission is granted only for this list, which doesn't contain the aforementioned poems anymore. --Tamtam90 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the overriding permission here - the one where you saved your changes and licensed them irrevocably under CC 4 Attribution-ShareAlike is. OTRS was just verification that you had the right to place that license. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I never gave such a permission — to cripple my works by whoever that wished. Neither in ru-wiki, nor here (and not a single poet or artist would grant such one). My OTRS permission grants you that you may make some derivatives, without touching the original. Don't agree? Then look for another "sources" for your "experiments". Now, even formally, you have no right to publish the aforementioned poems, nor even make any derivatives without my permission. --Tamtam90 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

When you post anything on wikisource, you agree to wikisource's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. It says that just beside where you click to post. You cannot unilaterally change that ! -- Beardo (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

As Beardo pointed out on my talk page, we also have the possibility of speedy deletion "per request of the author, if the author is the only significant contributor, ... and the content is not to the benefit of Wikisource. I have decided to use this courtesy rule and speedied the works in question to stop this useless discussion which would certainly end by deleting the works anyway. Hopefully the contributor has learned a lesson that he should take free licences more seriously and not release their work recklessly. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Elegaic Sonnets 1.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G4 as redundant

This is a duplicate (with a misspelled title) of Index:Elegiac Sonnets 1.pdf which is already fully proof-read. Duplicate should be removed. Chrisguise (talk) 16:12, 24 January 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 19:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:The works of Archimedes (IA worksofarchimede00arch).pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G4 as redundant to Index:The Works of Archimedes.djvu

This index is a duplicate of Index:The Works of Archimedes.djvu which has been around longer and has had some work done on it. I don't think that we need the .pdf as well, do we ? -- —unsigned comment by Beardo (talk) .

No we don't, speedy-deleting per WS:CSD#G4 (it's redundant). And, in general, two indexes for essentially identical files can be nominated for speedy deletion under WS:CSD#G4. — Alien  3
3 3 17:22, 25 January 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 17:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Faust: A Tragedy

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)