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)

Contracts Awarded by the CPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Comédie humaine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inter-Collegiate Football Rules (1876)

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

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

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

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

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

Old New Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now nominated for proofreading at Wikisource:Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/March 2025. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Middle English)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Lapis Lazuli Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Poems in Weird Tales

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept, for now. No consensus to delete—the consensus here now seems unilaterally geared towards discussing a policy change centrally before a deletion happens. That discussion should probably be at the Wikisource:Scriptorium, but I'm ending the discussion here regardless to hopefully drive the politics and meta-politics of all of this into a more appropriate forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This potential change in the practice would have quite a large impact so it should be discussed properly. The result of the discussion may influence our policy. Discussions at Scriptorium are generally followed by more people than the discussions here so the input from contributors is likely to be bigger there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

NOTE: There is a general discussion of whether and when work-based categories should be used at Wikisource_talk:Deletion_policy#Work-based_categories. -Pete (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not the best place for that discussion. As mentioned above, a general discussion should happen in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

A curious perspective. The talk page for a certain policy seems the most germane place for a question about said policy, and no change has been formally proposed. Two actions I'd urge you to consider: (1) If you feel we are ready for a policy proposal (or anything else best suited to Scriptorium), why not just start a discussion there? (2) If you feel that I (or anyone else) has acted erroneously in terms of process, why not take that up in user talk, rather than taking up other users' attention to a procedural issue that could be easily addressed by a simple consensus between yourself and the offending user? -Pete (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia and Commons, that is true. But on Wikisource the community has regularly pushed for consolidation of discussion to fewer pages, and favoring the Scriptorium for all but Deletion and Copyright discussion. In answer to your corollary questions: I do not believe in spreading a single discussion over multiple pages. You announced a spread of the discussion to additional pages, and I responded to that announcement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It is of much use to me, and probably to anyone else who is interested in history, current events, and in reading. Jaredscribe (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I added this text on 4th February, added it to Author:Jimmy Carter, and created a page for Omar Torrijos, and no one notified my user page that this was proposed for deletion.

One source is here: pancanal.com Neutrality Treaty

The official copy can also be found in the Portal:Library of Congress, if anyone is willing to join me in actually doing the research.

There should be a different template applied to the effect of Template:Better source needed, to inform readers that there may be a better source, like the one @Beardo found, for which I thank him.

Its appalling to me that such a significant, notable, and currently newsworthy text did not exist on wikisource prior, and that you would propose to delete it now.

It apppears that your excessive and somewhat uncivil and borderline ignorant deletion policy is deterring constructive contributors, and degrading the quality of this project for readers who expect to find works that they know to be in the public domain.

Please do the research and improve the text, as @Beardo suggested, and as I will endeavor to do in the coming years, or else desist from this attempted deletion. Jaredscribe (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

For more on this point, see Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Imposing_Maximum_Pressure_on_the_Government of_the_Islamic Republic_of_Iran,_Denying_Iran_All_Paths_to_a_Nuclear_Weapon,_and_Countering_Iran’s_Malign_Influence

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Wikisource is only the efforts of volunteers. If you're appalled no one transcribed it properly, then transcribe it yourself (and properly).
• You added the text yourself. It is not the responsibility of the whole project, or of other individual contributors, who may have others areas of interest, to care for and rescue texts any specific user adds.
• I would like to remind you that excessive and somewhat uncivil and borderline ignorant is in itself quite uncivil towards the whole project (and that this kind of stuff is mostly said by newcomers coming from other projects... but I digress).
• The source you have given is either:
  • in itself only OCR in which case it's clearly no point hosting it here, as it'd be lowering our standards
  • a very low-quality secondary transcription, and so is not a primary source, and so on top of that it is eligible for speedy deletion as clearly out of scope per WS:WWI#PG
• (Oh, and also: deletion policy does not require noticing the creator here.)
• (I also note that you failed to add even the minimal formatting that appeared in this "source". I must stress that formatting is not optional, and that cut-and-paste additions are very heavily frowned upon.)
• This is english wikisource as it stands. You can like it, or leave it, except if you have excellent arguments for changing policy that will convince a majority of us to abandon the way we have done stuff for the last twenty-ish years. But in no way do you have the right to bludgeon us, insult us, and demand that we take care of your projects, and adapt to your standards.

Thank you. — Alien  3
3 3 06:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A better better version is available at 2001-2009.state.gov, without the OCR errors in the pancanal.com text. (Thank you for discovering those, btw.) I've copied it into the page, replacing the previous text with that of the State Department.

I've also put in some links to loc.gov and govinfo.gov where PDF versions should be available, if another editor wishes to upload and index that. I'll try to do so in the coming year.

Jaredscribe (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The current version of the page does not respect the formatting of either https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm or https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y4_M53-4296e7cde6b8c88c5b5204c0482770a9/pdf/GOVPUB-Y4_M53-4296e7cde6b8c88c5b5204c0482770a9.pdf, and doesn't have the content of either (skips stuff).

Moreover, https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n87937891.html does not give the actual document, and so can't be used as a source.

So, this page still does not respect any source. Such texts are below english wikisource's standards. If you can not make it stick to a source, it will get deleted. — Alien  3
3 3 09:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Imposing Maximum Pressure on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Denying Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon, and Countering Iran’s Malign Influence

Unformatted copydump with no backing scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

KEEP, and add the scan when it becomes available.

Highly notable, and well sourced here: National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-2 whitehouse.gov

It is legible, formatted well enough to read, by anyone interested in actually reading.

Soon it will be published in the US Federal Register, if it hasn't been already, and scans be available soon. As such a recent document, you should at least give me and other contributors to WS:USEO project the time to complete the work, before nominating it for deletion. Also, the page creator (myself) should have been notified on his user page, and I was not notified. @EncycloPetey has made a dozen comments on my user talk page, in the previous hour, after he proposed this deletion, so it seems that failure to notify was intentional. Why do this behind my back?

This just discourages people from contributing. Is that what you want?

Jaredscribe (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource has no notability requirement. Please see the discussions above about adding texts here from the US Federal Register without a backing scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"Failure to notify" implies there is a requirement to notify. There is no such requirement for deletion discussions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was no requirement. Perhaps there should be. But since you were very active on my user talk page in the hour after you proposed this for deletion,

• why did you neglect to mention it?
• Were you hoping I wouldn't find out?
• In general, why should we not have a full discussion with all relevant points of view presented?
• Why not include the primary contributor in a discussion about whether or not to delete the work he has contributed?

Jaredscribe (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the full discussion. Right here. you have participated in it. There is no requirement to notify anyone of a deletion nomination. They are announced here, on this page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Of the dozens and dozens of "briefings" and "statements and releases" that I added to Author:Joe Biden and Author:Antony Blinken over the last two or three years, almost all of them met this same alleged criteria for deletion. None of them were backed by scans; all of them were "copydumps" that I cut and pasted from http://whitehouse.gov or state.gov or some other government website, which I cited in the "notes" field as the source. With this NSPM from Author:Donald Trump, I did the exact same thing I had been doing for over the previous years.

Yet not one of them was proposed for deletion. Why the sudden unequal enforcement? And where is the policy that states that this is forbidden?

I am committed to editing in a manner that is Non-Partisan and In the Public Interest. It appears that other administrators here are not.

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I went back and looked at those, and no, they do not meet the criteria mentioned above. Although I do notice that none of the source links are working any longer, since those pages were taken down by the new administration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I just added 10 interesting wikilinks to wikipedia articles that explain the context of this memorandum, starting with

Imposing Maximum Pressure on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Denying Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon, and Countering Iran’s Malign Influence.

It's true that I'd done this - adding wikilinks - to most of the Biden era documents I published here. Now that I've added wikilinks to the Trump era document, I expect you all to preserve it. (A scan will probably become available from the federal register in a few days - if its not available already - and I'll have to do this all over again.)

Jaredscribe (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Scores of Biden era documents - maybe hundreds - were given pages here by wikisource editors, other than me, and have not been formatted: they are unformatted copydumps. Here is a small sample:

• Memorandum on Renewing the National Security Council System (2021-02-04)
• Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World (2021-02-04)
• Memorandum for the Secretary of State on the Emergency Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 (2021-04-16)

Admins/editors have placed {{no scan}} tags, but they refrained from placing {{delete}}. And unlike those documents where the link to whitehouse.gov is broken due to presidential transition, the link I've given to document in question here actually works, See for yourself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/national-security-presidential-memorandum-nspm-2/

This is unequal enforcement that appears to motivated by political bias. Like this document, Biden's shouldn't be deleted: instead we should have a policy explicitly legitimizing this, and use the {{no scan}} to warn readers to use there own judgement in determining whether the document is reliable or not. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The examples you pointed to have all been formatted. The text being considered was nominated because it had not been formatted. I see that some formatting has been added, but that the added formatting does not match the source. There is still unformatted content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've just formatted it, by removing the indentations. Is this now "formatted" in your opinion, or what else needs to be done?

The text being considered here, the NSPM-2 is now formatted with ten wikilinks: the other examples have none.

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of the source links to whitehouse.gov from presidential documents by Author:Joe Biden, are now broken. I've checked half a dozen from Author:Barack Obama, and they are all broken too, no one bothered to fix these. (None of them were backed by scans either, and yet haven't been proposed for deletion.)

Maybe we should redirect our efforts toward this pressing need:

Wikisource:Scriptorium#Fixing broken links to whitehouse.gov after Presidential Transitions

Jaredscribe (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This is why we ask for added works to be backed by scans: internet links change and disappear. Problems present in other works are not reasons to keep this one; they are reasons to consider deletion of additional problematic pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Although many internet links change and disappear, this and other presidential documents are in the U.S. National Archives. Although they will move from whitehouse.gov to archives.gov, we can rely on their continued availability in the decades to come.

Jaredscribe (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The American Language

Proposing deletion of this copy of the 2nd edition, which is second-hand copy-paste from the Bartleby website. We have scan-backed editions in progress at this Index and also here (for two different editions). The page once deleted, should be used to disambiguate the several editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep—“in progress” is all I needed to hear. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Neither Index is for the same edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  • The copy you want to delete is complete. The copy with which you want to replace it is not complete. Therefore, I oppose the deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    Then where should we keep this copy of the second edition, which is not the same edition as either transcription project? --EncycloPetey (talk) EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    • The usual course is to move it to The American Language (unsourced), which would be listed at The American Language along with those two editions you have mentioned. This is always what happens, so far as I know. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

      Surely in this case, where we know the date and edition, "The American Language (1921)" or "The American Language (second edition)" ? Then, when we have a proper scanned-backed version of this edition, that can replace the second-hand copy. -- Beardo (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

      For Gutenberg texts I have seen them placed under (unsourced), under (YYYY) and under (Gutenberg). But yes the typical procedure is either move the whole text and then delete when we have a complete proofed scan-backed edition (as redundant) or migrate-in-parts as they are done (if we are scan-backing using an "equivalent" edition). MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep but move for now, to one of the destinations listed above, without prejudice for deleting it once one or more scan backed alternatives are ready. -Pete (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Further notes: I've looked more critically at this edition, and it's clearly a Bartleby edition, not the second edition, because the work has been heavily modified from the second edition. Chapter headings and section headings have been stripped from the entire work. There are also many character copy-paste errors, as can been seen throughout The American Language/Chapter 3, e.g. "A footnote says that the essay is “part of a chapter crowded out of A Tramp Abroad.”" Given this new information, do we still keep it? It's not a published edition, except insofar as the Bartleby site published their own edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. They are a real mess - not even properly reflecting the source. Yes, I'll agree  Delete for that and all the sub-pages. Then the main page can be made a disambiguation page for the two editions that are in progress ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

EncycloPetey: That seems like worthwhile info. The existing scans both look within reach of being fully proofread. Is there one you (or anyone else reading this) prefer over the other? If so I'll work on proofreading it. -Pete (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no preference. The first edition is closer to being done, but the third edition is more useful and is in the Monthly Challenge. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed them more closely myself now, and I agree, the one you nominated should be  Deleted to make way for a {{versions}} page. - Pete (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:Evening Tribune. (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 7, No. 30, Ed. 1 Monday, October 11, 1886 - DPLA - d1ff5d0c82091ddd624af5787d001874 (page 1).jpg

An excerpt—only one page of one daily edition of a newspaper. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The other three pages of that edition are available as separate .jpgs on Commons. I don't know why only one was brought over to here. I would say keep, unless it would be better to combine the four on Commons and import together. -- Beardo (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What a strange donation. Maybe Dominic can shed some light? On the one hand, a substantial effort at transcription has already been made, so I'd be inclined (as Beardo says) to keep it in some form, perhaps merging the page images into a single DJVU file. On the other hand, the scan images are low quality and difficult to proofread. Exploring the source site, it seems to be the highest quality publicly downloadable (or perhaps slightly higher?) but there is a much higher quality scan available (evidenced by the ability to zoom in the web viewer). But it seems they have to be explicitly requested and are not available for direct download. Seems like a useful collection of files if somebody can get the high quality originals; otherwise, not so very useful, as proofreading the small text will be very challenging. -Pete (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:Enviromental Bill of Rights.pdf

This is a print-out of a Web page, and not a real edition of this law in any sense. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Web transcription is not our aim. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the way governments present laws nowadays - with a webpage showing a consolidated text with all changes. But I agree that is not what we want - we need to get the original text before amendments, and then separately each fresh law making amendments. -- Beardo (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I will mention that from the website is available a version in doc which can then be converted to PDF which is a published government document, rather than a webpage. If so, I can upload that instead of the existing pdf. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:DOGE Termination of $8.189 Million USDA Contract for "Environmental Compliance Services for the Implementation of Pilot Projects Developed Under the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities".jpg

There are quite a few like this, but I’ll use this one as an example. These are not documents, but print-outs of Web pages. If you go to this Web-site, and click on the “LINK” icon under “Contracts,” you will be able to find many instances. In addition, these are collections of data, arranged on a form. I believe that neither the form nor the data filled in as part of the form qualify under Wikisource:What Wikisource includes § Reference material. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep – Several of these documents are linked at w:Department of Government Efficiency#Termination of federal contracts. Several sources do indeed indicated these are “federal contracts” (a type of documet): ABC News — “DOGE this week posted on its website a list of more than 1,000 federal contracts” & “The 1,127 contracts span 39 federal departments and agencies” / Associated Press — “The Department of Government Efficiency, run by Trump adviser Elon Musk, published an updated list Monday of nearly 2,300 contracts that agencies terminated in recent weeks across the federal government.” / The Hill — “The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has initiated the process to terminate roughly 1,125 government contracts, however 37 percent of those cancellations aren’t expected to yield any savings. DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” lists 417 contract annulments, many of which are for the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), on the homepage of their website with a dollar amount for total savings.” These are documents, as confirmed by numerous reliable sources. This is no different than the JFK Assassination documents, which are allowed on Wikisource. Also to note, WikiProject DOGE does exist as well. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• I presume “contracts” are documents, but these are not contracts at all: these are forms which indicate the details of contracts (and of their cancelations). DOGE has not “posted” any “contracts”; they have just identified certain contracts which have been canceled. Your sources mentions “lists,” which is what is on the Web-site proper; the “contracts” themselves are not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• TIME Magazine - "The Department of Government Efficiency run by Elon Musk last week published an initial list of 1,125 contracts that it terminated in recent weeks across the federal government." I.e. "published....1,125 contracts". Do you have any proof to indicate these are not federal documents? Key word, "documents"? Every source indicates these are very clearly federal documents. Whether they are a table or not is actually not an issue on Wikisource. That has been established before. Tables are allowed as long as they are a document. Actually TE(æ)A,ea., you stated that last month: "The fact that a document is in tabular form does not mean that it needs must be excluded", when you stated the deletion nominator for The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire, was "misreading" the exact policy you are claiming here. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Those ellipses are doing a lot of work; the “list” is what has been “published,” not the “1,125 contracts.” I don’t need “proof” that these are not contracts: they are simply not contracts. Have you ever seen a contract? This is not what a contract looks like. Again, these are not documents, but print-outs of Web pages. The fact that they are tables is irrelevant; this belongs on Internet Archive, not here. Just because something is produced by the federal government (and thus in the public domain) does not mean that it belongs here; we do not maintain archives of official government Web-sites because that is duplicitous of other services, like Internet Archive, which do it better. These tables are not documents, but print-outs of Web pages, and as such are out of scope. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Well, your thought process of it entirely disagrees with the wording of RS, namely the TIME Magazine article listed, which directly stated they "published" "contracts". It is in scope, same as the The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire is in scope. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
      • We’re not Wikipedia; “reliable sources” are worthless. In any case, you misread the Time article: “Elon Musk last week published an initial list of 1,125 contracts.” Thus, a “list” was “published,” not the contracts. Neither Time nor the other sources you pulled says that “contracts” were “published.” This comports with reality: DOGE.gov has a list of hyper-links to contract information; this is a “list of … contracts” in that it identifies which contracts have been canceled, not that the tables are themselves the contracts. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
        • We shall wait for others to see. Clearly, we interpret the English language differently, because “a list of contracts” does not mean a “list” was published, but rather “contracts” was published and it is a list of those published contracts. For the record, deletion of this disrupts other Wikimedia Projects…so per WS:SCOPE, “Some works which may seem to fail the criteria outlined above may still be included if consensus is reached. This is especially true of works of high importance or historical value, and where the work is not far off from being hostable. Such consensus will be based on discussion at the Scriptorium and at Proposed deletions.” Even if it is determined (somehow) that DOGE is not actually posting federal documents whatsoever, then it 100% qualifies for a discussion to see if these are high important or have high historical value. Noting that several RS are specifically regarding these documents (examples above…). To note, it was already discussion on English Wikipedia that these documents by DOGE are unarchivable to the WayBack Machine, which plays even a more important role for their value on here, given they actually are unarchivable, despite you saying it belongs there…it actually cannot be there. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep unless further info suggesting otherwise comes to light. The present political reality in the USA is rapidly calling into the question what is "official." I support taking a more liberal view of what is in scope when it comes to documents caught up in present U.S. federal government activity. -Pete (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Pete: On what subject would this “further info suggesting otherwise” be? I don’t deny that these are official, but that they are documents, as opposed to print-outs of Web pages (which I believe we traditionally exclude as out of scope). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

    "Official" vs "documents" -- I see, that is a useful distinction. My best interpretation is that these are not the contracts themselves (which would have signatures); however, does a more formal/official record of the cancellation of the contract exist? I'm not sure. My position is that we should err on the side of caution in this instance. I hedge my !vote precisely because I don't have a great view of what's going on or how it's being recorded. If a better record of the contract and its cancellation becomes available, then I'd support deleting these. (I concede that this may be a break with tradition; however, many of the activities of the federal government right now break with tradition as well.) -Pete (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Cicaden, Gespensterbuch, Wunderbuch

These pages are neither translations nor versions pages, but are lists of things that were published in particular publications in German. But none of the linked translations or versions pages have copies that are actually from either of these sources. = There is no scan-backed copy on de.WS, and no content here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The same applies to Aus der Geisterwelt, no ? According to w:Gespensterbuch only some of the stories have been translated. Could these go as sub-pages of the author pages ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Author pages are for listing works we have, or could have. These are listings of German editions published in German language books. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, there is nothing that can be done.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo after the discussion below, was wondering if you'd be willing to suspend your vote until there's been a wider discussion on the best way to handle non-English anthologies that have had stories translated into English, as many anthologies link to individual stories, and there are currently no rules or guidelines which prevent this. Would be good to see what the overall community consensus is on this (i.e. whether to support the existing precedent of anthologies linking to individual stories, or to adopt a new hardline approach that prevents this) before deleting! Would appreciate your thoughts either way! --Yodin^T 12:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Beardo. There wasn't a clear precedent when I created these, so I don't think they're covered (or prohibited as far as I know) by any existing policies, but please could we discuss this at the Scriptorium to decide a precedent one way or the other before deletion, as I think there's a strong case for having translations pages for anthologies from other languages (such as, for example Grimm's Household Tales), that show links to individual short stories that have been translated, especially in instances where there have been no complete translations of the entire anthology. Many of these anthologies are notable (such as Gespensterbuch), and having a single link from Wikipedia for readers to easily view all English translations of short stories from them would be very helpful (especially in cases such as Fantasmagoriana, which has several authors and so no straightforward way to link to here without a separate page like this). If it's decided to put these purely in author pages, then it would be good to decide what is the best way to do this in practice (e.g. some authors have many short stories – so should these short stories be sorted alphabetically by title [if so, most widely used English translation, or original language? – either way would make it difficult for readers to find all stories in a given anthology at a glance], or by year of first publication? Should these short story bullet points list the anthology that it was first published in [in which case, some authors like E.T.A. Hoffmann tended to publish the stories individually in annuals first, and only later collect them in his best known anthology Die Serapionsbrüder – so it would be difficult for readers, as at present, to find all translations of the Serapionsbrüder translations from the author page], or all anthologies, or perhaps just notable ones [if so, how do you define this]?) I guess my point is that the situation is quite complex, and I think there's a strong benefit to readers in having these, and very little to lose by having them, as long as we define clearly situations where they are unnecessary (e.g. perhaps in cases where only one story has been translated into English). Sorry for the wall of text – this might not be a big deal to most editors, but to me it is! --Yodin^T 11:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Except that these are not translations pages; they're lists of things published in a language other than English from a collection that also is not in English. English Wikisource has never hosted pages for works that are not in English and which have not been translated. The corresponding Author pages have also been made unnecessarily complex as well by listing each German publication for each story as to where it's been published, making it harder to see the story titles. The removal of all the extraneous information would make it easier for people to see the story titles, instead of a wall of publication information that isn't relevant. --13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC) EncycloPetey (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey if you click on any of the links on these pages, they will take you to the English translations of these stories. For Gespensterbuch, about half of the stories have been translated, for Wunderbuch, currently three stories (Cicaden does seem excessive to me, as it only has one translated story, so would not pass the condition I suggested above). Another example I gave, Grimm's Household Tales, also has about half the stories with links – do you agree that there is still value in having this page as it is, or would you prefer to delete the Individual Tales section? As a result, I think they should be counted as translations pages, and that any non-English anthologies that have had more than one story translated into English should be given translations pages like this (I would prefer them to have complete lists of contents, rather than only including the tales that have been translated, as it helps readers to see which stories have been translated, and which ones haven't, but again I'm aware that there has been no discussion on this yet and opinions may differ). You could argue that these should be portals, but I think there are several reasons translations pages would be best – either way I think would be good to get a broader community consensus on this. I'm not sure how much transcribing of short story translations into English you've done, but this has been the main area I've been working on – so have thought about the pros/cons of different approaches to this stuff quite a bit – but again, it would be good to have wider community feedback and reach a consensus on best practices for non-English anthologies that have had several stories translated into English. --Yodin^T 20:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

But they are not translations from those publications. The translations are published elsewhere. A portal combining these items might be possible, but again, there is a lot of listed information about a German-language publication, for which we have no content, and which we will not have because (as you note) the books have not been translated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think more people might participate, you can point people to here from the Scriptorium, but feletion discussions happen on this page, not in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask what you mean by they are not translations from those publications and The translations are published elsewhere? As I see it, each translations pages is entirely about a non-English work, and links to all English translations of that work (including parts of that work), regardless of where it was published. I think you're saying that as you see it, translations pages should only contain links to complete translations of the entire work? In which case, all of the entries on Grimm's Household Tales should be deleted as none of them are complete, as well as the list of individual stories, which are also not publications. There are very likely to be many, many other examples like this. Excluding translations that are published as part of larger works would also exclude a huge number of novels (for example, many of the transcriptions of Goethe's novels are published in larger collected works). Again, having worked on transcribing translations over the past few years, I think this is a much more complex area than you might be assuming, and I think this type of translations page for anthologies has real value to readers – with no downsides.

In terms of this deletion discussion – I might be mistaken (please correct me if I am!) but I think the question of how to handle translations pages for anthologies, and whether they are allowed to link to the individual stories is not a settled issue? There's certainly precedent for individual story translations pages being linked to on anthology translations pages, as I've illustrated above, and there do not seem to have been any discussions on how to handle these cases, nor are they in breach of any rules, policies, or guidelines as far as I can tell? I'd argue that as they're not in contravention of any rules, and there's a precedent for doing this, they should not be deleted until there's been a wider discussion to settle this point first, or a very clear consensus that they should go. If the latter, I would ask that we settle the scope of what can and cannot be included on the translations pages of anthologies, as this will affect many other pages, and it seems extremely unfair to delete without setting up clear guidelines – otherwise how am I, or other editors, to know whether my (or their) past, current, or future work will be deleted later down the line? --Yodin^T 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You are confusing Translations pages with Versions pages that use a translation header template. Our Translations pages are user-created translations from a scan that has been transcribed at the original language Wikisource. Our versions pages list editions that we host or can host. The pages under discussion are neither English translations, nor are they versions pages listing English translations. They are lists of German language items in a German language publication. Such things belong at the German Wikisource, not here on the English one. They violate our most basic principle of WS:WWI in that they are not English publications or English translations. Your comparison with Grimm's Household Tales misses the fact that the page lists five published translations of the tales, then the versions pages for the individual tales from those five published translations. The pages being considered currently are not versions pages for any published translations of those books; they are list articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

By translations page, I was using the term as defined at Wikisource:Style guide#Disambiguation, versions and translations pages: A translations page is a special case of a versions page, listing English language translations of a foreign work., which use the template {{translations}}. To be clear, when I used the term "translations page" above, I wasn't claiming that the pages that we were discussing were complete user-translated texts. Wikisource:Versions does not set out what is to be included on a translations page, neither does it prohibit linking of the individual stories within an anthology – nor does anywhere else in the guidelines – and as I've pointed out above, there is a clear precedent for many years of this happening – you have not said whether you would delete all of these without any community wide discussion first? To delete these pages many years later, when there is clear precedent for individual stories being linked to on translations pages, and there being no clear rules or guidelines that even suggest this is not allowed seems extraordinary. The fact that Wikisource:What Wikisource includes does not specifically permit this also seems misleading, as it does not permit versions pages (including translations pages) at all – would you suggest we delete them all? The translations pages I've created all exist to provide links to translations of stories that are permitted by Wikisource:What Wikisource includes – as I've mentioned above, being able to have one translations page for an anthology is extremely helpful for readers who are interested in the anthology as a whole. Is the main issue for you that they contain the entire contents of the anthology, including stories that we do not know have any translations yet (I've given the reasons I think that's more helpful above, but again am very much open to discussing this and reaching a consensus on best practice)? --Yodin^T 23:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

And on the point about Grimm – please reread what I wrote :) all of the entries on Grimm's Household Tales should be deleted as none of them are complete, as well as the list of individual stories, which are also not publications (emphasis added) – none of the five translations linked to are complete, and most of them have many fewer than half the tales – the individual stories list also contains many stories that do not have links – precisely like the pages you've nominated for deletion – and the stories they link to are not just taken from the five translations – they also include many stories that were translated in periodicals, other anthologies and the like – which adds to their value. Again, not to press the point too much, but you seem to have reached a strong conclusion despite this seeming like an area you don't edit in a lot? --Yodin^T 23:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Your statement about the Grimm listings is incorrect. Grimm's Household Tales (Edwardes) is complete, scan-backed, and validated. The copy proofread from Index:Grimm-Rackham.djvu is also complete. So the premise for your argument is not true. These are all English editions of the Grimm collection. Correct, many of them omit stories found in the original, but that is true of many English translations. It is even true of English language editions of English language publications. The US edition of A Clockwork Orange was published without the final chapter from the original UK edition. Incompleteness of an edition or translation does not make it any less an edition. But all that is tangential to the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

By "complete" I meant "contains all the stories in the anthology". Edwardes is the only one that is close to this, but still misses several stories (see de-ws for a complete list), and also adds in stories by Büsching, Otmar, and Tieck – the other four contain many fewer of the Grimm stories, and so none of these are full translations of the original work, which is what you seemed to be arguing for. The fact that that's true for many English translations is exactly my point – this area is much more complex than you seem to be suggesting. If you consider these partial translations, which contain stories by other authors not found in the original text, to be "versions" of Grimm, where do you draw the line? And why is this line you're drawing not documented in any rules or guidelines? If you consider Taylor and Jardine's German Popular Stories to be an edition of Grimm, then why not consider Tales of the Dead to be an edition of Gespensterbuch (half of the stories are Gespensterbuch stories)? --Yodin^T 11:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, this is again the same thing we have hit again and again with partial translations, "compound works," and our "no excerpt policy." I really don't see the harm of a. listing non complete editions of One Thousand and One Nights here and being dogmatic that only complete translations of the whole work are allowed to be listed and b. listing things like individual Fables here Fables (Aesop), individual sonnets by Shakespeare here Shakespeare's Sonnets, individual books of the Bible, etc.  Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I really would find it annoying if we have to start keeping parallel lists of translations. Oh this translation of the Acts was published in The New Testament so look there, this other translation is published in The Bible look there and this other translation was published in individual volumes so look under the individual book. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

What does Cicaden have that isn't better presented at Author:Johann August Apel? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Gespensterbuch seems perfectly reasonable as it is split across multiple authors and multiple translations, exactly why it makes sense to have a listing. Why would I expect to find a listing of works by Laun on Apel's page or Apel on Laun's page? What is the problem about wikilinking to Gepensterbuch from another work talking about it? Presumably you don't want a cross-namespace redirect Gespesnterbuch --> Author:Apel? What's wrong about having WP link to this page? I am confused about what exact problem we are solving besides separating out complete from partial translations... MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

And I am confused about what is the point of scan-backing this at DE WS. How does that help in any way? This isn't claiming to be a WS user-provided translation. Where is there anything about to host any published translation that you need to have a scan-backed version first? That to host The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 I first need to transcribe the original documents in Latin and Spanish? MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It is claiming to be an English language translation of Cicaden, but it is not. It is a bibliographic article written and constructed by a User. It is original content provided by the user, and not published content. We do not put user-generated content in the Mainspace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

So the problem is exactly my point about partial translations. Having Bible link to a translation of only the Torah misrepresents because it is a partial and not a complete translation, having Bible link to a translation of only the Gospels misrepresents because it isn't a complete translation, having The Tale of Genji link to The Sacred Tree is a misrepresentation, etc. I frankly don't see the problem that The Tale of Genji list 6 sub-books on the translations page, Of course a translations page is bibliographic created by the user, just like every author page listing works is bibliographic. We can discuss the correct presentation to list the individual poems, stories, plays, volumes etc. in a published collection to make clearer the separation (e.g. whether we should have "Individual stories" section) and provide guidance around that. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Bible is different: it's blending a Versions page and a Disambiguation page. That's not happening with our current discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Or AEsop's Fables, One Thousand and One Nights, any of the large collections of poetry, etc. I haven't seen a convincing argument why listing the poems in a poetry collection is bad, listing the stories in a short story collection is bad, etc. My vote is cast.  Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

So, we can start creating pages that list contents of periodicals that were not published in English, and which have not been translated? As long as one story or poem from the periodical was translated into English somewhere? Would the listing of Loeb Classical Library be OK to list translations that were not actually published as part of the Loeb series, as long as the translation were for the same work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I am fine limiting it to parts that are translated if that is really the concern (just like we do for Author pages, where we also don't want Authors with loads of titles that weren't translated). And yes I don't see it obviously bad to have say Istra or Pravda and then link to a translation of Lenin's articles published in Istra, a link to a translation of Stalin's articles in Istra etc. I really don't follow the Loeb point. The first entry is "L001 (1912) Apollonius Rhodius: Argonautica Translation by Seaton." which links to Argonautica which lists all translations of that work. Like The Works of Aristotle and many other collective works list the constitute volumes and the texts they contain. I have my opinion that having the context for these work in their original publication is valuable on the merits, you are free to disagree, and I feel that there are common enough occurrences / enough uncertainty within policy statements that there isn't consensus. If more people chime in, I am happy to defer to community consensus. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My Loeb concern is a parallel to the current one. If we can host a page for Cicaden, listing a work that was translated, but for which the translation was not in Cicaden, nor part of a translation of Cicaden, then could the Loeb page link to just any translation of the same classical work, by any translator, published anywhere? And if not, then why can we do that for Cicaden? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

But Loeb Classical Library is not a translations page, it's a "base page" of a book series (along the lines of Wikisource:Multi-volume works), which links to all the works in the Loeb library. Loeb is a series of translations into English, so its page is about those specific translations into English, while translations pages are another thing altogether: they are about one non-English work, and list all translations of that work into English (I think we agree above, re Grimm, that these do not have to be full translations – partial translations into English are ok – and sometimes they contain translations not in the original text too – however you seem to be saying that translations must be published as separate works in their own right, though there are many cases where this is not the case, e.g. the Works of Goethe mentioned above). I'm confused when you say the translation was not in Cicaden, nor part of a translation of Cicaden, as translations of non-English works are never in the non-English work (by definition) and the translation linked to there is a translation of part of Cicaden (in a sense, the translation when considered alone is an incomplete edition of Cicaden, to paraphrase the term you gave above). --Yodin^T 09:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yodin: Your response dodges the question by stretching the analogy past its intended point of application.

@MarkLSteadman What do you think? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: you still haven't said which rules or guidelines prevent translations pages of anthologies, such as these, from linking to individual stories, yet seem to be implying that this is a settled question. If this does contravene Wikisource policy, why have you not deleted all of the many "individual stories" sections in the examples linked to above? And why are you reluctant for this to be discussed more widely, to see if there is a community consensus on this issue, and to allow guidelines to be written that cover this? --Yodin^T 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that I've added "Individual stories" sections to these articles, and removed all stories that have no known English translations, pending any future discussion. Would still like to know which rules the nominator is saying prevents these from being considered as translations pages, or if this is just based on personal interpretation of what translations pages are allowed to be. --Yodin^T 12:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I say that there is nothing that permits these to be counted as translations pages, since (as you note) there are no English translations of the works Cicaden, etc. With no English translations, the pages should not exist. If you feel that these are permitted, then there should be some evidence somewhere for that positive claim. Burden of proof lies in demonstrating positive evidence, not negative, since negative evidence by its very nature cannot exist. Under what criteria do you think they do fall within scope? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

There clearly are translations of parts of them, which are linked to – and you already said above that many English translations are not complete – where are you drawing the line of what's allowed to be considered a translations page, any why isn't it documented? You're saying that Wikisource effectively has a "whitelist" approach to what is allowed – that everything must specifically be permitted, rather than a "blacklist" approach, prohibiting things which go against consensus, or some middle ground? Again, please can you link to the policy which says that this is the case. And again, nothing is specifically permitted on translations pages – no guidelines that I'm aware of have been written, only precedent of what has existed for many years – which is why I'm asking that we settle the principle first with wider community consensus, if you decide that it's no longer allowed. It would make life much easier to have all of this clarified in policy, so that editors can work under the assumption that their work won't be deleted. I'd also say there is no reason that any of this has be an adversarial process – surely the whole point is to be able to work together collaboratively to improve the project, rather than just yelling at each other? --Yodin^T 19:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

See my question above concerning what this would mean for periodicals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Your question above shows that this not a settled question – you're admitting that there are no guidelines around this, and explaining rhetorically why you believe your position should be the correct one ad absurdum. Going into the details like this, admitting the complexity of this stuff, and working out where to draw the line is exactly what I'm saying we should do – and that a deletion discussion singling out only a few examples of this isn't the best place for this discussion (especially when the examples you've come up with that show why this approach is bad are purely hypothetical, and aren't anywhere in these articles you've nominated for deletion). Would be good to discuss at Scriptorium to set the rules first, then apply them here. --Yodin^T 08:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, you've repeated the same question that I've already answered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I asked you to link to the policy these articles are in breach of, you came up with some philosophical reasoning about this, which seems to show that it is purely your interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves, and I then asked you for the rules which support this. So to make sure we're all on the same page, you seem to be saying that Wikisource has a whitelist approach – that only things specifically permitted are allowed, rather than a blacklist approach, or some combination of the two – if so, where is the policy that supports this, or is this again just your interpretation (if you're saying that your answer above is also an answer to this, then you seem to be accepting that is just your interpretation, and there are no policies that support what you're saying)? --Yodin^T 08:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I have already replied. Please do not spin your own original ideas into my response. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to spin anything – just trying to understand the rules you're saying these pages are in violation of. (I think you seem to have a very clear idea about how you think these rules should be applied, but it does look a lot like personal interpretation, and not based on any written rules, policies, or guidelines – I'm asking that, regardless of which way the community consensus falls on this issue, this is resolved as a written policy – I'm not sure why you would be opposed to this). --Yodin^T 09:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I’m not convinced of the deletion rationale in the first place, but the nominator’s ill behaviour throughout the course of the discussion is very unbecoming. If another editor thinks these pages problematic, perhaps they can be nominated again in the future, but I don’t think that this discussion is very useful at this point. These lists are clearly valuable for people interested in approaching a specific bibliographical question; meanwhile, I don’t really see any negative in keeping them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Having only skimmed the TL;DR above, and looking at the pages for the first time just now, I wonder why these pages are not in the Portal: namespace. They would seem to me to be about linking to various pages within a wider project of translating the German originals. The pages don't sit comfortably in Mainspace: as they are not works themselves, nor are they any of our type of disambiguation page. Portal: namespace is much more suitable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Beeswaxcandle I wouldn't be against this – but I think allowing translations pages to link to individual stories/poems is a better option for a couple of reasons: in cases where there are both full translations and individual story translations (such as Grimm's Household Tales and Fables (Aesop)), it would be easier for readers to have both on the same page, rather than a See also section with a link to a Portal: page (as I think most readers would have no idea what a portal is, or why they would have to go there to see another list about the same work). In cases where an author has some anthologies that have been translated as complete works, and other anthologies where each story has been translated separately (such as E. T. A. Hoffmann, where Die Serapionsbrüder has been translated in one work, while Nachtstücke has had each story translated separately) it would be strange to link from the author page to a translations page for one, and a portal for the other – again I think this would confuse readers for no good reason. I would also not be surprised if overzealous Wikidatarers several years from now objected to some Wikidata items for anthologies linking to portal pages here while other anthologies linked to mainspace translations pages! But all that said, I'm glad to be able to discuss this and wouldn't be devastated if portals was what the community consensus agreed on – but as this affects many existing translations pages, not just the three nominated here, and because there's been precedent for many years of translations pages containing "Individual stories" sections, I hope it would be possible to have a Scriptorium discussion to settle the issue first, and ideally create a set of guidelines for the best way to handle this, which we could then apply to all of these pages. --Yodin^T 10:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:The collected works of Henrik Ibsen (Volume 12).djvu/styles.css

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Moved to new index location —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

A stray page which seems to have been left behind when its parent page was moved. -- Beardo (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that it should be deleted rather than moved? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not doing anything where it is now. If it is needed at the new address, then I suppose it needs moving without leaving a redirect. -- Beardo (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have asked @CalendulaAsteraceae -- Beardo (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it. In general, style pages should be moved when the index is moved, just like Page-namespace pages. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SnowyCinema (talk)

Index:Ancient and modern history of Buck-haven, in Fife-shire.pdf

This scan is missing two pages; we have several other copies of the same work (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of these appear to be different editions. The image on the title pages differs among them. Have you determined which one of the others is an identical edition? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: none of these appear to be the same edition. The closest that comes is Index:Ancient and modern history of Buck-haven in Fifeshire.pdf, but it was published 11 years later and the formatting is different. — Alien  3
3 3 13:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Alien: That’s why I started a discussion here. There’s no reason to keep a broken scan, which will never be repaired as there is no complete copy in existence, especially when we have half a dozen scans of other editions of the same work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

   Keep - that seems to me a good reason to keep what there is. -- Beardo (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:User female & Template:User male

Just created. Wikisource has long had a culture of not proliferating Wikipedia-style user box templates. If that culture is to change, it should first be discussed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd be inclined to delete userboxes generally, but what if this one's a bit useful (theoretically)? I mean, there are gender settings, but they're extremely difficult to find if you're not technically-inclined.

For some context, users can fix their preferred pronouns in Special:Preferences. By default, the settings place you as gender-neutral, but you can fix it later so the site refers to you as "he" or "she" instead. The settings say below the gendered options:

The software uses its value to address you and to mention you to others using the appropriate grammatical gender. This information will be public.

I've been using some JavaScript code (that I copied from Wiktionary) over several wikis for nearly a decade, which allows me to see the gender settings of any user (along with many other things like user roles, age of account, number of edits, etc.) on the fly. What this code does is it calls the MediaWiki API every time I visit a user page, and pulls a data object for that user. This object includes things like user.gender, the setting that people enable in their preferences for this very reason.

But without using an API call, I genuinely don't know how (after using MediaWiki consistently for over 10 years) to actually see a user's gender preferences. I've never even seen "the software refer to you as a gender" before that I can remember. In all practical purposes, the gender feature seems completely hidden from view unless you access it through an API call (or some other minor edge case I'm not aware of).

But on the contrary I do get that it doesn't matter whether you're a guy or a girl or somewhere in between in order to edit a wiki. Gender should be completely irrelevant to basically everything (and if it was made relevant as a status symbol that would be an obvious issue politically speaking). But some users do care about references to their gender. So, in the interest of keeping away from situations like "You referred to me as he and I'm actually a she" or vice versa, what would be the easiest way to prevent that from happening? The gender preferences, in my view, don't do the trick unless the referrer knows how to access an API on the fly (a highly unlikely endeavor for most users), so in this case, a gender userbox might be an easy shortcut. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact that these templates are strictly binary, and have built in "humor" settings that chastise readers, are part of why I nominated them. I did also want to see what others think about a gender-identifying user box for the project. If there is a community desire to have some such box, we could design one that does a better job, but I think the presence (or absence) of such a box on user pages would become more politics and distraction than beneficial to Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

(The GENDER magic word can be used to fetch a user's gender settings like this: {{GENDER:username|text that should be shown if user put "he" in their preferences|text that should be shown if user put "she"|default}}. see [7]) — Alien  3
3 3 07:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• SnowyCinema: There is Template:Gender on Wikipedia, which calls {{GENDER:}} on a given User: to return one of three options; however, we do not have an equivalent template. I agree with EncycloPetey that we should becoming more like Wikipedia. —unsigned comment by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) .

neutral In general I have tended to "live and let live" with regard to userboxes and other ephemera on User pages. The only time I wander onto someone's User: page is when I'm doing the PotM awards (which are userboxes) and then I will see a range of userboxes from none to several. If someone wants to sprinkle their User page with them, then fine, but I won't be joining in. My concern comes when there is a maintenance burden, or a userbox is causing problems—technical or against the Universal Code of Conduct. I agree that there must be a better way of choosing to express one's gender than this pair of userboxes with a "humour" setting. But, in the meantime, I don't see an immediate problem with a wikisourceror electing to use one of these. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

index:『 』 public domain lyrics.pdf

The Index and its subpages are in Japanese. I am posting the deletion notice since that will give the creator one week to copy and move the contents to ja.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This is being used for Translation:Nine Half-Width Spaces which seems to link to the relevant page on Japanese wikisource. -- Beardo (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This Index has not been transcribed at Japanese Wikisource, and the copy here consists of Japanese text, and not a translation. What we currently have is outside of scope and is not compliant with Wikisource:Translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It now has been (at ja.ws, that is). See below as regards the rest. Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The translation is fine, although the transclusion needs some work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Where do you see a translation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• There isn't a translation at the moment, there is the material to be translated, which WS:translations#Wikisource original translations seems to state has to be in place before translation can commence. It shouldn't take me more than a week to get some usable English text going, especially if anyone else aids me. Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• A Japanese transcription is neither needed nor desirable here on the English Wikisource. The Japanese transcription, backed by a scan, needs to be in place at Japanese Wikisource, not here. Without a scan-backed copy at ja.WS, any original translation made here violates accepted policy. Having a scan-backed copy at the original language WS is a prerequisite for an original translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• I see. Well, s:ja:ヘルプ:Indexファイルの基本ガイド is the relevant guidance. I have difficulty implementing it due to an abuse filter that is rejecting edits outside of my userspace; previously, I had to create the non-scan-backed text at ja.ws in my user sandbox and use the move tool to transfer it to mainspace. edit: never mind, seems it is resolved now. Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
On second thought, I have saved the source texts so far to storage, so  Delete them (translation:Nine Half-Width Spaces too for now since it will be without content to transclude) and I'll come back later with a file that is just the English in a separate PDF for the index. Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

We do not want a user-created PDF for the English. We do not host works supported by files containing user-created content. The English should be inserted against the Japanese PDF, so that the translation can be compared page by page with the original language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there's already necessarily a user-created PDF since I had to remove the content for the tracks that weren't released into PD. I appreciate that there should be an accountable chain from the source to the hosted versions, but I don't see how a Japanese-text file hosted on both the Japanese and English Wikisource editions gets us there any more than (say) an w:interlinear gloss file hosted at mulws. There's also the question of WS:sheet music for the tune, but that shall have to wait until I am more familiar with the technology; and it wouldn't be scan-attested. Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the information at Commons, the Japanese lyrics PDF is a redacted copy of the original file provided by the publisher. If so, then it is not user created. However, if the file is not derived from the original source, but is instead user-created, then the content is not eligible to be hosted here. We do not manufacture supporting scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (1961)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as an OCR dump

Unformatted raw OCR. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is a mess.  Delete (And I wonder if that translation is public domain anyway. The linked source says "Reproduced with the permission of ..." implying that it is not copyright-free. -- Beardo (talk) 02:18, 20 March 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 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Table of Government Orders

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as incomplete

Incomplete, seemingly stalled, not scan backed, and not subject to OGL as claimed as the volume pre-dates it. Crown copyright not yet expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with deleting as incomplete / no content, unsourced. The CV discussion is broader, e.g. it may have been posted here, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ , the national archives, etc. elsewhere under the OGL which does allow retroactive licensing but we can dig into the CV discussion if someone provides a source. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criteria 7 of WS:CSD. It is not clear whether there is any other possible grounds for deletion. These are either complete works or user pages. It has not been demonstrated that all the material does not fall under the rule in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. As far as I can remember the OGL was applied to all these printed publications at the time when they were added to Wikisource. I do not have time to check whether that licence has been revoked since then for these particular documents. (I know, for example, that some government departments have licenced their websites under the OGL and then purported to revoke the licence in relation to content already licenced). I am coming round to the viewpoint that the OGL is of limited value because the government cannot be trusted not to purport to revoke it. I however do not want to be pestered about these pages again. I would therefore rather delete them on grounds that I have requested it to save further demands on my time. James500 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 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 10:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Statutes in Force

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted

Stalled, project, Not scan backed , unclear license, the volumes pre-date OGL, but are mostly post 1974. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

See also. :

• Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/File divider
• Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/1 June 1972
• Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/1 August 1981
• Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/1 September 1983
• Statutes in Force/Guide to the Edition/1 November 1984
• Statutes in Force/Binder
• User:James500/Chronological Table of the Statutes
• User:James500/Index to Government Orders
• User:James500/Index to the Statutes

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@James500: would you object to the blanking of the three above user pages? — Alien  3
3 3 13:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criteria 7 of WS:CSD. It is not clear whether there is any other possible grounds for deletion. These are either complete works or user pages. It has not been demonstrated that all the material does not fall under the rule in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. As far as I can remember the OGL was applied to all these printed publications at the time when they were added to Wikisource. I do not have time to check whether that licence has been revoked since then for these particular documents. (I know, for example, that some government departments have licenced their websites under the OGL and then purported to revoke the licence in relation to content already licenced). I am coming round to the viewpoint that the OGL is of limited value because the government cannot be trusted not to purport to revoke it. I however do not want to be pestered about these pages again. I would therefore rather delete them on grounds that I have requested it to save further demands on my time. James500 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, as far as I can remember, the 2011 edition of the Chronological Table of the Statutes (which is what was reproduced here) actually had the OGL printed on it, and I mean actually printed on one of the frontmatter pages at the front of the book inside the covers. However, I cannot guarantee they have not revoked the licence since then, so I think it is not worth bothering with. James500 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Google has a public domain scan of the 1961 edition of the "Guide to Government Orders": [8]. This should be uploaded to replace the incomplete Table and Index of Government Orders, as it is an earlier edition of the same book. James500 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 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 10:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Author:Guillermo Prieto

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Withdrawn

I can't find evidence of works in english, or works that have been translated. After the recent deletion of a user translation of a work without a scan-backed original, which was the only listed work, it looks like this author has no works in scope. — Alien  3
3 3 13:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. His correspondence is translated in here Google Books . MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! As we now have proof author has works in scope, withdrawing. — Alien  3
3 3 16:15, 23 March 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 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

História da Literatura Ocidental

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Already ported to ptws and speedy-deleted

(and its subpages), as it's in portuguese. And then the author page itself, Author:Otto Maria Carpeaux, as having no works in scope (can't find translations of any of his works into english). (@Gr4yt3x) — Alien  3
3 3 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete I found only a single work in English, a translation published in 2001, so not eligible to be hosted here for decades. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems this has already been deleted, since it was never tagged as being under discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and they are now in the portuguese wikisource. I guess that the user realised he was in the wrong place. Though I wonder whether they accept an author page which is more like a wikipedia page. -- Beardo (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, damn it, it's my bad for the tagging. First I was going to bring it to CV, but then I found out that apparently (according to WP) it was freely licensed, so I moved it here, and in the moving I mixed up. Sorry. — Alien  3
3 3 11:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Not having noticed that it was brought here, I speedied it yesterday, because I had a look at the user's global contributions and saw that they moved it to Portuguese WS, and so I came to the same conclusion as Beardo above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 - not that it matters now, but I don't how that would have been public domain. @Jan.Kamenicek - yes, I saw your comment on the deletion notice. -- Beardo (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 09:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Treaty of Vienna (Seventh Coalition)

Compilation of chosen chapters from a publication and of Wikisource annotations.

The book contains text published in British and Foreign State Papers, Volume 2. First there are some chapters from pages 443 to 450, followed by a short chapter from page 727, and again a chapter from page 450. All this is accompanied by user created annotations, while original notes are left out. Overall the page is a compilation created to serve some narrative purpose, not a faithful published edition of a work. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not exactly following the "narrative purpose," it seems to me that it is a straightforward example of a disambiguation page / versions page as the two separate agreements (the "Russian treaty and the "Austrian treaty") are what make up the seventh coalition and are referred to as the "Treaty of Vienna". It wouldn't surprise me if we found a later anthology of treaties that does a presentation exactly like here of them together while others treat them separately (and possibly being the origin of the comparative foot notes). A similar example is the Treaty / Peace of Westphalia, "the collective name for two peace treaties," where you might have editions that print both treaties as one thing (hence "versions") while other editions that print each of the two treaties separately (hence "disambiguation"). Until this is sourced it is hard to know which our current example is, it might have been a copy of a later edition that did the joining / annotations or it might have been the user. Given it is short, I would recommend just scan-backing the dozen or so pages linked in the "References", and convert to a disambiguation page to them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Scanbacking would be great, without the Wikisource annotations, especially if the whole book were transcribed. If not the whole book, transcribing only the specific chapters would be good too, but the chapters should not be compiled together, they should be kept in the original order as in the book, with the original book's ToC. Extracting works from anthologies is not a very good practice itself, and combining them into non-existent editions of works is explicitely forbidden in WS.

It is quite possible, though not certain, that some anthology with similar compilation exists. If it does, it can be transcribed here too, but it must not be us who make such compilation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced editions of poems from The Princess

The following poems from Tennyson's The Princess are unsourced, and we have scan-backed editions of them in The Hundred Best Poems (lyrical) in the English language - second series (though not, as it happens, in our edition of The Princess; a medley).

• The Splendour Falls
• O Swallow, Swallow
• Thy Voice Is Heard
• Home They Brought Her Warrior Dead
• Ask Me No More

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The first and last both state that they are taken from physical copies of books - so they are not really unsourced, are they ? Just not scan-backed. -- Beardo (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

That's true. I still think they should be deleted though. They can't be scan backed because the editions they were checked against are not fully in the public domain. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That does not seem a strong enough reason for deleting those two. We can have multiple versions of the poems. -- Beardo (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes we can have multiple versions, but we don't keep non-scan-backed versions when we have scan-backed versions. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Canzoniere

This is an incomplete text from 2008 that identifies no source. At first glance, the source appears (indirectly) to be the Gutenberg edition of The Sonnets, Triumph, and Other Poems of Petrarch (external scan). Of the 366 individual poems in the volume, only 26 have been transcribed.

However, huge chunks of content have been removed, such as the 100 page "Life of Petrarch"; formatting has not been preserved; and all of the poems have been renumbered / retitled. For example: the "Poem I" of our copy is "Sonnet I" in the original; our "Poem XX" is "Sonnet XVIII" in the original; our "Poem XXXVII" is "Canzone IV" in the original; and our "Poem CXXI" is "Madrigale IV" in the original.

With so little content transcribed, and with huge alterations from the original text, including even the published title of the volume and relabeling of all of the individual components, this would be better discarded and started fresh via transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(Process note, for some reason my browser did not reflect that this discussion had been started, so I did so here. But now that I read the reasoning above, I'll answer differently.)

I initially encountered this while working through a backlog of insufficiently sourced pages, and I came to more or less the same conclusion as EncycloPetey about its provenance. The timeline from the introduction is included, and I find no significant variance, so that further suggests that the Sonnets, Triumphs an Other... book is the source. I uploaded it and started transcriptions here: Index:The Sonnets, Triumphs, and Other Poems - Petrarca, Campbell.djvu

I had not noticed the numbering problem. That seems substantial, so I agree that starting fresh might be the best course.

However, the term "w:en:Il Canzoniere" is the title commonly applied to at least some of the poems included in the Campbell book. Since Wikisource has had a live link for this famous work since 2008, I would urge that we redirect the page to an in-progress transcription of the Campbell book, rather than fully deleting. -Pete (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

A History of the Japanese People

Secondhand transcription from Gutenberg. Such transcriptions are not accepted per WS:WWI#Second-hand transcriptions. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete This is nothing more than a redlinked table of contents. Nothing seems to actually be transcribed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I am going to stop transcribing the work. Deleteting them for not transcribing it is fine. Saimmx (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment For the closing admin: The "Appendices" do not link to subpages, but to separate locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Now the transcription can be made at Index:A History of the Japanese People by Francis Brinkley, c1915.djvu. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way - the template {{project gutenberg}} doesn't make it clear that such works are no longer acceptable - I wonder if it would be possible to have stronger wording when placed on a recently created work ? Or does that make it too complicated ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the tools we have, and no, I don't think there's a lua/wikitext way of using the age of the current page. Perhaps we should split that template, with one clearly saying "We're letting this stay because it's been here for a while" at e.g. {{old project gutenberg}}, and one at {{project gutenberg}} that explicitly says "This is a new work from PG, and as such is out of scope and going to be deleted", including a {{sdelete|G5}}. If we want to do that, the review and migration of the currently 246 uses would be doable. Also, whatever we do to {{project gutenberg}} should also be done to {{second-hand}}, the parent template (which only has 100 other uses). — Alien  3
3 3 17:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps require a parameter {{project gutenberg|created=DATE}}, and error if the date is missing or too recent? That way we've also got documentation for when these works were imported. Omphalographer (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Do we want to favor the date of first creation? Or the date of completion? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I imagine either would work, but the date of creation is easier to look up. The effect should be the same either way. Omphalographer (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Since @Jan.Kamenicek uploaded a PD scan (Index:A History of the Japanese People by Francis Brinkley, c1915.djvu) and I have restarted transcribing by based on the scan, may I ask when should I recreate the book? When all the transcribing is done? Saimmx (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In fact you can start transcluding the pages to the mainspace in any phase of the work, some people prefer doing it only after all pages have been transcribed, others do it continuously, chapter by chapter, as they go along. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, in this case, I would perfer the latter, so  Keep. Saimmx (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Anglo-Japanese Agreement (1905)

Another secondhand transcription from Gutenberg, as above. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: I have changed the transcription source from the InternetArchive. I believe that the IA will be fine. Saimmx (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The work needs to conform to the formatting in the primary source: e.g. where it says

Article VII. The conditions under which ...

You should have just that, the article name at the beginning of the paragraph, and not in a ==mediawiki header==. — Alien  3
3 3 09:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. The Treaty of Portsmouth tricked me really much. Saimmx (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. (In general, don't take inspiration from anything marked {{standardise}}.) — Alien  3
3 3 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

But how to move the page? Is the name "AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, SIGNED AT LONDON, AUGUST 12, 1905" or "Agreement between Japan and the United Kingdom, August 12, 1905", or the other names like "Anglo-Japanese Agreement, 1905" in contents? Saimmx (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not really clear-cut, in this case. I would say that the current title seems about ok to me, as I have trouble finding a single title that would be the "correct" one. — Alien  3
3 3 09:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be best to start transcribing the book A history of the Japanese people, with the treaty being a part of its appendix subpage. I am now uploading the book to Commons to create its index page here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If you ask me, I would rather remain the current title, because of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement (1902). But any other titles may be possible. Saimmx (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps have the actual work at the title as given in the book, but the current title as a redirect to that page ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What I thought was that the issue with this is that th work gives two: "Agreement between Japan and the United Kingdom, August 12, 1905" at that section, and "Anglo-Japanese Agreement, 1905" in the TOC. — Alien  3
3 3 13:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The index page created, see Index:A History of the Japanese People by Francis Brinkley, c1915.djvu. The agreement is at pages 736–737. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way,  Keep because I have resolved the Gutenberg issue. The current version is from scan work from the InternetArchive. Saimmx (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The Secrets of the Self

This page is an unsourced text about that work, presumably taken from w:The Secrets of the Self. Nothing to do with the introduction of the actual work at IA. — Alien  3
3 3 16:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

On the talk page, the creator claimed that the source was IA and then https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57317/57317-h/57317-h.htm but it doesn't seem to have come from either. As you say, it appears to be an introduction from WP and a table of contents.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy. Not even remotely a correct entry to our site. Also, I requested Alien333, our poetry wizard, do this work properly, so I leave it in his hands if he wants to go there. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Four Pakistani authors with no works in scope

• Author:Munir Niazi
• Author:Perveen Shakir
• Author:Hamid Khan
• Author:Asma Jahangir

Earliest birth of the four 1923, so no {{PD-US}}.

Earliest death 1994, so none of them were PD in Pakistan in 1996 and so no {{PD-1996}}.

Author:Munir Niazi and Author:Perveen Shakir never got into government or UN activities.

Author:Hamid Khan has apparently not published works under his government activities.

Author:Asma Jahangir has apparently not published works under her UN activities.

I think that about wraps up possibilities for these authors having works in scope, and therefore they should be deleted — Alien  3
3 3 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

   Delete per nom. I had previously raised three of those on the user's talk page to no response. -- Beardo (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  The reason might be that the user's account has been globally locked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Oh ? When did that happen ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Quite a long time ago, on New Year's Eve [9]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  (I also suspect some socking over there, with the two of them creating the same pages in the exact same fashion, and the globally-locked one having a history of socking at multiple wikis, but that's another issue.) — Alien  3
  3 3 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy IMO. Not even remotely correct entries to our site, especially since now we know these were made by a now-globally-locked user account (apparently for "long-term abuse"), as that raises suspicion on the user's competence level in editing to begin with. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete I see that I tried to assist with Perveen Shakir back when page was first created, but it was mostly undoing links to copyright materials. All four pages have now had 3 months for people to discover PD works, it hasn't happened. So, deletion is the best way forward. (I would have had no objection to Speedy G5 if the nomination hadn't happened.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu

This appears to be an exact duplicate of Index:Roberts Rules of Order Revised 4th Edition (1915).djvu. Can others confirm this is the case? If so, then this Index and all its Page:s should be deleted, which is a shame since people put so much work into this transcription. The later transcription is complete and transcluded. The nominated transcription is neither finished nor transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's farewell speech to the United Nations Security Council

Currently discussed also in Copyright discussions.

I am nominating it here for deletion as an apparent and imprecise second-hand transcription. While the original source of this work is here, beginning with paragraph 58, the suspected source of our transcription is [10]. Our text contains various typos or differences in wording in comparison with the original, but matches exactly with the other transcription. Just a few examples:

Original: has excelled in the art of filibustering
Our text: has excelled; in the art of filibustering
Suspected source: has excelled; in the art of filibustering

Original: meet at 9.30 a.m. or whether bed and breakfast required
Our text: meet at 9.30 a.m. or that bed and breakfast required
S.Source: meet at 9.30 a.m. or that bed and breakfast required

Original: And why should China...
Our text: Why should China...
S.Source: Why should China...

I found these after very brief and superficial comparison, so it is certain that a more detailed comparison would discover more. Because second-hand transcriptions are not allowed here (their unreliability being one of the reasons of their exclusion), I suggest deletion of the text. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that site that you link says it was sourced from wikisource, and was posted in 2009 when our work dates from 2008. So I suppose that either our text was taken from some other unidentified source or it was transcribed directly from the video. -- Beardo (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, haven't noticed that. However, I have found some original video too, and our text does not follow what is being said there either. For example:

Video text:...So what if we are obliterated.

Our text: ...So what if our state is obliterated.

So it is not a direct transcription of the speech either. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)