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

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)

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)

Most subpages of A Dictionary of Islam

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. OCR dumps; pages should instead be proofread from the available scan.

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

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

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

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Mxt

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted.

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

I have no idea if this is actually interesting or not but I do note that it seems to depend on the nonexistent Module:TEMPLATENAME as does the similar Template:!mxt (which should probably be treated the same as this template under discussion/review). —Uzume (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 23 February 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)

A Paradox (Lovelace)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept. Now proofread and transcluded from a scan.

Old copydump with neither source nor license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Just like the rest of the poems on the page, and like (at least most of) the rest of the poems it has scans in the index file link at the top of the list of works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I assume by list of works you're referring to the author page. There is a source for these works, as in these poems, but not for the precise text that is on these pages right now. Indeed, that text clearly does not match the file, or that file's OCR (different capitalisation, spelling and punctuation, missing footnotes, &c).

The Lucasta of which parts have been dumped here is not the same version as the Lucasta we have a scan of. Even if that index is transcribed we'll still need to delete these poems. — Alien  3
3 3 07:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

On what page? There is no source attached to A Paradox, either in the notes or on the poem's Talk page. No source is identified for this item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

On Author:Richard Lovelace. It's like the rest of the poems on that page, and should be probably be deleted with them. It would be more helpful to transcribe them and well source them, but if you're deleting them, it should probably be as a group, instead of one random poem out of the set.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we really be deleting works that have been here for almost 20 years, just because they don't meet more recent standards ? And perhaps I don't understand the term "copydump", but someone did format this work. And it did have a license. I would say, leave these works until we have other versions, then they can be deleted. -- Beardo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a source; therefore we have no assurance that the license is true. For all we know, this could be taken from a copyrighted recent edition. — Alien  3
3 3 07:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The term "copydump" is Wikisource jargon. It refers to dumping a copy on Wikisource, after copying it from another site, with little or no attempt to meet our formatting standards. In this particular case, a pair of code tags have been added at the start and end, rather than using colons, spacers, or other markup that is normally used on Wikisource copies. The result displays monospaced type with an off-color background. A work that has sat here for 20 years in this state, without being backed by source and without being formatted, is precisely what we should be looking at on this page. It is the dingiest corners that most need sweeping. I see that you've found a scan and set up a start on an Index page, so if someone can find this poem within that scan, and set up a copy within the context of that work, we can redirect the page currently under discussion to that scan-backed copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the concern here merely the use of code rather than {{ppoem}}? I just made that simple change and now it meets formatting standards or am I missing something? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Note I proofread the few dozen lines from here: (transcription project) in case people really object to the no source, which I don't find sufficient.Note the text matches so I don't think copyright is a concern. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

RE copydump: yes, adding some formatting prevents this from being a mere copydump. But the goal here is not just the one poem. The poem (as noted above) is part of a larger concern. The beginning of the Index transcription helps enormously, as it will make possible the scan-backing of the other poems without sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 - there are over two thousand works in the category "Texts without a source" - and I am sure more not so categorised. Are you suggesting taht all of those should be deleted ?

@EncycloPetey - thank you for transcribing that - I had looked at it, and reckoned the formatting was beyond me. -- Beardo (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You did most of it, and quite well. It just needed the images and a little tweaking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The page under discussion has been moved to A Paradox (Lovelace). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

(I have changed the section tittle accordingly.) — Alien  3
3 3 07:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Poem now transcluded from 1864 source scan and moved to within containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance and other subpages of the bot

User:TalBot is a retired bot by User:GrafZahl. Its user page contains 460 subpages originally used to help with some maintenance. Now they have no sensible use, they are just maintenance burden, as they need some code update from time to time, like here. Pages like User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/July 2006/redirects also bother users as they need to be checked when moving (or deleting) a linked page (it is true that usually no action needs to be done, leaving the red link there, but it still urges the users to check the page at least). I suggest deletion of the subpages (but not of the user page of the bot). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

ℹ️ Maybe you want to keep the Python programs? In case they are useful for someone?--GrafZahl (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yes, indeed. I'd assumed Jan meant the bot-generated output pages under User:TalBot/soft redirect maintenance/. I don't see any need to delete the other subpages (I could of course just be missing something; feel free to correct me if so, Jan). Xover (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not, the Python pages are not that many, I agree with keeping those. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Three famous new songs (2).pdf

This appears to be the same as Index:Three famous new songs (1).pdf. While possibly a different printing, there appears to be no textual difference between the two chapbooks. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

How completist do we want to be ? Version (1) has some text missing on the edges of pages 3 and 4. Version (2) is more complete on page 4. -- Beardo (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thinking further, I am going to say  Keep because of the difference. -- Beardo (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• What difference? They are the same edition. I have already filled in the text that was missing in (1) from (2) (which is, in turn, worse on page 8). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Armor and Cavalry Units

This seems to be a left-over sub-page from a page that was deleted. All redlinks and no actual text. -- Beardo (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Previous deletion discussion: Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2024#7th Cavalry Regiment (United States). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Infobox1

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied. Beyond scope; used to create biography articles,

There is a lot of spam in the abuse log that uses random infobox templates like {{infobox person}} and suchlike, as if they were writing a Wikipedia-style article. But since Wikisource is not Wikipedia, I don't think we would ever run into a scenario where we would actually need this template. Keeping it feels like it would be a spam magnet. Duckmather (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete: as a good example of why having this around is a bad idea, its creator, @Priyank b sutariya, only created to then create an autobio article at Priyank sutariya (which I have now speedied per CSD:G5). — Alien  3
3 3 08:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

sure ! I have found that, I will delete it Priyank b sutariya (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick/West Isles

Alos: The Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick, the parent page containing only a link to this subpage.

Unformatted copydump per discussion at User talk:Fundy Isles Historian - J#The Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Lloyd's Register of Shipping 1919 Sailing Vessels.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Nomination withdrawn.

Begun in good faith, However, it's proved to be more complex than Wikitext representation would reasonably allow.

Additionaly, the same documents appear on IA under Commons incompatible licensing, indicating that the uploaders may have been confused when contributing them to Commons.

I think this Index and Pages should be removed until such time as the uploader actively clarifies the licensing and it becomes possible to accurately represent these important historical resources. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please link to things, both the index but also the IA page? The source, https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-register-of-ships-online , links to Commons; if they have a problem with the license used in uploading it to Commons (apparently by them), they can say so. Furthermore, the back of the title page says it was printed 1918, and HathiTrust has copies, so it's pretty clearly PD-US. I'd like to leave it to anyone who wants to wrestle with mammoth tables to do so; it certainly can be handled using Wikitext; it would just take a lot of work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, withdrawn - Please note this was at PD (because I didn't think it was a copyvio.) I already made some attempts to cleanup some of the tables. Would it be very useful is someone writing a template or module to handle the register entries, with a view to converting/extraction of the data into Wikidata readable entries? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Two songs (3).pdf, Index:Two songs (4).pdf, Index:Two songs (5).pdf, Index:Two songs (6).pdf

These are variant printings of what seems to me to be one edition. They are all different in some way (on the title page, (3) has a diamond below the title and a rectangle around the woodcut, (4) has two lines below the title, (5) has a diamond but no rectangle and a semicolon after the first song, and (6) is like (5) but with a colon instead of a semicolon), but I’m not sure if the differences are enough to be considered a unique edition (and thus worth preserving), thus the discussion. If they were all kept, what would the editions be named? (Note that (1) and (2) are both clearly different editions from each other and the (3)/(4)/(5)/(6) edition.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Vanity of Vanities (Rossetti, unsourced)

An unsourced version, not needed now that there is a scan-backed version at Poems (Rossetti, 1901)/Vanity of Vanities. As far as I can see, the only differences are that the sourced version has the first word all caps, commas after the ahs in the first two lines and a semi-colon at the end of the second line where the unsourced version has a colon. -- Beardo (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Colenso-Incoming-Correspondence-1846.03.29-SLNSW.djvu

Not in English, no transcription in original language. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as stated - and the two related Pages have no meaningful content. -- Beardo (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

1973 Royal Command Convoking NPA

This is an unsourced text which is an unofficial translation according to the article creator. Norbillian (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Where did the article's creator state that ?

I note that it was marked for deletion in 2009 and that tag removed in 2011 - I don't know what happened there. -- Beardo (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

In the talk page. Norbillian (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the article's creator - that is the user who tagged for deletion in 2009. -- Beardo (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The translation has no licence attached - there seems no indication that has a free licence. It may be that the article creator was the translator, but I doubt that we will be able to find that out. It looks to me like this is a copyvio. -- Beardo (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the tag to {{copyvio}} and the discussion should continue here - Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#1973_Royal_Command_Convoking_NPA -- Beardo (talk) 17:51, 26 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)

Index:Edwin and Emma (2).pdf

A duplicate of Index:Edwin and Emma (1).pdf, which is validated. (Incidentally, Edwin and Emma (1) should be moved to Edwin and Emma as there is no real “(2).”). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Can be also speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

   Delete to the index and its pages and I agree about the page move. It's a shame that all the proofreading effort on (2) was in vain. -- Beardo (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.djvu

This is a “discussion draft” of unclear date, and not the final version of the act (which would be here anyway). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:59, 24 February 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)

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)

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)

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)