Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2024

Black women's history month

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as both copyvio and beyond scope (excerpt from a web page).

No source, no author, no date, no license. Created by an IP. -- Beardo (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedied. Copyright violation, and beyond scope. Apparently copied (and scrambled) from the front page of https://blackwomenshistorymonth.com/. No indication that the content is freely licensed, and this webpage is the only source, making it clearly out of scope even if it was under a free license. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well found. I had tried searching but hadn't found the source. -- Beardo (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Bible (Berean Standard)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Backing by scan started.

A fly-by drop off an empty table of contents from an IP. The translation in question is a digital-original work, without clear indication (that I could find) of who was responsible for the translation or its motivation. This has all the downsides of a digital-born text and anonymous works, and without more information, I don't know whether having this would add anything considering the number of Bible translations we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: A reason why the work does not continue might be it has been disallowed by an edit filter, see the AbuseLog. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep. As @Jan.Kamenicek said, the reason why the contents of that entry was empty is because I was blocked by the abuse filter. The Berean Standard Bible is not a sketchy anonymous translation. That Bible translation was supervised by notable scholars in the original languages, like Grant Osborne and Eugene Merrill (https://bereanbibles.com/about-berean-study-bible/translation-process/). The BSB is accredited by the United Bible Societies' Digital Bible Library and is available at websites like bible.com. Physical bible s are available at websites like christianbook.com. Dziego~enwiki (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep but probably it should be scan-backed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a PDF version available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment information about the translators should be added to the header. Is there a Wikidata item for this edition? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep. Scanbacking has started. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:A cup of coffee

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copyvio; link in header points to source which has a copyright notice.

New WS translation not based on the scanbacked proofread original text at the appropriate language Wikisource. See also User talk:Jabsian#A cup of coffee (1914). BTW, we have a published translation of the work at A Cup of Coffee. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete This is not a Wikisource original translation; it is a copyvio. The link in the header points to the site where this translation appears and is copyrighted. The move to the Translations namespace was made after this was posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Молода Україна. 1902.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at uk.WS and no translation begun here.

Foreign-language work without any indication of progress in translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The uk:Індекс:Молода Україна. 1902.pdf at uk.WS has not had any transcription either, so it's unlikely anyone is working towards a translation soon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Lamentos de Jeremías - lectura en la conferencia dominical del 21 de marzo de 1869, domingo de ramos (IA A11401204).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at es.WS so no translation can be completed here.

Foreign-language work without original-language transcription. While a little work has been done here, I don’t think it’s worth holding on to this copy. In addition, and particularly, this PDF is of extremely poor quality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Teodor Herzl.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned Index with only "no content" pages and no translation.

Foreign-language work without any indicia of local efforts towards translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Un viaje de mil demonios - zarzuela bufo-dramática en tres actos y siete cuadros, original y en verso (IA unviajedemildemo21616roge).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No transcription at es.WS, so no original translation can be started here.

Foreign-language work without original-language transcription. In addition, there is no indication of local work in pursuance of a translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Հաւատամքի կամուրջ, Թորոս Թորանեան.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Empty Index; corresponding work at hy.WS is barely started, and no attempt at translation has been made here.

Foreign-language work without significant original-language transcription and no indication of intention for a local translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Romanization tables

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Proposal withdrawn.

The following tables are quite clearly beyond our scope per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Reference material. Were they not so many, I would have speedied them.

• Tamashek romanization table
• Kannada romanization table
• Uighur romanization table
• Macedonian romanization table
• Ukrainian romanization table
• Belarusian romanization table
• Inuktitut romanization table
• Amharic romanization table
• Russian romanization table
• Bulgarian romanization table
• Oriya romanization table
• Mongolian romanization table
• Cherokee romanization table
• Vai romanization table
• Divehi romanization table
• Sanskrit and Prakrit (in Devanagari script) romanization table
• Coptic romanization table
• Church Slavic romanization table
• Tibetan romanization table
• Persian romanization table
• Azerbaijani romanization table

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Since these are documents that have been published through a US government website (The Library of Congress), why do you claim that they are beyond our scope? The Reference material clauses specifically refer to collections of material that have not been published or are part of a source text. Each of these was published as a PDF at the Library of Congress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep as well, per EP's rationale. If it was officially published, it doesn't matter to me what type of content it was, and in this case, the policy seems to agree. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, "not been published" is mentioned as one of problems accompanying standalone tables and a reason why they are excluded, not as a criterion that only not published tables are excluded. The rule says: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text, and specifically excludes tables. These tables are not a part of a complete source text, they are just tables. There are zillions of various standalone tables published on various government sites, and this rule excludes them unless they are published within some broader publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It explicitly excludes "Tables of data or results", which none of these are. These are transcription pairs arranged as a table, and each was published in exactly the form present here, not as part of some larger work. For each of these, we have the complete source text as a PDF. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am not a native speaker, but are such transcriptions not "data"?

As you write, they were not published as a part of a larger work, but the rule requires they were. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the Note at the end. It says that data published as part of a larger work are acceptable; not that such publication is required. All that is required is that they are not extracted from some larger work, but rather that the complete work is what we host. It may be instructive to look at older versions of the WWI page to see that the "no extracts" used to come shortly before the section about data tables. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Not going to change my vote, for a few reasons. The authenticity of the work, as a work, is clear. Let me explain. They were officially published somewhere as standalone documents. So since they are documents in their own right, from a data standpoint, I would consider these works with (at best) to be of the type document and chart.

My interpretation of the purpose of the cited bit of the WWI guidelines is to keep people from importing thousands of random charts from Wikipedia or other places. The sentiment is that mathematical facts alone aren't enough—that they have to exist as works (fundamentally created by humans, like documents), not as factoids (having some objective basis in the universe and not human hands, like statistics, or the numbers of pi). So even if policy is against me on this, it means our policy is written badly, so in very actually useful to the cause of Wikisource. So to bicker over interpretations of the words being said, when I think the wording is just bad and overly vague to begin with,

Noting here that if these works get deleted, I'll put these in a userspace page of mine to bring into undeletion discussions at PD, or Scriptorium discussions about changes to policy, in future discussions that I'll reinsert once every 6 months or year, since my opinion on this is one I feel extremely strongly about. A precedent to delete this would be pretty disturbing: it would severely limit the diversity of our content, and I consider this to be a significantly negative impact to us.

(ec) I also second EP's interpretation of what these works are. But even if this was a document that simply listed a million numbers of pi, or was a bit of statistical data, I'd still want it kept if it was published officially by the LOC. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that tables listing "million numbers of pi" and alike is exactly what the rule tries to prevent. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Well, I'd still maintain that a publication of these numbers is different from the numbers themselves. To elaborate, the difference is, you could give mathematical proof for what the numbers of pi are, scientific proof for the chemical composition of antifreeze, and statistical proof of how many residents of the state of Rhode Island have dyslexia. But, a document containing any of these requires the document to prove its contents, you know what I mean? So, we'd be trying to prove what the document said, not trying to use scientific or mathematical logic to make our case, which I think is the fundamental distinction. Because, for example, a 2013 document may have a few incorrect numbers, which only the human writers of the documents could have produced, or some unique formatting that again, only human writers could have produced. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(although, to be fair, I just considered that a document with just numbers would not be a document in the English language, which could be deletable for that separate reason, so let's assume there was a title there, or something like that, as well) PseudoSkull (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Document giving a mathematical proof using a table of numbers to come to some conclusion, explained and written in words, is what the rule allows. The same about proof of occurence of dyslexia or chemical formulae. But pure standalone tables without any subsequent interpretation and further analysis of the included data (no matter whether they contain numbers, names, letters of alphabet or whatever) is what it forbids. The tables should serve as illustration to some explained main point within the same work, they should not be an end in itself. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rules are one thing, but the community has the right to overrule them. Given the strong opposition, it is not very probable to reach consensus on deletion, so I am withdrawing the proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (especially as I was proofreading them). These are officially published documents, some of them with extensive commentary. Thus, they are not the purely statistical-type reference material which is explicitly prohibited by policy. It is not overruling the rules to keep them; it is following the rules. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ---Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:서울고등법원 2018. 6. 14. 선고 2017노2802 판결.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Index is not English; abandoned with no attempt made at translation; the Index at ko.WS has not been proofread, so it is not eligible for translation here.

Foreign language work with no work done. -- Beardo (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like VGPaleontologist has prepared a bunch of indexes probably to work on, so let's wait a while for their reaction. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment While this file has transcribed at ko:색인:서울고등법원 2018. 6. 14. 선고 2017노2802 판결.pdf, only the title page has been proofread there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Manuscript of Dr Ellington

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; no evidence of the text or its author in major libraries or databases.

This was uploaded last May with no source and no license. The uploader has made no other contributions and seems unlikely to provide this information. I have not been able to find any information about this work either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom, adding also Author:Clement Edmund Norman (who and whose alledged works I also failed to find anything about) to be deleted too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete seems like a forgery to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. Should be probably speedied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment We suspect a hoax/forgery. That alone is not basis for speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beyond suspecting. While the British Library catalog is down, LoC, WorldCat and HathiTrust find neither head nor hair of Clement Edmund Norman, and HathiTrust doesn't find the text anywhere in a full text search. Beyond that, read the story; it's a Frankenstein story, published three years before Frankenstein. But somehow, unlike Author:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, ISFDB and the rest of the world has never heard of him. I'm beyond reasonable doubt here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Really, we should delete forgeries, unless proven otherwise. They can (technically) be under default copyright also, if they're more modern than 1903 (the current anon/unpublished cutoff year).

Just as a side note, I recently watched an episode of a TV show that was about a document forger who forged thousands of early Mormon church documents dating back to the 1600s. I think the forgeries were discovered in the 80s or 90s, and the document forger, once respected, was charged with fraud. The show said that even the Library of Congress (as of c. 1997) still has many copies of his forgeries. Scary... So you really never know with some of these kinds of documents. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

While the BL catalog is down, JISC's version is up and doesn't mention him along with dp.la. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sardanapalus: A Tragedy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump with no source.

Looks like copypaste from Gutenberg (including page numbers in square brackets). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete PseudoSkull (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete even if not from Gutenberg, it is a secondary transcription that doesn't meet any basic quality standards. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Licensed Brothel and Prostitute Regulation Order

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not in compliance with Wikisource:Translations for user-created translations.

Imported from mul: by Jusjih despite not being in accordance with Wikisource:Translations as there is no scan supported original language work present on the appropriate language wiki. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

La Borinqueña

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; mostly Spanish text (not English) and no explanation of where the English text originated. There is no scan-backed copy at es.WS either. A search found a scan with the Spanish lyrics, that could be used to translated into English; and another text with parallel Spanish, English, and Shorthand, in a shorthand magazine.

This national anthem (Puerto Rico) is in Spanish, with no source. There is an English translation in brackets below each verse, also with no source. The Spanish text is hosted on es.WS but without a scan, although there is a backing law linked from their page, that gives the official text of the hymn, as adopted by the island's government. No English text appears in any of this, so I'm guessing the English was added by the creator of the page, whose sole contribution was this "anthem" in 2006. The Wikipedia article on this song likewise gives no credit for the origin of the English words. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete The Spanish text is out of scope. The English text (just a literal translation, not a real translation of the rhythmic lyrics of the anthem) without the source or without confirmation that it was the contributor's own translation is a potential copyvio. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Note that there is a PD translation here [1] if we want to transcribe it and then we can delete this version as redundant to a scan backed version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a challenge, since the text is in three forms: Spanish, English, and Shorthand. I don't even know whether we can transcribe shorthand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would just use the image, since the text is already provided in English and Spanish. If we did want to transcribe the shorthand I assume that would mean generating a standard text version of the original source text by fixing the abbreviations into standard spelling or just reproducing the abbreviated version of it, all in unformatted text (e.g. if they use g-r-t for great, transcribe it as such). We don't try to reproduce the exact look of long hand manuscripts, I am not sure why we would expect that we would reproduce the look of a short hand manuscript, and if someone wants to read the shorthand they can just click on the backing image anyways. Any render would like generate pngs or svgs anyways and not work with screen readers, search etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did find Canciones Populares, with the anthem on pp.1–2 with sheet music. If that were transcribed at es.WS, then we could host a translation with sheet music here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Greek Creation Myth

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source given, and possible copyvio based on research.

No source, no license. Transwikied from enWP back in 2005, appears to be originally from here which in turn gets its content from these sources. If I am correct in this origin of the text, it is clearly copyvio; but the text is so pervasive on the Internet that I cannot be entirely certain, so I am proposing deletion due to lack of evidence of free license or PD status. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete I tried to find out whether this version exists in print, searching in Google books and Hathi for some specific phrases, and did not find anything. This version seems to exist only on the Internet, and so it is probably quite a new text or a modification of an older text, and without a proper licence it should be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a rephrasing of the version in Google Books on p. 48-49 given that is listed as source [2], it might be possible to see a preview of a newer edition Google Books . It claims copyright 1973.  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:ลัทธิฯ (๐๘) - ๒๔๖๓.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Although the Index is transcribed at th.WS, no effort has been made at translation here since creation. This is either abandoned or a complete non-start.

Foreign-language work, no English-language translation started. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems User:VGPaleontologist has created a lot of indexes without any intention to work on them and unfortunately does not react to questions, being asked (and pinged) here or here. I think that similar abandoned non-English indexes can be deleted upon sight. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Praise of Aton by king Ikhnaton and queen Nefernefruaton

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts are disallowed by Wikisource:Extracts.

This is an excerpt "Published in A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (1905), pp. 371–6" as stated in the Notes. It fails under Wikisource:Extracts as a work hostable here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Coptos Decree

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts are disallowed by Wikisource:Extracts.

This is an excerpt from Ancient Records of Egypt (1906), by James Henry Breasted. As an extract, it cannot be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, but if the full work is ever transcribed, maybe this can be a redirect to that specific section (maybe). PseudoSkull (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Elements 103 to 118

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus. Notable author and work, to which this is an addendum by the same author via their official website.

A brief, modern creative work uploaded by the author. Not in scope. Omphalographer (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think that User:CalendulaAsteraceae is the same person as Author:Tom Lehrer. So, not uploaded by author. All of Lehrer's songs have been placed in the Public Domain. How is this one not in scope for Wikisource? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've met her in person, so take it from me, haha!! Also, I think it'd be pretty incredible for someone who's presumably aged ~ 96 years old to be contributing to Wikisource at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I missed that this was sourced from a document created by Lehrer. That being said, I have some lingering questions about scope which I'll post below. Omphalographer (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

N.B. This has been simultaneously nominated for deletion on Commons.

• Keep. Clearly notable and in scope (as are the rest of his songs). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep I see a claim that it's not in scope, but no rationale stating what makes this out of scope. The apparent argument for deletion is: "brief, modern creative work uploaded by the author". But since neither "brief" nor "modern" nor "creative" are reasons for deletion, and since the work was not uploaded by the author, the argument falls flat. The brevity, modernity, and creativity of a work are never factors in deciding whether a work should be hosted on Wikisource, except when the modernity creates problems with copyright, which is not an issue in this instance, since the work was released into the public domain by its author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of WS:SCOPE was that any works created after 1928 are subject to stricter inclusion guidelines regardless of their copyright status. This lyrics sheet doesn't obviously (to my eye, at least) fall into any of the allowed types of works - it's not a documentary or scientific work, and while it's an artistic work, was it "published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls"? I'm not sure; it looks to me like a Word document Lehrer wrote and uploaded to his (or a fan's?) web site. Omphalographer (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's his website. IMO the notability criteria for scientific works should also apply to other artistic works, but I recognize that this isn't official policy.

  Previously unpublished scientific research, regardless of being peer reviewed or not, is acceptable to include in Wikisource if an author meets Wikipedia:Notability (regardless of the actual presence of Wikipedia article on the author) and the work is released under a Wikisource compatible license.

  —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also relevant is the "Consensus" section at the bottom: "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." So, for example, items like poetry, speeches, letters, and other works may also be included if the community agrees.

  In this situation, Tom Lehrer is a notable person, with well-known lyrics to his "Elements" song, and these are his recommended updated lyrics to that song. Not only is Tom Lehrer himself notable, but w:The Elements (song) is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page of its own as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Omphalographer: WS:SCOPE is very poorly written, so I don't blame you for being confused by it, but there are no stricter inclusion criteria for post-1928 works except for in terms of copyright. And that's only because that's the externally-imposed cutoff date for copyrights, not because Wikisource considers 95 years a particularly magical number of years for a text to ripen. Xover (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This is a more than legitimate work for us to host, for reasons already stated.

To go further, I don't even really agree with the "any works created after 1928 are subject to stricter inclusion guidelines regardless" principle. But, the reasons behind a policy should always be taken into consideration, since motivations behind policy are what cause the policies to exist in the first place.

The reasons apparent to me: A work from 96+ years ago's copyright status is way easier to determine. And works from 1928 and before are also more likely to be legitimate and authentic because of their old age—there was no Internet or any digital technology to tamper with them back then. Also, works from back then were almost universally formal, well-written, peer-reviewed, and/or had enough time by now to have some evident significance to history. Also, the people who made any of those works are quite guaranteed to be dead by now, leaving very little room for modern "tampering" or what have you. So the sentiment here essentially is, we'd have an easier time keeping out the mountains of dubious cruft from more modern times (think random blog posts, or a story that the editor wrote just yesterday) that many new users, unaware of what our goals are, will invariably try to contribute at some point or another.

I'm sure there are other reasons not noted here, but these are the primary ones I can see. I don't agree with it—in fact, if we're going to have a stricter interpretation of policy based on release year, it should probably be for works before March 1989, specifically for all works that fell into the public domain by what I'd call "natural" or "unintended" means (for example, no renewal, no notice, defective notice, etc.). Since any work that is old enough to have actually fallen into the public domain by accident was created before the invention of the World Wide Web in 1991, so...user generation is pretty much out of the question. But that being said, Consensus™ can override this easily, so the "after 1928 stricter inclusion" policy isn't as set in stone as all that. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no "after 1928 stricter inclusion" policy. The 95-year cutoff is strictly a copyright thing. Xover (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: There is: Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#Works_created_after_1928:. One specific section I take issue with is, "Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category. These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." So, the qualifications for works after 1928 are stricter. But, I have a huge amount of issue with this, since this would exclude even works that were self-published in, say, 1942, 1930, or 1965. It would exclude a huge amount of material that fell into the public domain by accident, such as genealogical materials from around that time, a hugely useful historical asset. So, I was saying, if we're going to pick a date to exclude self-publication after, it should be 1989 (the cutoff date for "no notice, no registration"), since it would be impossible for something to fall into the PD by accident after that year, and coincidentally also two years before the existence of the World Wide Web, making "blog posts" or "Tumblr fanfiction" or "my diary entry written just yesterday" or the like impossible (which I think this policy is mostly trying to address).

Of course, a better solution than that would be to just not exclude any works solely based on self-publication at all, and use some more nuanced metric. But if we're gonna use years to play this game, 1989 is a lot more fair to public-domain enthusiasts and archivists, since using 1929 as a year excludes a good chunk of perfectly valid and authentic 20th century history. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: The policy page is confusing. The bit you quote isn't really specific to post-1928 works, it's just that the policy page is structured to make it look like that because it tried to cover copyright too. In reality we do not differentiate between pre- and post-1928 works along these lines, so long as they are public domain or compatibly licensed. Have I ever mentioned that our policy pages suck, badly, and we need a major cleanup? No? Then let me just take the opportunity to mention that our policy pages are a horrible mess that confuses people and do not well represent our actual policies (i.e. what we actually practice). Xover (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we meant to separate older and modern texts this way, so that we don't accept any random stuff released under a compatible license, but older stuff that someone wants to transcribe is fine, as it doesn't have the ego and promotional issues. Our policies in practice may be different, but I think they embody part of that ideal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The intent was to treat older and modern texts differently when it was implemented back in 2007: see the discussions from then. 1923 was picked as a convenient cutoff (other suggestions then were a 100 or 120 year cutoff). I don't know if the policy needs revision (PseudoSkull makes good points, but if nothing else 1929 is a fair bit further away from 2024 than 1923 is from 2007) but it is what it is. Arcorann (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep. I have several concerns about this text—can we really say it has been subject to any editorial control or been previously published by a reputable publisher; is the generated PDF version of the Word file version of what was really published as a web page meaningfully "a scan"; etc.—but I don't really think those concerns rise to a deletion discussion just now (we have much bigger issues). The concerns raised in the actual nomination are obviously based on the misunderstanding that CalendulaAsteraceae was the original author of the text and that they were uploading a personal work, and as such there's no valid rationale for deletion in the nom. --Xover (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, the work was originally published as a Word file, and I converted it to PDF without making any edits like improving the formatting. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. But is Elements 103 to 118 a work unto itself, or is it an excerpt of "The Elements"? Is this an evolving work, or is the version that includes elements 103 to 118 just an edition of the abstract work? Is this even "The Elements" we're talking about as the work, or is the work the webpage hosted at the address https://tomlehrersongs.com/the-elements/? Once you start picking at the details there's rather a lot to choose from. Xover (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I personally think this fails WS:WWI because it has not "been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication" — but I acknowledge that this is quibbling over technicalities so I won't contest the consensus (though I hope a better source can be found) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Our policies may need a clarification, but I generally think this is something we should keep, somewhere between "in reality, our policies are more like ..." and simple w:WP:IAR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Author:Loyd Blankenship

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. The author has no known freely-licensed works and certainly none hosted here, so the author page is useless as it is.

This author's only listed work. "The Hacker Manifesto" has been deleted as not being in public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: PseudoSkull (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ram Raksha Stotra

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied, out of scope.

Non-English text added to en-wikisource mistakenly as it already exists at sa:रामरक्षास्तोत्रम्. Kashmiri (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Club Q Owner Shares SHOCKING Hate Messages He Received After the Shooting

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract: most of the content consisted of quoted non-free material that had to be redacted. The resulting extract fails WS:WWI.

Transcription of random podcast (original content). It does not appear that this specific podcast is of any particular value. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep What does the "original content" label have to do with anything? Most content is originally made by a source outside of Wikisource. Also, many historical works without any particular value are allowed on here, and one could even argue that such a work documenting an occurrence such as this may be historical in nature. Many other creative works, of little to no academic or recreational value, are also allowed on this wiki. I see no reason as to why this podcast episode may not be included with other works. VGPaleontologist (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• If we include this podcast article, we would reasonably expect to include mirrors of all podcasts, which is not a good use for Wikisource. Wikisource specifically does not include all recently published (though freely licensed) material, and for good reason; otherwise, we have many podcast transcriptions like this one. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article on the podcast The Humanist Report, on the one hand. But then, Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and enforcement of those guidelines, are pretty messed up (which is why I tend to edit here instead). Clearly the podcast has a good amount of notability, about as much as Vaush (another leftist YouTuber who has a similar subscriber count, and also his own Wikipedia article) or Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad (a right-wing YouTuber, also with a WP article).

So to say this podcast has "no particular value" is a little off. This isn't just a random podcast of someone with 100 subscribers. Keep in mind ~400K subscribers is a lot of people, equal to the population of a medium-sized city... I think Wikipedians and Wikimedia in general need to have a discussion about how to cover large social media figures on their platforms, because in the modern context they have a lot more notoriety than it may appear in more "traditional" sources for citation, such as print books or news media. Keep in mind, many of these political YouTubers literally influence the decisions of politicians at a federal level. It might be hard to believe, but there have been recorded instances of public policymakers watching and interacting with YouTubers like Destiny, Vaush, Sam Seder, and the like.

In addition to notoriety, the podcast The Humanist Report looks professional, so I would call it peer-reviewed. There is clearly a team behind it (as is true with many large social media figures), reviewing and editing the material, which would seem to match our standards for peer review.

In any case, if we're going to keep this, it probably needs to be sourced with an original upload, and cleaned up to fit more along the lines of sound film styling. An example of how this should look can be found at Lights of New York and Night of the Living Dead.

I get that this might be a hard argument for others to sympathize with, since we don't really have a precedent for how to include this type of content. I don't remember any transcriptions of podcasts here, and there's certainly no real standard for them. But notability in the public discourse and modern political history, (mostly) free licensing, and professional editing and peer review, put me at a marginal Keep vote. But, this one podcast episode in and of itself isn't that useful—a bigger transcription effort on this type of material is in order.

I'd like to note that Modern Day Debate, another YouTube channel with no WP article, is professional and peer-reviewed, includes many notable political and philosophical figures of the modern day, often freely licenses their videos, and has been used to garner clips and photos of these figures on Wikimedia Commons. (But their debates are REALLY long, and might be hell to transcribe.) Just a thought. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that, in general (for mostly copyright reasons albeit), we don't have very much representation of modern content on Wikisource outside of formal legal content, making the diversity in represented time periods (inherently) significantly undercut. We should be including significant content such as podcasts from the modern day, so that we can be a useful resource to those trying to understand our modern political and social context. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: In terms of the podcast I was referring to this episode in particular, rather than the whole series. I don’t think that the level of influence an individual Internet personality has is relevant to inclusion—rather, if a specific work is important, it can be kept. I also don’t think that a podcast can count as professional (by the standards we have for professionality). Along those lines, could we include all of this Vaush’s Tweets (of which there apparently 30,000+) if he chose to release them all under a free license? I think it would be absurd to do such a thing, and these podcasts (and YouTube videos, and Twitch streams, &c.) are just the same thing, except that they are a bit longer. Similarly, I don’t think that we should host any YouTube videos at all, unless they fall under the traditional publishing criteria (like videos produced by congressional committees) or have specific, independent notability (like “Me at the zoo”). Absent such restrictions, Wikisource (and by extension Commons) would become a mirror repository for all of the Web. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Re Vaush's Tweets—no, because he writes those himself, those aren't (to my knowledge) subject to independent review, and if they are then just barely. And it's hard to even call those "works", since they're so short and really can often only be understood in the context in which they're published (i.e. on Twitter itself. Oh sorry, X). The same could be said about tweets by anyone, even Donald Trump and Barack Obama. The Twitter activities of those two figures both have their own separate Wikipedia articles by the way, but I don't think that even their tweets, or any collection of them, counts for inclusion.

And you raise a good point about mirroring. Since I've mentioned, it is a rabbithole that would be hard to go down, without feeling like we're just a mirror site.

I don't know where the line should be drawn. I'm not necessarily gung-ho about keeping this one instance of an episode either. Although, I don't think it should be out of the question, given their relevance to our modern political and social atmosphere. Far more people online will know who Brett Cooper is than will ever recognize the name of Hollywood director Fritz Lang (which I think is sad, and speaks to the degradation of our society's understanding of culture and history, personally, but it's reality nonetheless). And I think that is a point that should be considered here. Although, which content to keep from those types of figures, and how much of it, etc., is a subject that will require massive amounts of debate, and I don't claim to have all the answers.

One suggestion, for example, might be to keep based on whether or not a particular episode was mentioned in media sources (although more questions: how many? which ones? probably need to be somehow answered). For example, in instances where The Humanist Report is mentioned on the news for making a particularly controversial or extreme statement, it'd probably be useful for someone to have easy access to the original source (the video) to verify their claims about what was said. (Although, this metric would probably exclude the episode in the current debate).

Most political streamers nowadays just take excerpts from their streams and upload them as videos, and sometimes even multiple videos from the same stream clips. I'm not sure if this is the case for The Humanist Report, but I know it is for Vaush, Destiny, and many others. If it is, I'd probably say delete The Humanist Report, because it fails WS:EXCERPT, and the source really should (in theory) be the entire stream, not the one clip.

Anyway, with all these considerations in mind (and there are probably a lot more), I'm changing my vote to Abstain. I think before we start adding this type of content, we need to discuss how to do it, how much of it we should include or exclude, what sources we should use, etc. at a place like the Scriptorium, since the question gets really complicated very quickly.

TL;DR, I don't know what to do with this. I sympathize with both the opposition and the desire for this type of content. But more input is needed than can ever be resolved in a single deletion discussion, so maybe we should just delete for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete The core content lies in the quoted material, which has been redacted since it is non-free. With the non-free material redacted, this is no longer a useful or relevant work, and it fails to accomplish what the original material was intended to do, which was to provide those quotations and create a story around them. All the underpinnings removed makes this a non-story, and amounts to "selected sections of a larger work", i.e. an extract, which is against WS:WWI. For some works, a small portion removed leaves the work largely intact, but in this instance all of the meat has been removed and we're left with the husk of an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per EP's rationale. Any discussion about the validity of internet podcasts (in general) or YouTube streams should be considered separately from this argument. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

One Word is Too Often Profaned

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and converted to Redirect.

Unsourced poem, of which we have a scan-backed edition at The Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley (ed. Hutchinson, 1914)/To ——. 'One word is too often profaned' —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Convert to a redirect to the scan-backed copy of the poem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  yes, of course after the existing poem is deleted the title will be redirected —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete (or rather, turn into redirect) PseudoSkull (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete and/or redirect. Can the page not be blanked and redirected without deleting it first? Cremastra (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: No, it's connected to a Wikidata item so it needs to be technically deleted here to break that connection and then recreated as a redirect. Xover (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, one could manually remove the redirect from the WD item :D but regardless of whether the page is blanked or deleted and recreated, the deletion procedure is the same. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Barbara Newhall Follett

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as errors requested by creator.

I'm trying to add more content to the works of american author Author:Barbara Newhall Follett, as such I started working in transcribing he novel The House Without Windows and tried to add an author page for her. By accident I created two wrong pages: Barbara Newhall Follett and Author:Barbra Newhall Follett I request that the incorrect pages be deleted and only the correct one remain. I apologize for my mistakes and hope to improve the content for this author in wikipedia and wikisource. Thank you. HendrikWBK (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, deleted the pages. @HendrikWBK: no problem. Next time you'd like a page deleted, you can add the template {{speedy}} with a short explanation that it was a mistaken creation. Thanks for working on this, and happy editing! SnowyCinema (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Medicine and the church.djvu and associated Index.

The following discussion is closed:

Request withdrawn.

Duplicate of File:Medicine and the church; being a series of studies on the relationship between the practice of medicine and the church's ministry to the sick (IA medicinechurchbe00rhodiala).pdf, They are the same edition, but the latter is locally hosted, as it contains material not compatible with Commons licensing policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Request is the wrong way round. Keep the .djvu file and delete the .pdf (along with Index: and Page:). If the .djvu file needs to be localised that's a separate process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn per comments elswhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Complete Works of Mark Twain

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; not a published series we have, but a list linked to various unrelated editions of those works.

For some reason this was in Author space (as Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens/Authorized Edition) but I moved it to the correct namespace.

That said, this is only a bare TOC of this edition of Twain's works, so perhaps it should be deleted as incomplete/abandoned.

If anyone wants to rescue it, scans are available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A further note - many of our copies of Twain's works are second-hand, so perhaps this would be a good opportunity to begin a proper proofreading project? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I'm working on one volume (that isn't linked!) but only some of his works are either scan-backed or in the process of being so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, we have run four of his works in the Monthly Challenge recently, with two running right now, Index:Following the Equator (Mark Twain).djvu and Index:The Innocents Abroad (1869).djvu. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  • This is true, but they are not volumes in the series The Complete Works of Mark Twain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

    This is wrt the second-hand nature of our copies of Twain, and that we have been trying to make progress there. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete — This should rather be a scan backing of the series itself. Since each novel or other work within a "Works of <author>" collection is a separate version of the work than the original version which we usually also are hosting. What's currently here is more of a portal, that includes works that happened to be included in this collection. What should be there, though, are links to the volumes themselves, which should ideally by scan-backed. It links to the wrong versions, making the page an invalid addition to our structure. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That is what I am saying - as an alternative to deleting this page, we could proofread The Complete Works of Mark Twain and then use that edition to replace the unsourced (not original) editions we currently have of most of his works. (The fact that the links on the page are pointing to different editions is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant, because that would be the first thing to be fixed if this work is not deleted :D )—Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The scan links to at least two separate editions (e.g. [3] and [4]) so someone needs to figure out which set to proofread from (and whether that is a complete set). In addition this edition appears to be lightly illustrated, while many of the works were originally published with heavy illustrations, which might cause more discussion than usual about replacing illustrated second-hand editions with non-illustrated scan-backed editions. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, there are other uniform editions of Twain's wok, notably the 1899 Autograph edition [5] in 25 volumes and the Gabriel Wells edition [6] in 37 volumes. Also this series dates to the 1930s (e.g. [7] is copyrighted 1935)), [8] MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced duplicate poems by Emily Dickinson

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; all redirects restored —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced editions, almost (but not quite) identical to sourced editions in Poems (Dickinson). Probably proofread against the collection The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1955) which cannot be hosted here for copyright reasons (though the individual poems themselves are not copyrighted). The duplication appears to have happened because these poems have individual titles in Poems (Dickinson), but are titled by first line in the unsourced editions.

• 'Twas a long Parting — but the time
• 'Twas such a little — little boat
• A Drop Fell on the Apple Tree —
• A precious — mouldering pleasure — 'tis —
• A something in a summer's Day
• Afraid! Of whom am I afraid?
• Apparently with no surprise
• As if some little Arctic flower
• At last, to be identified!
• Because I could not stop for Death —
• Come slowly - Eden!
• Delayed till she had ceased to know —
• Doubt Me! My Dim Companion!
• Elysium is as far as to
• Exultation is the going
• God permits industrious Angels —
• He ate and drank the precious Words —
• How many times these low feet staggered —
• I cannot live with You —
• I had no time to Hate —
• I hide myself within my flower,
• I know some lonely Houses off the Road
• I like a look of Agony,
• I lost a World — the other day!
• I never lost as much but twice, (unsourced)
• I think the Hemlock likes to stand
• I'll tell you how the Sun rose —
• I'm "wife" — I've finished that —
• I'm ceded — I've stopped being Theirs —
• It makes no difference abroad —
• Like Trains of Cars on Tracks of Plush
• Mine — by the Right of the White Election!
• My Cocoon tightens — Colors tease —
• My River runs to thee —
• No Rack can torture me —
• Not in this World to see his face —
• Of all the Sounds despatched abroad,
• Pain — has an Element of Blank —
• Pink — small — and punctual —
• Presentiment — is that long Shadow — on the Lawn —
• Read — Sweet — how others — strove —
• Safe in their alabaster chambers (Dickinson, 1859)
• She rose to His Requirement — dropt
• Some Rainbow — coming from the Fair!
• Some keep the Sabbath going to Church —
• Some things that fly there be —
• Soul, Wilt thou toss again?
• That I did always love
• That short — potential stir
• The Brain, within its Groove (unsourced)
• The Clouds their Backs together laid
• The Grass so little has to do —
• The morns are meeker than they were —
• The Mountain sat upon the Plain
• The Murmur of a Bee
• The Sky is low — the Clouds are mean.
• The Soul selects her own Society —
• The Sun kept setting — setting — still
• The morns are meeker than they were —
• There came a Day at Summer's full (unsourced)
• There is a flower that Bees prefer —
• These are the days when Birds come back —
• This — is the land — the Sunset washes —
• This is my letter to the World
• When I was small, a Woman died —
• When Night is almost done —
• You left me — Sire — two Legacies —

Differences between these editions and the ones in Poems (Dickinson) are extremely minor, and mostly consist of punctuation (especially dashed, which the unsourced poems are full of) and capitalization. Some poems have a word or two difference. Here's an example: You left me — Sire — two Legacies — (unsourced) vs You left me, sweet, two legacies,— (in Poems) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. As noted with all the unsourced editions, a better decision is probably to delete them all, especially due to copyright concerns but also with general maintenance-related concerns, as is apparent here. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not advocating to delete all unsourced editions. These ones in particular are not under copyright. That's a bigger can of worms than I'm willing to deal with at the moment; better to leave that discussion to the current thread in WS:CV lol. For now, I'm just proposing to delete pages that are essentially redundant, but not quite identical enough for me to be comfortable speedying them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Beleg Tâl: Before the pages get deleted, something should be done with the links to them in the subpages of the Dickinson's author page, like Author:Emily Dickinson/T. Shall the links be redirected to the appropriate subpages of Poems (Dickinson)? Or should the above listed pages be changed into redirects instead of being deleted? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, after deletion all of these links will be converted to redirects. If the poems are also in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson then I'll make them into versions pages. So long as I can delete the bad edition instead of including it on the versions page, I'll be happy :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: as there was no opposition for a week, I deleted the pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: lol, thanks. You're a lot more efficient than me, I was going to give it a month :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The deletions did not resolve any of the links to those locations, which has resulted in multiple redlinks across multiple pages. I have resolved some of these by creating redirects, and some others have been converted to versions pages, but there are still multiple redlinks left to attend to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Beleg Tâl wrote above that "...after deletion all of these links will be converted to redirects" or he will "...make them into versions page", so I suppose he just needed more time to do so. Not sure why deletion discussion was reopened because of that. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  • The deletion process is more than just the removal of items. The process also involves cleaning up any loose ends created by the deletion, including links that need to be corrected or removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    ... I thought I got the last of them last night, which ones are still missing? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    Oh, looking at your user contributions log, looks like you did that when I was only a couple of hours away from finishing my cleanup job —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    Unless you're referring to the links that are poorly formed (e.g. ending in commas) that are only used on old talk pages and on the garbage Dickinson editions that we are working on replacing? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    There are still two listed links, now red, that have incoming links from other pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

    ok yes, the ones linked from garbage pages. I'll recreate those redirects then :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Font-old

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to User-space by creator.

Unused, and redundant to the font size templates, {{color}} and other more specific style templates. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This was always intended as a temporary measure. If you can write a guide on what the conversions are, I'll move this to my Userspace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Now userfied, and as you say no longer in active use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Korean Code of Judicial Conduct

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete user-generated translation with no source.

A translation started in 2012 by an IP address and barely even started. It is also unsourced, and as a user-generated translation is ineligible to be included in the mainspace. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Systema Entomologiae and Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Speedied as non-English copydumps.

Unsourced partial excerpts of a non-English work (need I say more?) — If you're curious, the full work is available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Odes (Horace)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, no consensus.

Incomplete and abandoned. What is more, there is no scan supported transcription on the appropriate language wiki and so even if somebody wanted to continue the translation, they cannot do so according to WS:T. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep True, the Latin text at la.WS is not scan-backed, but their text is taken from the authoritative Perseus database of Greek and Latin texts, which pulls their texts from documented and published originals. In this case, the Latin text is the one edited by Paul Shorey and Gordon J. Laing, published in 1919. So there is a verifiable, stable Latin original of high quality proofreading available both at la.WS and at Perseus. I note also that portions of our Odes translation are part of the AP Latin Syllabus listings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Jan.Kamenicek: There has been no further commenting for a week. Do you concur that Perseus, a text database which strives for accuracy, and that documents carefully the published sources of their texts, which are then used by academics specializing in the field of classical texts, is a suitable stand-in for a scan? If so, then please close this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  This applies only to the second argument, my first argument was that the work is incomplete and abandoned, per WS:Translations: Works that are incomplete and abandoned for long periods may be nominated for deletion. As for the source available at Perseus, I was not able to check it as the page is not accessible at the moment.

  As for the AP Latin Syllabus: this is imo quite off topic and irrelevant to our discussion. Besides, Horace does not really seem to be recommended in the AP Latin Reading list. So I would stick to what is in our scope instead of to external syllabi. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Each individual ode is complete; it is only the collection of Odes that is incomplete. Since each ode is a work in its own right, the incomplete clause does not apply. And with an academic source, it is equivalent to having a scan available to complete the remaining Odes. I just tried the Perseus link, and it loaded just fine for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    Is it this link? If so, I keep receiving the "Not Found" message. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    I accept the argument that each ode is an individual work. I am quite curious if the inaccessibility of the source is only my problem or if more people have it. If the latter is true, then we do not have a proofread version available to everybody. I will try it later again, and it would be great if more people checked it meanwhile too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    • Try this link to go directly to Carmina by Horace. The text at la.WS is the same as that at Perseus, so even places blocked from accessing the site, for whatever reason, can access the same text at la.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

      Well, I am still not really happy about it. I think WS contributors should be able to check check the original easily whenever they are in doubts as for both its transcription and its translation. This is not fulfilled with the Latin Odes, because the link which they provide does not seem to work for everybody and so it can be difficult to get to the source from which the transcription was copypasted, and because what the source offers is also only a transcription, though supposingly reliable, and not the original. Were this copypasted to English Wikisource and not to Latin Wikisource, it could be deleted as a second-hand transcription. If English Wikisource does not accept such copypastes, why should we accept translations of copypastes. Imo Wikisource translations should always be based on Wikisource transcriptions of originals that can be easily checked against a scan. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

      • You were using the wrong link, and trying to connect through the Univ. of Chicago. The link I provided is a different link; did you try it?. We stopped accepting secondhand transcriptions as a general rule because most of those were coming from Gutenberg (which has been demonstrated as a flawed, with unverifiable source and doubtful process), or from somewhere else random on the internet, which likewise has no possible means of checking the quality and accuracy. With an academic transcription, the quality is going to be equivalent to our own transcriptions, and in this instance it's being translated into English. For this particular text, the original cannot be hosted at la.WS because it has front matter and copious notes in English, not Latin. We can certainly upload a scan to Commons, and point to individual pages from each Ode, but the work would never be fully transcribed anywhere except at mul.WS, where texts go to die. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

        Yes, I did try the link you provided and it worked, but the link la.ws provides for the source does not, making it difficult to check the source. As for the transcription: I agree that there is little use of transcribing it at mul. However, you pointed out correctly that each ode is an individual work, so it should be possible to upload the scan of the edition to Commons and transcribe only the individual works to la.ws. But I admit that your arguments weakened my conviction about this work, so if the deletion is not supported with more votes within some reasonable time, let's say one more week, I will step back in this particular case only, not wishing it to become a precedent for other cases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

        • I have updated the link at la.WS --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Eletricity Formulas.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope as user-created list of formulae.

Self published by uploader (2009), and not sourced to a textbook or journal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as without scope. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Monument of Giordano Bruno

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant per speedy del. criterion no. 4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced version.

This unsourced version can be deleted as there is a scan backed copy at The Monument of Giordano Bruno. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Christmas Tree and a Wedding

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be deleted as it transcludes the same pages as The Christmas Tree and the Wedding Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up (1904)

The following discussion is closed:

Not restored. Previous copy was deleted for copyvio, but also had no source and was apparently secondhand and altered. One month of no admin agreeing to undelete the text, but an Index page has been started from a scan in the Monthly Challenge.

Now (finally) public domain in the US. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The copyright date in the US was 26 Oct 1928, according to previous research that led to deletion as a result of copyright discussion. What was not discussed at the time is that the work had no source given, and appears to be a secondhand transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. I am also not in favour of undeleting unsourced works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for looking at this. Since I'm not an admin here and didn't see that discussed I was assuming that copyright was the only issue. I'll stick with Gutenberg's copy for now, then. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support until we are able to host a scan-backed copy, and delete at that point. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am afraid that undeleting unsourced version would make it less likely that somebody will add a scan-backed one. Imo people are more tempted to add missing works. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Jan Kameníček: While, that is usually the case, this is a fairly prominent work, so I expect that it will be scan-backed soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

    We can host Index:Peter Pan (1928).pdf now, if people will proofread the pages from the Index. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose The commentary on the Talk page at the time presented evidence this was not the work it claimed to be, but simply a modified version of the Gutenberg (Australia) copy of the 1928 script. With no source, and with evidence that the work was misrepresented and altered, this would be grounds for deletion were it nominated today. I see no advantage to Wikisource to undelete a text worth deleting. I also could find no scan dated 1904 to back this work from Google Books, Hathi, or IA; nor could I find a work with this title. I can find copies of a Peter Pan play in scan form, but none with a matching title. With no backing scan, there is no means to save this work; and if this work has altered even the title, then the number of errors needed to make this usable are likewise going to be very high. I prefer starting from scratch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source or license; transcription page exists for another version.

This document contains no publication info and no license. I found a scan here but it also contains no information about when it was published. The BASF appears to date to the 1800s, but our edition is different enough quite different from the only clearly-PD version I could find, so I think it ought to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - It appears to have been copied and pasted from a website that is now defunct, so this version could be copyrighted. But whether or not it is, it's dubious enough that it could cause questions, meaning a scan-backing is much more appropriate here. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment BTW I've uploaded Index:1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith.pdf (i.e. the "clearly-PD version" I mentioned above), so the Christadelphian creed won't be completely lost —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment This page was created by Beleg Tâl on the same day Beleg Tâl nominated the page for deletion. I see also that the page is not tagged with {{delete}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, all the sections of the work were top-level pages in mainspace before I consolidated them. This does not, to my knowledge, affect their copyright status. (I have also added {{delete}} to the page.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Sallustius the Philosopher

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published translation without peer review.

This translation comes from this website; although it's been released into the public domain, it's definitely not in scope. A newer version of the same translation is available here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Please explain. "[D]efinitely not in scope" is a very broad statement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Per WS:WWI:

  These as well as any artistic works must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication.

  Also:

  Works [...] otherwise not published in a verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum do not belong at Wikisource. Wikisource is not a method for an author to get their works published and make them available to other people, nor is it a site to discover "new talent".

  Also:

  works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope.

  Since this translation fails all three of these points, it is clear that it definitely fails our inclusion policy and is thus definitely out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment if the last criteria was the only obstacle, via her Patreon are published as ebook versions apparently ("Reader access") which might count as a static "edition". As per the first two, I agree with it not being included with the policy as written, unless we want to treat this as a user-contributed translation which would then require proofreading the Greek edition (from https://archive.org/details/desdieuxetdumond0000sall) first. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's worth keeping under the pretence of it being a user-contributed translation based on Martiana's PD translation—but if someone wants to proofread the Greek edition so we can keep it, I won't object :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sally: A Story of West Point

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete, unsourced transcription.

This unsourced transcription consists only of a table of contents and a single chapter and has not been touched in several years. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a note about the originally publication, "Originally serialized in the Brooklyn Magazine Vol. II (1885) pp. 91-99, 133-139, and 185-193." It is available on Hathi: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.32000000677106 , in case anyone volunteers to transcribe it, it being not that long... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that the same edition as the one that is already started? I have run into several issues recently with online editions that are almost but not quite the same as the published editions, and if they aren't identical I'm inclined to just delete the old one and then re-add it if/when a transcribed edition is available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well you can proofread it as a subpage of Brooklyn Magazine, speedy delete this version as redundant to a scan backed copy, and then create the redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Eight Homilies Against the Jews

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; likely copyvio; no evidence of a translation to English by 1935, and possibly not before 1979.

No source given, and a search of various scan repositories turned up only more recent publications than our copy, that appear to have used our copy as their source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, almost certainly copyvio. I found some discussion about the source of (what I believe to be) this translation here, and they have been unable to track down its origin either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Nearly all the information about this text on Wikipedia seems to come from a single 1979 book. No earlier English translations are cited or mentioned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete No mention of a translation in William's 1935 work summarizing these homiles as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The April Theses and The Development of Capitalism in Russia

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copydump without source of license; redirected to scan-backed copy.

Drive by copydumps with no source, license, or even any attempt at making them even remotely presentable —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The Development of Capitalism in Russia appears to be little more than a partial table of contents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

   Delete per nom. Note that we have a version of the April Theses here The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 1/Chapter 4 MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Our Country

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.Incomplete translation with no source; possible copyvio.

Incomplete translation without a source. Possibly a user-created translation; the creator never replied to that question on the work's Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. I don't think we can say with any certainty that the uploader is the translator, and I see on their talk page that I previously identified some of their uploads as copyvio translations, so I am inclined to suspect the same is happening with this work too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Taraanaye-Watan.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as beyond scope.

Non english work, Currently transcribed pages not a Translation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Tikvatenu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Research determined that the number and sequence of stanzas does not match Imber's poem; the Arabic is beyond scope.

This text was added in 2008. No source was provided for the English translation; the Hebrew is not scan-backed at he.WS (and no source was given); and neither does the Arabic have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep (as much as it pains me to say so lol). The translation appears to have been imported from Wikipedia, and we have precedent for treating works translated by Wikipedia editors as user-supplied translations; and since it was added in 2008 it predates our rules for scan-backing on other Wikisources and so I believe the WS:T#Grandfather rule would apply. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've done some additional research, and this is not the poem Tikvatenu, as originally written by its author. The poem should have only nine stanzas, not eleven, and not in the order we have here. See this article which includes a history, the Hebrew, and an English translation. We have no source for this work, as we have it here, and it does not match the poem it claims to be. So I do not believe grandfathering applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Beleg Tâl: Given the research I uncovered, do you still believe we should keep this text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think we could technically keep it by deleting the offending verses, but honestly I think that you've got enough of a rationale to get rid of this poor quality text that I'm happy to support its deletion :D  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Porcelain Doll

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Secondhand transcription with footnotes added by the transcriber.

Second-hand transcription copypasted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/tolstoy/1863/the-porcelain-doll.html , including footnotes. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A bold proposal! If we establish precedent for deleting works just because they are second-hand, there are so many works I'll be happy to nominate for deletion :D (good bye, Category:Works possibly copied from Project Gutenberg!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am not courageous enough to nominate them all at once, so at the moment I usually pick those which 1) are second-hand transcriptions accompanied with something undesirable, like copied notes of the previous transcriber etc., or 2) were added to WS after the rule forbidding second-hand transcriptions was established. So instead of revolution by deleting everything at once I think that at this moment it is better to go by the way of evolution by getting rid of them step by step. (However, if somebody nominated them all, I would support it, although I do not believe in the positive result.) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that marxists.org says: "Source: Text from WikiSource.org. Written 1863" and the revoltlib dates to 2021, so that can't be where it was copied from. It looks to be from IA which is copyrighted 1958, Randall Jarrell. However since that is an anthology I suspect it might be a reprint of the Maude 1928 translation of "The Procelain Doll" in The Devil and Other Cognate Stories MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

2003 Wikipedia Press Release

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. WS:OR (copied from Wikipedia), As a Wikipedia press release, it belongs at Meta or WikiNews, it does not meet WS criteria for digital-born media hosted on WikiSource.

This is a straight copy of w:Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003. Xover (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I've linked the WP page to the WD data item, so that when this is deleted, the WD info will still have an associated page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral I think we have several Wikipedia publications copied in this manner; I don't really see any reason to consider them out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per quite a similar discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2023#Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies. We should host primarily texts where we can add some value to them (like proofread or validated transcription of originally printed text into electronic text). Pure mirroring of copypasted internet texts, especially those from other Wikimedia projects, is valueless. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree with this, the same argument could apply to a great many of the US Government works we host (including most works copy-pasted from the White House website) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Into the Darkness

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as copyright violation; renewal located. The work cannot be hosted here until 2036. The copy was also a secondhand transcription from Gutenberg Australia, and WS no longer accepts such works.

Announced as an intended copy from Gutenberg. Starting a discussion in the hopes that a scan can be found to save this work from deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note it is Gutenberg Australia, or we sure that is PD in the US? I see (Renewal: R414351) MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, this is a copyvio then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lamb of God

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Discussion favored the creation of a Versions page in its place.

No source is given or hinted at. The information in the header only points out that another work by the same name exists. The Wikidata link is generic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete in the current form, it would not surprise me if we have a bunch of these unsourced prayers scattered about. I am surprised that apparently we don't have any mass settings or Roman missals to link to. We could redirect to anchors in the Book of Common Prayer, and the CE article on the subject. The header isn't referring to another work but a different usage as a symbol. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

We have a few transcription projects for missals; I think we could turn this into a versions page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

By "versions page" do you mean a list of transcriptions from various sources? If so, then I would vote to do that with all the random unsourced prayers. There are Roman Catholic prayer books and missals here (I'm working on a few myself) but extracting all of the prayers out to their own pages would be a really big job. (See also Salve Regina, above.) Laura1822 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Letter Concerning the Dismissal of Khaled

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract consisting of two sentences from within a paragraph of a book by Washington Irving.

According to the header information, this is an extract from Washington Irving's Mahomet and His Successors. It therefore fails Wikisource:Extracts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems more like a complete work quoted within another work, so I don't think Wikisource:Extracts applies. However, with no scan and no license provided, I'm willing to !vote  Delete regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as a quoted work. The translation is clearly PD-old, as Irving’s author pages gives an 1850 publication and death in 1859. A copy is available here, on p. 394. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Under what principle have we ever kept works because they are quotes? In the location you've identified, this appears within quotes as part of a larger paragraph. There is no indication that the complete letter was quoted. So this is at least an extract from a paragraph in a work by Washington Irving, and perhaps a partial quotation of a larger work, though that cannot be determined from the evidence we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Not as “quoted works,” but as whole works printed in other works, they have been kept. I think that this work is such a work, despite the way it is placed within the quote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

    Do we have any evidence that this is the complete text of the letter? With no salutation, and no conclusion, it would be a very unusual letter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Irving of course lacks any sourcing in his history, there is no way to assess the credibility of this letter from a thousand years before. It would be much more reasonable if this was was a direct quote rather than how many games of telephone to the presumably Arabic historical source so there is no way for the reader to assess the reliability of the quote as being actually by Umar or embellished by Irving. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    Btw a more modern translation is here with the sourcing to the Arab historians: https://www.wokingmuslim.org/work/islamic-review/1956/may56.pdf. I have no idea how we want to interpret the no second-hand / no extracts form WWSI with regard to works that exist only as quotes in works by other authors with the original lost (do we have a consensus view for the same issue with regard to ancient authors?). My initial view is that we should allow linking to such extracts provided that the original does not exist (hence we consider it no longer an "extract" from a work but "complete" for our purposes) and it is clearly marked as a quote and distinctly separated (so there is a clear link target), rather than saying it is only permitted if we can find someone who has stripped it out of its surrounding context. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    In general I would consider the current sourcing deficient, it should at least have an edition and the page number for someone to be able to find the context. Other approaches (LST, redirect to anchor) would also suffice. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

    I agree that linking to such works should be allowed, but these works (if possible) should not be extracted from the works within which they were quoted, they should be added here together with them. Mahomet and His Successors by Irving is in the public domain, so there is not reason why the discussed lines should be extracted from that. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete We should always be faithful to the original publication. It is always desirable if a work published only within some other work is not taken out of this publication context. Very exceptionally I can imagine circumstances under which we can be (temporarily) more tolerant, e.g. when the work within which the other work appeared is still not in public domain, while the quoted work has already slipped into the public domain, but this is not our case. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ophelia’s Song

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract. Could not redirect because no suitable target exists.

Extract from Hamlet, with no identification of which edition it comes from. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a version set to music in the Appendix of Shakespeare and Music btw. It wouldn't surprise me if this is somewhere in some anthology under this name but none currently AFAICT. Shakespeare's Songs does not appear to have it. And it appears to be an extract from Walsingham anyways. In summary, I don't think we have any good targets at the moment... MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd make it a Versions page, linking to Hamlet and Shakespeare and Music - but I'm also fine with deleting it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Pibroch of Donald Dhu (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; two scan-backed copies already present.

Unsourced edition; we have two others that are scan-backed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, although it should be mentioned that none of the scan-backed versions contains the first stanza of this version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Various unsourced duplicate works

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for having no source, and scan-backed copies exist. Those that could be redirected were.

Some poems by Author:Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon

The following poems are unsourced, and we have scan-backed editions of them in Poems translated from the French of Madame de la Mothe Guion.

• The Swallow (Guyon)
• Living Water (Guyon)
• Truth and Divine Love Rejected By The World
• Love Increased by Suffering

Pages are to be replaced with redirects once deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done Unsourced poems deleted; recreated as redirects to the scan-backed copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hop-Frog (unsourced)

Unsourced copy of a work of which we have a sourced edition at Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination/Hop-Frog —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Spirits of the Dead (no source)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems/Spirits of the Dead —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Deleted; no source. Other editions are scan-backed. -EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead, Kindly Light (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Poems That Every Child Should Know/Lead, Kindly Light —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Deleted; no source. Other editions are scan-backed. -EncycloPetey (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hail Holy Queen (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a prayer, of which we have a sourced edition at The Little Book of the Most Holy Child Jesus/Salve Regina —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment there is a difference in that the unsourced edition uses "you" where the sourced editions use "thee", but I don't think this is significant enough to warrant keeping. We actually have several sourced editions of this work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Wikidata item put up for deletion as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maud (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced edition at Maud, and other poems/Maud —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to Pi (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Notes by an Oxford Chiel/The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Apparently I nominated this for deletion previously, but withdrew it because of some minor differences which I no longer consider significant enough to be worth keeping (e.g. punctuation, some minor word changes) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk)

The Spleen (Finch, unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Poems of Anne Countess of Winchilsea 1903/The Spleen —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This Lime-Tree Bower my Prison (unsourced)

Second-hand edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Sibylline Leaves (Coleridge)/This Lime Tree Bower My Prison —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lines on the Mermaid Tavern (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a poem, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Keats; poems published in 1820/Lines on the Mermaid Tavern —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

King Pest (unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a short story, of which we have a sourced and scan-backed edition at Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination/King Pest —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

St. John's Eve (Gogol, unsourced)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Stories by Foreign Authors (Russian)/St. John's Eve —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Done Versions page converted to redirect, since only one copy remains. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Imitation (no source)

Unsourced edition of a work, of which we have a sourced edition at Tamerlane and other poems/Imitation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Tamerlane and other poems copy is strange—all of the other poems in that collection are scan-backed (from a later edition), but not this one. (Tamerlane and other poems simply redirects to Tamerlane and other poems (1884), despite a {{similar}} on the latter page.) I think the poems at Tamerlane and other poems (1884) should all be split so that they are all on one page (and not combined into a few large pages). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gulistan

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Still needs transcription and clean-up via transclusion, but the actual source has been located and a scan-backing effort has been started. The work has been nominated for the MC to expedite cleanup.

An incomplete secondhand transcription, consisting of an Introduction and Chapter 1 only. With no source, this work cannot be completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete It doesn't match the Arnold translation here Google Books . There are many translations and it would be better to pick a known one and start anew. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• It is actually complete; all of the chapters are on the main, it is just that only the introductory and the first chapter have been moved to sub-pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then it is a minimally-formatted copydump. Proper cleanup, and the location if a scan could save it. However, as pointed out above, it does not match a copy of the translation it claims to be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  So, it looks to be the 1928 translation attributed to Richard Francis Burton IA MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Scan set up to use (transcription project) --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Rest

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; replaced with versions page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No source given for this very short work(?). The corresponding Wikipedia article has multiple texts for the English version; ours is the only one not having a reference, and with multiple variations of it given there. With multiple variations in existence, and our copy without a source, I don't see that we should keep it. If someone can find a reference, even if fully quoted, we might save this item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• The variation can definitely be found, see here, p. 211, ¶ 3, and it certainly is well-known enough to have a separate page, although I’m not sure that any rite book would list it as a separate item (as the rites are all sequential). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  One word different, but close enough to cite. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

   Delete Besides it is slightly different, in the cited version it is not a separate work, but just an extract. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  The one word that was different has been removed to match the discovered source, so it is no longer different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but it is not listed there as a separate prayer, it is just an extract of a longer rite. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  We have that in full at The Catholic's pocket prayer-book/For the Souls in Purgatory. I checked a couple of version of the Bible, and the their versions of that Psalm don't have that last line. -- Beardo (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also Page:Raccoltaorcolle00raccgoog.djvu/352 (and the other various incomplete editions of the Raccolta we have). The Requiem aeternam is an antiphon recited after the Psalm, so you won't find it in the Bible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, here is one where it is by itself: The young man's guide/XI. INDULGENCED EJACULATIONS AND PRAYERS#751 (also that work needs some serious page renaming) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Anyway, we have enough to make it a versions page at least. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that is a possibility too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To Leigh Hunt, Esq.

The following discussion is closed:

Changed into a redirect

Unsourced duplicate of The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats/To Leigh Hunt, Esq.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed into a redirect. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Several unsourced poems by John Greenleaf Whittier

The following discussion is closed:

Whittier poems moved into containing work; the other has been deleted since two scan-backed copies exist.

Unsourced editions of poems by Whittier, of which we have sourced editions in The Riverside song book.

• A Southern Refrain (unsourced)
• The Light That Is Felt (unsourced)
• The Poor Voter on Election Day (unsourced)

The sourced edition also includes sheet music, which the unsourced editions do not, but there are no significant differences in the text itself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment A Southern Refrain (unsourced) claims to be from The Deserted Bridge and Other Poems, but is not scan backed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment A Southern Refrain does not list Whittier as the Author. For the other two, they are part of a large number of Whittier poems that we have, in single copies, and without any source because they were added early. With no other copy to replace them, I'm leaning towards  Keep until we can proofread Whittier's poetry from scans. But maybe collect a list of these somewhere, to keep track of them. Popular American authors seem to eventually attract a dedicated volunteer, once a deficiency with scans is discovered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have set up Index:Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier (1895).djvu for sourcing all of Whittier's poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Both poems by Whittier now scan-backed and moved into part of containing work. A Southern Refrain is not a poem by Whittier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Our Poets of Today

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Scan backing has begun.

One chapter. No source; no front matter. Mostly without formatting, and partially annotated with links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Simple enough to replace with the scan here: [9] MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is now an Index:Our Poets of Today (1918).djvu and the table of contents along with some front matter are transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Some unsourced editions of stories from Grimm's Household Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant and unsourced.

Unsourced editions of Grimm's fairy tailes, of which we have sourced and scan-backed editions in Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1:

• The Little Peasant (unsourced)
• The Wedding of Mrs Fox (unsourced)
• The Godfather (unsourced)
• Frau Trude (unsourced)
• How Six Men Got On in the World (unsourced)
• The Wolf and the Fox (Grimm)

Also Frederick and Catherine (unsourced) which is a duplicate of Grimm's Goblins (1876)/Frederick and Catherine —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination -Pete (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Introductions by Kirsopp Lake without the works they are introductions to

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant extracts.

These introductions are excerpts from translations by Lake; the rest of the work is not here.

• 1 Clement (Lake introduction)
• 2 Clement (Lake introduction)
• Shepherd of Hermas (Lake introduction)

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the original containing work is the Loeb edition of The Apostolic Fathers. 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per WS:WWI#Excerpts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Per fairly standard practice, these should be moved to sub-pages of The Apostolic Fathers and scan-backed (a copy shouldn’t be hard to find). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Per standard practice, someone would have to upload The Apostolic Fathers and proofread those sections from scratch, after which these same pages would still be deleted—just with a different rationale (i.e. being redundant to a scan-backed work) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The work is in Latin, with some maps titled in English, some English end notes mixed with Latin text, and a six page introduction that is mostly ramblings by the author. The majority of work done on Wikisource involved blank pages, problematic pages, and unproofread pages of Latin text, which would not be hosted here anyway. The work belongs at la.WS or mul.WS

"Commentaries on the Gallic War (in Latin)" - as stated, the book is mainly in Latin. The partially transcribed document has been deleted as beyond scope. The Index and the pages that have been created should also go. -- Beardo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete Belongs at la.WS or better at mul.WS, but not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The English-language introduction is certainly in scope, and the rest of the index can be filled with {{iwpage|la}}. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are six pages of English text, plus the title page. The remaining 400 pages are either entirely in Latin, or are notes that mix English and Latin together in the same sentences. And no, the Index cannot be filled in with {{iwpage}} because that would first require the other 400 pages to be fully proofread on some other wiki, and no other WS has worked on this text at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep as per TE(æ)A,ea. It is true the six-page "Introduction" is in English and the main eight-book body (scan pages 19–254) is in Latin, however that is far from 400 pages as the 137-page "Notes" (scan pages 255–392) and the four-page "Index" (scan pages 393–397) appear to also be in English. There is also a sixteen-page set of Claredon Press advertisements (scan pages 399–414) that appear to be in English. So out of 418 scan pages only about 235 of them (substantially less than half) are actually fully in Latin. —Uzume (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• You posted your comment as the discussion was being closed, after the work was deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Augustus. The life and times of the founder of the Roman Empire (B.C. 63-A.D. 14)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Main page moved to better title, and scan Index page set up. While the work is in scope, the copy-paste contents were incomplete, with sidenotes and other components stripped, and the subpages named at odds with convention. As a result, this work will benefit more from a fresh start than from trying to salvage the work previously done.

Incomplete and abandoned. Quite surprisingly, the text survived a deletion discussion in the beginning of 2022, when it was pointed out that non-scanbacked is not a reason for deletion. However, two years later it is still as incomplete and abandoned as before and so I am renominating it to be deleted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (for much the same reason as the previous discussion). A scan can be obtained, so there’s no reason to delete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did not write that the reason is the missing scan. I wrote that the reason is that the text is incomplete and abandoned. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep We have a backlog of these to work through which means that there will be multiple of these that sit around until someone, eventually, proofs them. Note that the current rate is quite slow (the backlog went from 535 --> 515 in that time). We have other major backlogs to burn down as well, especially IMO more problematic works, I personally would prefer to focus on works that fail criteria such as problematic sourcing / licensing / minimum proofing and formatting first, rather than reopening the incomplete backlog around effort and especially getting into which are "important" to keep and which aren't, where these discussions tend to end up.MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that this text is unsourced as well, so it also falls under the criteria suggested above to focus on (i.e. problematic sourcing). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Is something wrong with the scan linked from the page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The scan is fine, but it is not the source of the added text. The link goes to a scan in archive.org, where it was uploaded in 2020, while our text is from 2007. The source from which the anon user took the text remains unknown. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a scan uploaded in 2007. Will that work for you? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I added that link because the previous link was to a DLI version on archive that was deleted. If you prefer we can revert back to keep the link to the original deleted version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The previous link to the scan that was deleted from IA was also added later than the text so we cannot be sure if it was the real source and if it really corresponded. BTW, we have already seen here a few scans from the Digital Library of India uploaded to IA which were copyrighted editions falsified to seem older, and I would not wonder if something similar were the reason of deletion of this file from IA too. So returning the previous link would not solve anything, and neither would simple adding of any other link. The work can be considered sourced by a scan only when our text was actually extracted from that scan, or at least thoroughly checked against it. So now I checked at least the first chapter, and what striked me was the difference between the illustration of some Roman coins in the linked scan, and the illustration at the end of our chapter, which shows a clearly different specimen of the first coin (and none of the others). The same can be noticed about the really different image of young Octavius, clearly taken from some different book. So this chapter seems to be a compilation of a different source for the text and different source(s) for the images.

Look also at the chapter Later Life and Family Troubles, containing just one paragraph of the whole long text (and no illustrations). Our text is just a torso of the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Works that are incomplete and unsourced at the same time are worse for our incoming traffic than just having no page there at all. (And I'd like for it to be located at Augustus (Shuckburgh), but we urgently need that period out of the title in any case because it's not grammatically correct.) SnowyCinema (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Setting up Index:Augustus (Shuckburgh) Augustuslifetime0000shuc.pdf. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:numbered div

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. With no replacement available, deletion would be premature.

This template is an overly complex mess. It should be deprecated and replaced with something that actually works properly with modern web standards. In the previous discussion it was also criticised for being poor in respect of acessibility approaches. I spent a good 2 hours trying to come up with a list that formatted like this template does, and could generate an appropriate replacement however. I'm fed up with playing "hunt the quirk" around this template, and thus template needs to go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep. Too premature. Just a short time ago I pointed out a problem how the new templates work with margins, which ShakespeareFan00 has not solved yet, and so this proposal surprised me very much. Here is the illustration of the margin problem. The old template should stay not only until this particular problem is solved, but until we are sure that its replacement will not have any negative effects on any of the pages where it is used. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Supposing that {{*/i}} is the one that should be used as an alternative, I have raised some more questions at Template talk:*/i. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep That the template is complicated, needs to be replaced and deprecated, may all be true, but they are not reasons for deletion. There must first be a working replacement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete If we go forward by asking to reproduce complicated behavior and much stricter standards than it is very hard to make progress. The claim is that the current one doesn't work and is not fit for purpose, I don't think we should have "not have any negative effects" as the standard. Templates that do 80% and work are better than templates do not work, absent a specific argument that the functionality is critical. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The question is not whether we should have one or the other. Btw it is not true that numbered div template does not work: when I needed it, it worked well. Of course we should have the one that does 80% of the work satisfactorily, nobody wants to dismiss it. But for those who are not satisfied with it we can have the other template as well. Otherwise they will try various obscure workarounds to reproduce what they want anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My wording was "works properly with modern web standards." The template itself functions of course. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I too think a deletion proposal is premature until such time as the replacement has been developed and deployed although I agree with the nom that the (dis)organization of the various templates and their usage is overly complex and that a modern replacement should be developed (I never liked the /s/e style templates and would prefer something with parameters for such functionality; I do not have a problem with its <div>...</div> based approach but perhaps it can all be wrapped in a single Lua-based Scribuntu module or the like). I am less concerned with a syntactically compatible replacement than with a viable replacement (I am fine with a complicated port to a better future solution). I first recommend deprecating with a comment on how to move to another solution before bringing it back here for deletion. —Uzume (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Por una Cabeza

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Hybrid page combining sources; unclear whether the translation was published or original, and whether it has been released under a compatible license.

Looks like a Wikisource user's translation which is not in accordance with WS:Translations (not based on a scanbacked original) and with WS:WWI (compilation of two English versions and even a non-English version). Moving it to the translation namespace is also being prevented by the fact we do not know under which licence the translator released the translation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The creator is still active on Wikidata, so it should be possible to find out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So I am pinging @Adam Cuerden: to ask if they are willing to bring the work up to our standards, that means especially scanbacking the original at the Spanish Wikisource and tagging the translation with a proper licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? The uploader was Durova. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

True, Adam was just editing the page a lot. So pinging @Durova:, too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Durova hasn't edited since 2017, so I think we can safely assume that avenue is closed. Xover (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. This is an unsortable mess. Xover (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Irish duelling code

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an extract with no separate source. Recreated as a redirect.

Irish duelling code is part of a backlog of files without a copyright status tag, and also with no asserted source. It appears to be drawn from some derivative of The Code of Honor#35. Since the source and copyright status are not clearly asserted, I think it would be best to simply redirect it. I don't see any significant differences, and if there are differences, it would be a bit of a research project at this point to figure out what they are and why they matter.

There are obvious differences, I got mixed up there. Still, not knowing the source, I'm not sure what the value would be of preserving the derivative work, rather than just starting fresh on this relatively short and simple work if/when the source is found, if it is found to have value beyond the original, and if its copyright status permits its inclusion here. Updated 08:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a better venue for this suggestion, please let me know or simply move my comment if so. -Pete (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete and recreate as a redirect as per nom (the delete first is necessary to break the Wikidata coupling). The source is claimed to be a 1965 book which makes the copyright iffy, and means we can't actually scan-back this. The Irish code duello itself is from 1777 so there should be plenty of unambiguously public domain sources from which we can take it, if we want more copies than the one already in The Code of Honor#35. --Xover (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Poems on Several Occasions, by John Gay (1767 ed.).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. Uploader noted that the scan had missing pages and poor scan quality.

I added this in the hope of transcribing a few poems I liked, but on review the source file is so poor, with missing pages and incomplete scans, that it would not be useful to work from. I'll look for another edition-- apologies for wasting peoples' time. FPTI (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Interwiki-info

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unneeded after all calls to the template had been removed.

This template is used in 700+ pages, but it seems it has stopped doing what it was originally supposed to do. I asked about it at WS:Scriptorium#Template:Interwiki-info without any reaction, so I guess nobody is going to miss it. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete About 10% of those uses seem to be in Bible (King James), where it is misapplied anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Jan.Kamenicek: I think you can proceed with deletion, assuming you have a bot capable of removing all calls to the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I don't. Requested at Wikisource:Bot requests#Remove all calls of Template:Interwiki-info. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation:The Kingdom of God Is Within You

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant, since it was a slightly reworded copy of C. Garnett's translation, and not a new translation.

First, it is not a Wikisource translation, but slightly reworded translation by Constance Garnett, which we already have in its original form. This can be verified by simple comparison of both texts, and can be also understood from the note in the header. While we accept Wikisource user's original translations, especially when lacking any other available, I do not think it is the task of Wikisource to try to "improve" translations by other authors (not speaking about the fact that the "improvements" can be dubious).

Secondly, the translation was not done in accordance with WS:Translations, as there is no transcription of the work present in Russian WS. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to our scan-backed copies.

Unsourced edition of a hymn, which we have a sourced version at Collection of Sacred Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting also that although this page links to Hymnary.org as its source, it is not the same edition as the one on Hymnary.org —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Patimokkha

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as clear violation of copyright policy (free release is exclusively noncommercial) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2005 an IP on the talk page identified this translation as being written by a monk who was born in 1949, and questioned whether this has ever been dedicated to the public domain. No response in about 18 years. I believe simply deleting it would be the wisest choice, unless somebody has or can find information that refutes that claim. -Pete (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For free distribution only.
You may print copies of this work for your personal use.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks,
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

From here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, that's a clear violation of our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus.

Just a copypaste from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 . As it has been discussed a few times recently, WS is neither a mirror site of other webs nor their archival site, such as web.archive. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the type of "born digital" work under discussion. But aren't like, say. all supreme court decisions posted in PDF in the same boat at that point to? If we aren't the Kremlin's archive why should we be the POTUS or SCOTUS or Congress's or Her Majesty's Government? Is it only because there isn't a download as PDF link? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of those examples are published in dead tree format, of which the PDFs are a scan (well, often produced from the same master rather than a literal scan). They are also published, by a distinguishable publisher, as a fairly standard book. These we have both tools, policies, and established practices to deal with, and our value proposition is clear. The text in question in this thread is a web page, hosted on a web site. It is dynamic in nature, and its layout changes as the website changes its stylesheet. We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout (in fact we lack several elements from the published version, because the contributor chose to ignore them as irrelevant and instead extracted what they decided was most important). There is no stable (fixed) source against which we can verify our text using our tooling (Proofread Page), except by seriously questionable approaches like producing a faux "scan" by printing the web page to PDF. The only way we can have a stable reference is by archiving the real source on Internet Archive (whose fidelity is often poor specifically due to the dynamic nature of web pages). At which point, what real value do we provide over simply linking the snapshot at Internet Archive?

And there is a giant slippery slope problem here too: if we permit web pages—for which it is impossible to, say, require scans etc.—how do we regulate someone wanting to cut&paste every single press blurb or whatever on kremlin.ru? Or for a million other such web sites? For example the multiple asian countries where it has become de rigeur for officials to use SEO and sites like ours for boosting their visibility (i.e. pure self-promotion). How about when some controversial figure (none mentioned to avoid stepping into a political quagmire, but there are plenty to choose from in any political, social, or cultural persuasion) figures out that all they need to do is slap a CC tag on their twitter feed and their followers can bot add their every tweet here? Or a blogger... Or a youtuber... or podcaster... or...

We have already had extremist writers that have gotten their thinly-veiled propaganda published in a hyper-local newspaper and then tried to shoehorn that into getting their stuff hosted here. Poets that have found a way to get their stuff uploaded on poetry.com (and other open sites) and then tried to leverage that to get their poems hosted here. We've had any number of authors trying to leverage self-publishing (i.e. lulu.com) to get free web hosting forever here. We've partly managed to stave off these through our existing policies (previous publication by a reputable publisher, copyright, etc.). But those policies all assume we can rely on traditional book or newspaper or magazine publishers to be our gatekeepers, and on the cost of paper printing and distribution to weed out the chaff. Even with those barriers we still get stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that manage to slip past (and we therefore do host multiple copies of this text). But for classes of texts (or videos, or...), like web pages, where there is no traditional publisher (anyone can be a publisher), and were creation and distribution is effectively free, and in a world where notoriety is easily leveraged into notability, none of these mechanisms work anymore.

We can try to say stuff like "This web page is hosted by a government", but governments are notoriously bad about creating and maintaining web sites, and the previously mentioned mechanisms mean propagandist or merely populist governments will be functionally equivalent to our hypothetical CC-licensed trolling influencer.

This is not an argument pro or con the specific text under discussion in this thread—so apologies for the tangent—but rather more in the nature of explaining why treating the United States Reports as equivalent to a web page on kremlin.ru is deeply problematic without figuring out all these issues in some way first. Xover (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Pretty soon the only reason bound printed volumes of any of these works like the Federal Register or the United States Reports or scientific journals will exist is that someone can have a copy somewhere on a shelf in an archive. But that is already tenuous, no one is ordering volumes from bookstore.gpo.gov and scanning them for upload here. The significance of the print versions is dwindling, I am not even sure the January 6th committee final report had a version you could order from the GPO (for example Harvard lists only the Harper and Celadon), as opposed to the GPO version of the 9/11 Commission report having a large print run. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out that the Russian version of this essay is available in a print version from the Russian State archives: https://statearchive.ru/1668. MarkLSteadman, as well as a more minimally formatted version under the "transcripts" portion as opposed to the "news" portion of the website. [[10]]] (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout"? We can exactly reproduce an HTML document. Style sheets are basically defined as the stuff that doesn't matter. This is wildly opposed to scanned works, where there is no separation of content and form, and at their most frustrating make cunning use of lines and pages; let's see us do a work that has prose indexed by line numbers on one page, and a translation or running notes on the facing page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - this essay has an entire Wikipedia article several sections long that was written about it, so clearly it has a good amount of historical notability. And I'd consider this kind of notability an exception to most of my principles regarding whether or not a work should be kept.

Beyond that, I think that in general the works of such a prolific political figure like the current Russian president are significant enough to world history to warrant their inclusion. And since there seems to be no reasonable option for a scan, I think this can exist here as a born-digital work. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep For the same reasons noted above. This falls squarely under the "documentary sources" clause of WS:WWI, again for reasons evidenced by the comments above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at the explanation under WS:WWI#Documentary sources, it is quite clear that it was meant for transcription of "real" (non-internet) documents, it does not mention copypasting from other webs (which has no value). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Regardless of interpretations of the policies mentioned there, what we have here is a document that is clearly widely referenced in the context of modern global politics. It is (as I understand it from skimming) a summation of Putin's views on Ukrainians and the situation in Ukraine, something that is perhaps key to those trying to understand motivations behind his political actions on this front. The essay also doesn't read like a blog post or a Twitter post or something that was intended to be exclusive to a webpage; it reads like a formal essay written by an aristocrat that probably appeared in writing before being released. (Of course this is no defense for his views on my part, as I am very much against Russia's authoritarian and intrusive war efforts—this just an analysis of the wording and language of the essay.)

And as I consider the purpose of the "no webpages" rule to weed out insignificant user-generated clutter like random blog posts, this certainly does not fall under that paradigm, as evidenced by the existence of the Wikipedia article.

Also consider that that very Wikipedia article had 8,771 page views this month, and our Wikisource entry for it has over 1K views this month. So, you might infer that about 1 in every 10 people (or so) who read the Wikipedia article visited Wikisource afterwards. That is quite an incredible and rare feat for a Wikisource page to have in general since the average page here gets, what, 1 page view a month? Not even kidding about that btw, it's incredibly sad. So deleting this transcription would really, honestly, be extremely detrimental to the Wikisource project, since these kinds of popular materials are exactly the kinds of things we need to get traffic flowing in. And that traffic is really something we lack as a community. So are we going to risk that, just because of an eye-dotting (and even debatable) interpretation of a policy? If policy agrees with you (which I'm not necessarily willing to concede), then the policy itself is harmful and should be overruled. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I see nothing in that section to support your assertion. And many of our governmental publications are pulled from digital sources now because that's how world governments are publishing them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also just mention that "no value" is subjective once we get to modern texts with built in high quality text layers. For example the ability to link to multiple works from a single author page or the ability for, say, a book by a Ukrainian to link to this, to the ability to link to any documents mentioned. For example if we have a translation of the full mentioned work mentioned in this portion: "The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, “Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“, "In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin...", "In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth..." But any such wiki link requires having the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

By subjective, I mean that YMMV, nothing more than that our policies permit such linking which some may find valuable and if you find them a distraction and net negative or de minimus that's a perfectly reasonable stance too

(or as mentioned having WP link to this version versus an archive.org copy of the Kremlin version). MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: This would not be a net negative in any sense of the word. In fact the hard statistical evidence that I provided earlier says the exact opposite—the topic is notable enough to have a lengthy and widely-visited Wikipedia article, and a quite massive fraction of the views from that article are going to us, which we would lose if we deleted this. It's rare enough that we get 1K views a month on anything, let alone for that 1K to be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's total.

Also, as mentioned, the essay has been widely quoted and used in many, many other sources which are themselves notable and on the forefront of public discourse in their own right (like the primary news outlets of entire countries), so this is certainly no random-Tumblr-post-esque situation. Which again I must reiterate, is the purpose of the "no web pages" rule... We just want to make sure people don't come and dump their Twitter feeds here, and that's literally all I'm concerned about with it.

This clearly adds value, in fact objectively, demonstrably so. SnowyCinema (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

We are not in disagreement. My point is that even if, say. Jan personally would never look on WS as opposed to going to Google, or reading this directly on a government website or what not, or finds no / minimal value in any of those other activities I mentioned, others clearly do find it valuable. The hosting such a work provides no value position isn't a unique opinion, from the start of the discussion on born-digital texts recently: "the crux of the issue for me: for born-digital texts, Wikisource and our tools and practices add no or very little value, and almost always require some level of compromise to our standards or approaches." MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which discussion, unfortunately, petered out without really bringing us anywhere. We have got to figure out how to deal with all the different classes of born-digital works because the number of them that are in some way relevant to us is growing extremely rapidly and we can't keep dealing with them case by case, and with everyone participating coming at it from different philosophical directions. This is unsustainable in terms of content curation, and it's a recipe for creating bitterly divisive schisms in the community. I have no idea what, specifically, to do about it or how to move the issue forward, but I think it's important we try to evolve some kind of functioning policy for this. Xover (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree completely, without some statement somewhere to point to it will be subjective (i.e. every contributor's own view on the matter) causing these issues (e.g a strong view of what the various current related existing policy statements mean). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Neutral: If we really had a hard (and enforced) "no webpages" rule I would be inclined to support SnowFire's reasoning for this text as in favour of an exception to the general rule. But since we don't actually have a functioning framework for this I am extremely sceptical of allowing anything that isn't squarely from the dead-trees era, and especially for anything first and only published as a web page. I'd have no hesitation if some more or less reputable publisher collected this and other of the author's essays and published it as a physical book. But for the current situation I don't want to support permitting / keeping anything that will make the problem worse in the long run. Which, being a pretty annoying reason for a delete vote, leads me to drop a useless but hopefully at least less frustrating neutral !vote instead. --Xover (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: These are fair contentions (even though you got me mixed up with SnowFire, hahaha!)—but I do want to note that the crux of my argument is not necessarily related to the fact that this is a born-digital text. It's more that, given the page view statistics and the notability of the topic, I would have been inclined to keep this no matter which dubious or contentious umbrella it may fall under. So, for this particular work (and any other like it), I think it would be a net negative to the project to delete it, since we would lose considerable traffic. I do agree that we need to come to some kind of conclusion with born-digital texts, but I don't claim to have the absolute answer to that.

In that debate, I will stand by that I think (generally) that documents (essays, edicts, and the like) linked directly to federal government agencies or officials should probably fall under the umbrella of what's accepted, no matter the form. Government documents have a clear usefulness, and are very likely to be notable in some right. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad traffic: While I agree that once we decide that some text is worthy to be hosted here for various reasons, we should host it no matter whether it originally served as somebody's successful propaganda, I am opposed to the reverse argumentation, i.e. using the fact that some propaganda attracts a lot of people as an argument for hosting the propaganda, and thus intentionally becoming one of its useful helpers. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think traffic is a useful metric, except as a very secondary data point. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some of the worst dross out there gets lots and lots of clicks by—for that very purpose—being deliberately controversial. Treating clicks as a primary metric means privileging click-bait.

A government agency can be a very good "reputable publishers" (for the purposes of a "previously published by a reputable publisher" assessment), but even otherwise reputable agencies push out a concerning proportion of dross once we're in "web" land, and not all governments (and hence their agencies) are particularly "reputable". We have examples of government agencies being turned into promotional vehicles for senior officials, and there are sadly many current examples of government agencies acting as pure propaganda and disinformation agents. Xover (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned above, the Russian version (with a bunch of documents) was published in a print run by the Russian State Archives: https://statearchive.ru/1668. There is a fixed form of the Russian version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Given Xover’s concerns, with which I generally agree, I think that the lack of a policy in regard to Web-sites means that this should be included provisionally, with a later review (under new policy terms) at some later point. For example, I think a future review of all content originating on Web-sites would not be so onerous as our current review of works without license templates. I also agree with SnowyCinema’s arguments in favor of this work being an exception; certainly, we should do all we can to include the text of an essay so notable as to have a Wikipedia article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep We live in a digital age, where publishing that would be done in print is done electronically. We need to roll with it. It also seem weird to pick on this one; we have Joe Biden's Third State of the Union Address sourced digitally, for example. What's the difference here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I understand it, since it exists in the CR version [11] which in principle I can buy in a print version [12] it is now "fixed" and no longer a web page. Separately, for speeches, such as this Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the US Congress sourced to [13] could be considered "fixed" and immutable as delivered, someone could compare against the recorded version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out that it is included in the ICC docket tracker https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/tt382m/ in a persistent form as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Aladdin;Or The Wonderful Lamp (Sir Richard Burton)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source; apparent extract.

What brought this to my attention was exactly how bad the title is, and I was just going to move it, but then I saw the horrendous formatting as well. We have several scan-backed versions of Aladdin, so we certainly don't need this unsourced version cluttering up the search results for "Aladdin". SnowyCinema (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I suspect this tale from from his The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, in sixteen volumes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is also an extract from the 3rd supplemental / 13 volume [14]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Though that uses the spelling Alaeddin, and has different paragraph breaks etc.. -- Beardo (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is the problem with unsourced texts. Is this e.g. [15] or some other reediting? We have no clue which edition of The Arabian Nights this is from (is that supposed to the name as opposed to Selections from ...?). If it is some reediting, does that make it misleading to call it "Richard Burton"?  Delete and start afresh. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly -  Delete as per Mark. -- Beardo (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per Mark. --Xover (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Module:Wikidata and Module:Wikibase

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

Old, deprecated, and very obsolete Wikidata access modules, now finally completely replaced by Module:WikidataIB. Xover (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, although there is also Module:Wd as a replacement too (since Module:WikidataIB is more focused on InfoBoxes). —Uzume (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmed Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete work with copyright incompatible for hosting on Wikisource.

Long-abandoned incomplete work. Also, it is tagged as {{Legislation-CAGov}}, but it is not a legal enactment or court decision so this license does not apply, so it is probably copyvio as well. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete The source document claims Crown Copyright so not acceptable for hosting until 2058. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Pabi to Akhnaton

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract, but also altered from the publication.

This translation is an extract from Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (1912). We have some recent precedent for deleting extracted translations of quoted works. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom, there is no reason for extracting the text out of the context in which it was published. The book is in the public domain in the US, so it can be added here as a whole. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Index is already uploaded Index:Robert William Rogers - Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament - 1912.djvu, that is one on my long backlog. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  And I note that the text here has been altered from that book Page 307 - thou -> you etc., different formatting and omitting the footnotes.  Delete as a mix of the original and user alterations. -- Beardo (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Tide Haes Its Mantle Awa'-pit

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, no translator information, and no license.

This appears to be a translation of Le temps a laissié son manteau into Scots. It has no source and no translator information. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --FPTI (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Śivapurāna

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Fragment of translation without source; also copyvio, since the author died in 1985.

Abandoned partial translation without a source. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The source is "[16]" copyright Delhi 1970 [17] so URAA restored since Shastri died in 1985 [18].  Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Revolutionary Catechism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Translation with no source nor translator, and therefore likely copyvio.

Incomplete text copied from an incomplete digital version with no source (see its Talk page). Both our copy and the "original" are missing the start of the document, as evidence by the start of the list at item number II. Both copies are also a translation with no credited translator, and therefore of uncertain copyright status. The scan from IA that was linked from our page as a possible "source" is also missing item number I., and that scan also has no information about where it came from, no information about the publisher, and no credited translator. It looks like a recent digital creation using a word processor, and not a scan of an 1866 publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Looked at the sourcing and agree with the suspected CV.  Delete The standard source is Sam Dolgoff, copyright 1971. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical lists of works

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Incomplete and not maintained or updated for years.

There are three hopelessly incomplete pages with alphabetical lists of works:

• Wikisource:Works-A
• Wikisource:Works-B
• Wikisource:Works-C

Although the three pages were created as early as 1915 2013, there are still just these three, other letters do not have such lists. They are not categorized. They are not linked from anywhere except from each other and from some discussion pages. People do not add there new works, they are just a maintenance burden (continuous link-fixing, removing deleted works etc.). They were suggested to be deleted in 1917 2017 but after practically nobody participated in the discussion, they were kept with a note that they should be bot-maintained in future, which has still not happened (in seven years from that time).

Because in their current form they are only a useless burden, I suggest their deleting. If somebody decides to make a bot-maintained version in the future, they can be founded anew anytime. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Looks like they were created in 2013, not 1915 :D -Pete (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - extremely difficult to maintain even if we did respect the listing project a bit more. If we have a listing like this, it should be provided by the backend and not any kind of frontend technology like a bot. Maybe there are Special pages that do something similar?

A similar issue: It also makes me wonder about the whole author initial situation at pages like Wikisource:Authors-B etc. While these do appear to be maintained better than what's currently under discussion, the author initial pages still suffer from the same problem—an impossible-to-maintain project for little actual benefit, especially since it wastes the time of editors trying to maintain it. There are probably millions of theoretical authors that would fit our requirements and could be put there, so then we have to start considering subpages of these, then subpages of subpages, and whatnot. So far, entries seem to have only been added by individual editors, which I see as a huge red flag for something as vast as this. It should at least be bot-maintained, but I maintain (if you will) that even if that were happening it would still be a fundamentally unsustainable situation, since any user owning a bot could leave suddenly and decide no longer to maintain it.

(I do understand that sorting authors by surname has its difficulties that we haven't necessarily figured out yet, and that our author headers have been relying on the initials system for over a decade, but it's a practice we should probably figure out how to change in the long term.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment FWIW, the only things the last_initial parameter does are link to the author initial indexes and categorize within Category:Authors by alphabetical order; it would be straightforward to alter that behavior in Module:Author if desired. (This is getting pretty far afield from the original topic, but are the initial categories, Category:Authors-Aa and so forth, actually easier to work with than just having one category sorted by surname and an index template with pagefrom links?) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A Passionate Pilgrim (Project Gutenberg edition)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Secondhand transcription, redundant to copy hosted on Wikisource.

Second-hand transcription for which we have a scan-backed version at A Passionate Pilgrim and Other Tales (Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1875)/A Passionate Pilgrim (horrible page name aside). We also have multiple transcription projects set up on the (also somewhat excessively detailed) versions page, so we're not hurting for options here. Xover (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom SnowyCinema (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. As mentioned there are some fidelity concerns as well, better to start with one of the known editions if someone wants an alternative text version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Japan, its history, arts, and literature (1901 V3).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Different edition from the one we have, so not redundant.

One volume of eight-volume set, already proofread here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep These are two different editions of the same work, as evidenced by Page:Japan, its history, arts, and literature (1901 V3).pdf/15 and Page:Brinkley - Japan - Volume 3.djvu/19. Any attempt to reconcile one as a facsimile of the other should be done with page-namespace redirects (process pending). SnowyCinema (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• SnowyCinema: There’s only one volume from an eight-volume set, there’s no connection to other volumes from this edition, and the edition we have is the better edition, there’s no need to keep this volume on its own. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: In practical terms, you might be right, especially granting your assumption that the other volumes in this "edition" were never published and are not connected.

But, this discussion is going to be considered in my broader brainstorming on how to include facsimile content on the site. I suspect the entire eight-volume set was reproduced (in all volumes) for whatever newer edition this was, but maybe I'm wrong. Specifically replicating multi-volume facsimiles (esp. MVFs where some volumes are missing from the set) may be more difficult than with works that were only facsimiled in one volume (such as Thunder on the Left with the original 1925 novel and its 1926 and 1936 facsimiles).

So, I don't think deleting this index, until we have a more robust system for dealing with these sorts of editions, will necessarily be harmful. My "keep" vote is more a theoretical "keep", since I do think it has value in the long-term, but only on the condition that my desires with it are met, which I don't know how to do for the time being.

(This reminds me a lot of Index:Stella Dallas (c. 1925).pdf, an exact facsimile of the original novel except with many stills added from the film adaptation. My plan with this would be to redirect the pages that are facsimiled, but to proofread the images and most of the front matter. A work like this is useful since film stills like these are valuable to the broader research area of film history.) SnowyCinema (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A system for facsimiles is underway: Category:Facsimiles. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment This index has had no proofreading completed. I would say keep it only if someone actually intends to complete this volume. But if neither the person who created the Index page nor the person who set up the contents has any desire to do any work, then this Index is useful and would be better deleted. I say this because we have had new contributors stumble into incomplete Index pages, enthusiastically work through many pages, but end up crestfallen when they discover it's a close (or exact) duplicate of another scan. Since this does have another completed scan in existence, I would rather not leave this around for someone else to fall into that trap. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey: This is the reason why I nominated Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu (as a batch) earlier (of which this was one index created by that user): the indexes are not connected to a portal or author that could help new users find them, so they are completely useless in that respect, and they have a large maintenance burden if people use the pages (copied directly from Project Gutenberg) as the basis of proofreading. (Incidentally, I have finished making the list of indexes; it is here.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  But that work is neither a duplicate nor likely to be. Nor has this Index been filled with bot-generated page text. This situation is not analogous to that one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: From the prior discussion, it seems that the text layer importation was only justified as a deletion rationale as to the pages, although I supported the justification as to the indexes as a whole. However, those other indexes have the same problem as this index, namely, a lack of connection to portal and author pages. The problem in those cases and in this case, separate from the already transcribed set, is that there is no versions information provided, which is a further problem. Ideally, for any given work, an editor seeking to proofread a work would want to find the best edition of the work and then start transcribing. With an author, portal, or versions page, versions and scans (or indexes) can be identified. These indexes have no connection to any such pages, and are thus of negative utility and should be deleted en masse. I made a similar argument as to The Trail of the Golden Horn and the other indexes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

    The reason that something else was nominated for deletion is irrelevant to this discussion. A lack of links is also not a reason for deletion; we can simply add the appropriate links. And we have never limited ourselves to just one edition of a work; it's why we have versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

    • EncycloPetey: I made a batch nomination because the collective creation of several hundred indexes with the same problems creates a large maintenance burden without any practical benefit. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

      This is at odds with what you said in that discussion: "My main concern is that the pages of these indexes have been added via match-and-split from some source". --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

      • EncycloPetey: That was a sub-set. All of the indexes were added without the relevant metadata (although in some cases it was later added); the list in that discussion just focused on the specific (and more problematic) issue of the match-and-split pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

        What list? That discussion has no list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

        • EncycloPetey: I mentioned in that discussion that, if the discussion resolved in favor of deletion, I would make a list; I made such a list, and have pointed you to it during this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

          So when you said "the list in that discussion" you meant the list in this discussion that never appeared in that discussion? I'm sorry, but none of this explains anything, nor provides an actual reason for deletion, so I'm voting  Keep since no reason has been provided that pertains to the item that has been nominated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

John McCain Concession Speech and works of president-elect Obama

The following discussion is closed:

Closed. Nominations withdrawn and / or posted to Wikisource:Copyright discussions.

I doubt this work is compatible with the Wikisource copyright policy. It seems plausible that the anonymous uploader, and HFWang~enwikisource who worked on the page, may have erroneously assumed that {{PD-USgov}} would apply. But this speech was made in McCain's capacity as a candidate, not as a functionary of the U.S. federal government. Normal copyright would apply unless it was explicitly released under a free license or dedicated into the public domain. The same reasoning would apply to Barack Obama's 2008 election victory speech. -Pete (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The press conferences of the incoming Obama administration are similar; I'm not sure whether there is a specific provision of U.S. copyright law that designates a president-elect's creations to the public domain, so I'm less sure about these ones. Notifying @Tonyfuchs1019: who created some of these pages.

• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 7 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 24 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 25 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 26 November 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 1 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 3 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 7 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 11 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 15 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 16 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 17 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 18 December 2008
• Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 19 December 2008

-Pete (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The president-elect is a bit more complicated, some transition records are government records and some are private: https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/ac09-2017 and thus it gets into what and what are not presidential records. https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html, e.g. Presidential records include: " includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;" while "materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." And PETT records might become records. E.g. if Obama was announcing his cabinet picks at the press conference that may become part of the agency records and enter the public domain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's great info; I suspected things like that might be in play. To be more explicit, I propose:

(1) and (2) We !vote on whether the first two items above, the speeches, should be deleted or kept, and if kept, what copyright templates they should carry; and

(3) We should determine the copyright status, and the legal basis thereof, of the press conferences, and mark them as such. On this one, I'm pretty sure the CC license templates they have are inaccurate; it's possible they are OK, as I'm pretty sure the Obama administration did use CC licenses to some degree (Code for America was pretty involved in his campaign), but I don't see any links or evidence suggesting that is the case. -Pete (talk)

If there are copyright concerns, then this should be listed at Wikisource:Copyright discussions instead of here. This page is for deciding deletion only, not resolving copyright status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The two speeches should be moved. The Press Conference may be suitable here per the ongoing discussion of digital works that has come up elsewhere on this page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: This makes good sense, sorry for using this venue wrong. What's the best way forward? I could, for instance, retract #2 and #3 and then start discussions at "copyright discussions" about them instead. #1, which is what got me here to begin with, seems pretty clear-cut, so I'm inclined to leave that one here. Does that sound right? @MarkLSteadman: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "the two speeches should be moved." Do you mean #1 and #2 in my numbering scheme? (I think all of these could be described as speeches.) What do you mean by "moved" -- you mean, the discussions about them should be moved? I'm not necessarily opposed, but again I do feel that the first speech is rather clear-cut. If I'm wrong and there's nuance to consider, I'm fine with moving the discussion...if that's what you mean. -Pete (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth Correct. #1 and #2 per your numbering should be closed here and opened up in Wikisource:Copyright discussions. #3 (the press conferences) I personally feel has been settled per my comment below from a copyright statement (change.gov had a CC-BY release statement per the previous discussion mentioned). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

1. McCain speech

•  Delete as nominator -Pete (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Obama speech

3. Obama press conferences

•  Keep wrt to the copyright discussion raised above. These were posted to change.gov and it's copyright policy releases them under a CC-BY license: https://web.archive.org/web/20090109013359/http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy. I abstain from the separate discussion above around whether statements posted to "newsroom"/"blog" portions of government count as acceptable sourcing / fixed etc. or we need a PDF style print document publication form to use as a source, or convert this into a movie from the youtube clip to then use as sourcing (provided that is also acceptable license) etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was discussed before: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2011-04#Barack_Obama's_president-elect_press_conference_-_25_November_2008 MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn, see: WS:Copyright discussions#Content related to 2008 U.S. presidential election -Pete (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2024‎ (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Akhtar Aly Kureshy & Category:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as copyright violations.

I'm not sure what to do with these pages. They appear to be in the wrong namespace, but the content is speeches for which Pakistan PD is claimed. But that's 50 years pma, which doesn't apply. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete possibly self published, and out of scope anyways. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

For a Single Word

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, and apparently not the translator stated.

No source and no license. In particular, I can find nothing about the translator "M. S. Morozov". The only other versions of this text I could find [19] [20] [21] are ultimately copied from ours, rather than the other way around. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks to be similar to the Maude translation from 1927 in Russian Tales. "I was drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer a newspaper was as usual handed to me as a special mark of respect. (Maude)" vs. "I happened to be drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer, a newspaper was as usual handed to me, as a special mark of respect (M. S. Morozov)." MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a 1908 version of the Maude translation published in the October issue of the Grand Magazine (named Grand Magazine of Fiction at the time) under the "For a Single Word." I wonder if that is the source? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Abu ibn Hajjaj untitled poem, Ibn Zuraiq untitled poem, and Abu'l-Qasim Suri untitled poem

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extracts from a larger work, and one not present on Wikisource.

Exerpted translations from The Table-Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge (1922) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

War Song of Dinas Vawr

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract from The Misfortunes of Elphin.

extract from The Misfortunes of Elphin (1829) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Privilege of Pope Alexander III to Henry II

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract from Hull's History of Ireland.

extract translation from A History of Ireland (1931) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Brut (Caligula)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long-abandoned, woefully-incomplete transcription with no backing scan from which to continue.

An extremely tiny portion of the multi-volume poem Brut, abandoned since 2009. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per WS:WWI#Excerpts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete as an excerpt. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Petrarch's Canzoniere 164 Special:PermaLink/13836111

The following discussion is closed:

Revisions deleted. Not the claimed text, and possible copyvio.

Propose to revdelete the above-linked revision and the (original) revision before it. 2009 IP page creation, text used bears almost no resemblance to the attributed 1557 translation (but does seem fairly similar to a 1996 translation). Might be a copyvio, might be original work; probably best to remove. -Pete (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete revision. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Author:Athelstan

The following discussion is closed:

Issues resolved. Thanks, @Beleg Tâl.

I don't think he merits an author page because he doesn't appear to have written anything. He has been written about extensively, and as king he certainly commissioned people to write documents, but if he ever authored anything substantial it isn't around today. Cremastra (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This website discusses six texts written by (or attributed to) Æthelstan, so this author page is fine :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's a scan containing Æthelstan's writings in both the original Old English and translated into Modern English, if anyone is interested in taking it on —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment For kings this early, edicts, laws, and codes are attributed to them, even if they were drafted by their subordinates. There is a sizeable body of legal documents bearing his mark. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The Percy Anecdotes

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump of volume 7 (out of 20). Scans exist for most of the 20 volumes, but they have yet to be transcribed.

Just copypasted raw OCR including headers and pagenumbers breaking the text flow. Besides, it is not the whole text of the The Percy Anecdotes, as the title suggests, but only the 7th volume. There is an index of this volume that can be proofread at Index:The Percy Anecdotes - Volume 7.djvu. I do not think there is a value of keeping this raw OCR, it seems better to start the potential proofreading process from scratch. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom SnowyCinema (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Military Specialists and the Red Army

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as excerpt.

Just an unsourced excerpt. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as an excerpt. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseudodoxia Epidemica An Alphabetical Table

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced text, with implication that it it was user compiled and edited.

Unsourced text which cannot be found anywhere. I suspect it was compiled by the anon contributor who added it here, judging by the fact that after they added the text they reworded it and wrote in the summary "hopefully of some use to scholars in future". -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete because of dubious sourcing. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Castillian treaties

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Contains at least one suitable work.

Has been empty since at least April 2023, we appear to have no texts on the subject. I think there is no need to keep this category. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The category seems to have been created for one work specifically, whose categories were all removed in this edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This would appear to in fact be a Castilian treaty, so I reinstated the category. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Easter Island (unknown)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant to a scanbacked version.

Redundant to the scanned version available here: Weird Tales/Volume 12/Issue 6/Easter Island MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ozymandias of Egypt

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as redundant to a scanbacked version.

Multiple other versions under Ozymandias (Shelley), this particularly unsourced version is entirely redundant with Poems That Every Child Should Know/Ozymandias of Egypt, including the notes. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ozymandias (Shelley) as most helpful to the reader. Cremastra (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cremastra. -Pete (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Authors of Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Authors with no known hostable works.

The song Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey was recently deleted as copyvio (see WS:CV#Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey). Its authors, who are not notable for any other work, should be deleted also.

• Author:John A. Ilechukwu
• Author:Eme Etim Akpan
• Author:Babatunde Ayodeji Ogunnaike
• Author:Sota Omoigui
• Author:P. O. Aderibigbe

—Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

-  Delete - indeed. -- Beardo (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Though per w:Babatunde Ogunnaike, he has published various works and has a US patent, which I think would be a work eligible for wikisource - no ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if US patents are in the public domain, and someone wants to upload his patent to enWS, then we can definitely keep his author page —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. It is not really probable somebody will add the patent. If so, the page can be recreated easily. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:NOAA Storm Events Database – 2023 Matador tornado

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied as created in error.

Created accidentally (unneeded because the text doesn't come from a file but from a website). Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

McCormack–Dickstein Committee

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Annotated compilation without backing scan, and containing lengthy passages noted as not being present in the scan, and with no known source for those passages.

Compilation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably should be converted into a portal linking the various pieces. If that seems like an acceptable resolution to you I can work on moving them this week. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: Thanks, that is a preferred solution, of course. Only the red text is not available in any sources and was added there nobody knows where from, so unless its source is found, the red text should probably be deleted anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Sea View

The following discussion is closed:

Nomination withdrawn.

This page has been marked unsourced and without copyright info. I was expecting to tag it {{PD-old}}; however, I did find a poem with this title by Charlotte Smith in a first lines index, but its text is completely different. The first line of Smith's poem is "The sea view...from the high down called the Beacon Hill, near Brighthelmstone..." With no source and likely a mismatch, I suggest deletion is the best course. -Pete (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep This is her Sonnet LXXXIII, which I can find in Elegaic Sonnets and Other Poems (1797). It sounds as though you searched the first lines index looking for the title rather than for the first line of the poem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Great. I actually did several searches at IA, I wasn't specifically trying to find it by first lines, but I misunderstood the results of my search. Thanks for clarifying, happy to consider this closed. -Pete (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Procedural question -- is it true, that there is no notion of a "speedy keep" as part of Wikisource's practices? In a case like this where the original nominator (me) simply missed some info, and readily concedes the point, it seems silly to keep the discussion open and invite the continued attention of other Wikisourcers (a valuable resource), and also to keep a banner on the page itself, for multiple weeks. -Pete (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you, as the person who started the thread, is satisfied with the evidence found, then you can state plainly that you are satisfied that evidence indicates it should be kept, and withdraw the recommendation to delete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  OK, consider it done. Thank you! Unless I misunderstood (always possible), I've been discouraged from doing that elsewhere, but it does seem like the best course. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Pete: In cases like this, just say clearly in a comment something like "I withdraw the nomination." If you think it might be appropriate to "speedily" close the discussion, that's also something you can spell out in a comment. And you can try to get an admin to action that in all the normal ways one does in a discussion (e.g. in the CV thread you link, feel free to post a reminder; or even, in that thread, ping me directly; etc. Heck, if you think it's me specifically who has dropped the ball, feel free to nag me on my talk page; I appreciate such reminders.).

  But the policy gives minimum discussion times (two weeks for copyright issues, one for non-copyright discussions) and in that period it is the community's privilege to decide what to do, so any admin closing sooner is doing so under the general leeway admins have to make independent calls and on the presumption that the community will not object.

  In this particular thread it looks like "nominator made a mistake" which could be good enough reason absent other factors. But an admin will have to actually assess that just as with a normal close. It sounds like EncycloPetey has looked at this in enough detail that they might be willing to do that (if they agree that it can be reasonably closed out of policy, of course). But while I have no objection to that, I am also not comfortable doing so myself because I haven't looked at the issue closely enough. --Xover (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I withdraw the nomination. -Pete (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Cabinet Manual

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copydump. PDF exists that could be used to re-create the work as scan-backed copy.

Badly formatted copydump. Could be recreated by proofreading from this "scan". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment That scan is posted at gov.uk, which makes it a digital publication of the UK government. This feels like a potential candidate for the MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(what is the MC?) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Beleg Tâl: (The “Monthly Challenge.”) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I notice this is marked with a Crown Copyright, which may not be compatible with our licensing. I know Commons would not host the scan, but is it hostable here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is released under the Open Government Licence which is both available here and Commons as {{OGL}}. Is there a particular reason why this work isn't acceptable while the others are? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking at the last page of the scan, with the Crown Copyright, or the local license tag that the contributor placed on the work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

On the last page: "You may re-use this information free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government license". MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as a copydump. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Telemachus, Friend

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Recreated as redirect.

This unsourced page created by an IP in 2006 appears to be entirely redundant of Heart of the West/Telemachus, Friend, a work whose scan-backed pages have all been proofread. I propose that this one be changed to a redirect, which I will boldly do now, but leaving a note in case there's something I didn't consider. -Pete (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete and turn into redirect (texts generally need to be deleted first and then recreated as redirects in order to break the connection to their Wikidata item, so we don't get redirects with Wikidata items containing bibliographic metadata for the redirect target). I can't guarantee that the text is from the same edition, but it's close enough that had I noticed this stray when I was proofreading Heart of the West I would have not hesitated to move it into the containing work and replace its contents with transcluded text. Xover (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A Dream of Armageddon (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced and redundant.

Nominating as redundant to the three other editions we have here A Dream of Armageddon. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Preface to The Lyrical Ballads

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unsourced and redundant.

Unsourced extract from Lyrical Ballads; a scan-backed edition is available at Lyrical Ballads (1800)/Volume 1/Preface —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hypnos (unknown)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to scan-backed edition.

unsourced edition of a work with a scan-backed edition at Weird Tales/Volume 4/Issue 2/Hypnos —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In the Moonlight (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced copy redundant to scan-backed edition.

Appears to be redundant to The Complete Short Stories of Guy de Maupassant/In the Moonlight—certainly close enough to merit deletion (and conversion to redirect) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Agreed. I've compared the first page in this diff, the text is almost identical, and varies in ways that do not appear to reflect an authoritative alternate translation. -Pete (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Conversation between Gotse Delchev and General Danail Nikolayev

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source, and apparent user-created translation unsupported by original language text on its native WS. The OCLC for a possible source document was found, but no progress after two months has occurred. If a supporting original scan is transcribed at bg.WS, we can consider restoring this translation.

Supposedly published in Sofia, Bulgaria, in a publication with a Bulgarian title, yet entirely in English. An internet search for the publication turns up nothing, so I do not have access to the claimed source to check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment It looks like a unsourced user-provided translation (several different works by this author were contributed by this IP from a variety of Bulgarian sources). I don't know how we want to apply the grandfathering exceptions for such a translation if so. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. We may think this is the Wikisource user's translation, but at the same time we cannot with certainty rule out other possibilities like copying somebody else's work, unless the user states it is their own work and adds a proper licence to it. Without such a statement we should treat it as we treat other licence-lacking texts with dubious sourcing. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don’t delete (at least for now) because of the user-translation business. This is, as far as I can tell, a user translation of a few excerpts relating to Delchev. The source definitely exists, however—it is OCLC 831298036. I will try to get ahold of the relevant pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

1644 Baptist Confession of Faith

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source given, nor found. A different Confession is being scan-backed.

Unsourced copypaste. The text was copypasted here including unformatted numbers referring to notes which were not included, see e. g. Article 3. Probably copied from some internet transcription of this book. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The notes are the scriptural references, as can be seen in the 1644 scan here IA. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this work is short enough and complete enough that it might be worth salvaging. I'll give it a go. Index is here: Index:1644 Anabaptist Confession of Faith.djvu —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

... but for the sake of formality, I say  Delete this work and replace it with the new transcription once completed (since they are not the same edition) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The link to us from the accompanying Wikipedia article will also need to be removed. The article has an image from an edition that is clearly different from the scan you've provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Prayer of the Ukrainian Nationalist

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Translation with no source; no original language copy; and some evidence that the work is not yet PD in the US.

Translation with no source text. Omphalographer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment User originally created this on the Ukrainian Wikipedia (twice), but it was deleted as unencyclopedic and an uk.wikipedia user directed them to Wikisource (discussion). At least, that's what I understand, I've been relying on machine translation.

 Delete per nomination. Cremastra (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If a scan-backed version of this work is present at ukWS, then this work can be hosted in Translation space, provided that the original is in the public domain in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very convoluted way to say "delete", isn't it? :) Xover (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, and I am inclined towards speedying this one. This is the contributor's first addition to enWS, and it is problematic on several grounds. They also had a grand total of 4 global edits when I checked, all of which were problematic (they uploaded a AI-generated nationalistic symbol to Commons, currently in process for deletion there). All of which were various kinds of nationalist propaganda (I use the term somewhat neutrally here). All of which gives a pattern of someone trying to use Wikimedia projects to promote a particular cause. If the defects (source, scan, plausible assertion of compatible licensing, etc.) are not cured fairly soon, I therefore suggest we speedy this text and then keep this discussion open as an undelete discussion on the remote chance this text is something that is within scope and compatibly licensed. (I don't have time to follow up on any complicated issues right now, so I'm not going to act myself here). Xover (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick search points to this being written by Osyp Mashchak the late 20's / early 30's (up to 1936, when he was 28). Ukrainian WP has link to publications post war, e.g. this from 1969: https://diasporiana.org.ua/periodika/4635-visnik-oochsu-1969-ch-10-247/. So the original seems unlikely to be PD in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to Muawiyah I

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant extract. Recreated as redirect to full translation.

Redundant to the version found in Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs/The faithful Arab and his loving Wife MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Letter to el-Hajjaj bin Yusuf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant. Also, English translation with no source information.

Similarly, this is redundant to the version found in Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs/The sad Tale of the Lovers who died of Love. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Middle-Class Gentleman

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; no consensus. The nomination was posed as a question, after which two people were in favor of keeping, 2 favoring deletion, and 2 commenting without taking a side.

If you look at the source on Gutenberg, you will see that "Philip Dwight Jones" is listed as both the translator and the ebook producer. I therefore believe that this is a rare instance of a work originally published by Project Gutenberg. Is such a work in scope, or is it doubly out of scope as self-published and second-hand? —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a translation of a public domain work. If it's public domain--which it claims to be--I would keep this along the lines of a Wikisource translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I don't see that counts as self-published, and we accept to keep second-hand works from that time, don't we, until we have a better replacement ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There are many public domain translations of this work: from 1672 [22] to modern [23] [24] [25] [26] MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In terms of copyright: This would be a rare case of an original Project Gutenberg transcription, and despite the work being from 2001 and being impossible to fall into the PD naturally, if I'm correctly reading the very complex legal notice at the bottom of every Gutenberg transcription, the terms comply with wiki standards on licensing, allowing free distribution, derivatives, etc. So it seems freely licensed.

However: Although this is a web transcription from a reputable source like Gutenberg, the transcription itself has no particular notoriety (even though the source work does). Most damningly, I believe Gutenberg works are constantly subject to further updates, which would not be in line with our purposes. The text is from 2001, and was last updated on February 7, 2013, giving it 12 years of potential strings of updates. I.e., it may be impossible to ascertain what the most pure version of this transcription is, so we probably shouldn't include it. So,  Delete. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per SnowyCinema. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment There is no evidence that this work is "expected to constantly change over time". There is speculation that many years of changes might have happened, but no evidence of what has actually changed. No one has compared our copy to the 2013 revision in even a cursory fashion to investigate the actual degree of change. It could be a thorough revision different in many respects; it could be an update to formatting tags with no changes to the text; we don't know because no one has looked. Also, no one has mentioned is that our copy is a copydump without the formatting present in the original, such as centering, italics, font sizes, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment For the record, my point was that an Internet-based transcription, with multiple specific edit dates involved, should be assumed to be subject to constant substantial updates unless explicitly proven otherwise (if the page is somehow locked from editing, they make some official statement about no further updates, etc.), for the same reason we disallow pages of wikis as transcriptions. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Poems by Emily Dickinson - Second Series

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, and replaced with versions pages —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The following unsourced poems by Emily Dickinson, which now have scan-backed versions in Poems: Second Series (Dickinson) and another in progress in The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, should be deleted to make way for {{versions}} pages:

• "Arcturus" is his other name—
• "Faith" is a fine invention
• "Hope" is the thing with feathers—
• A Bird came down the Walk—
• A Charm invests a face
• A Death blow is a Life blow to Some
• A Deed knocks first at Thought
• A narrow fellow in the grass
• A poor—torn heart—a tattered heart—
• A Route of Evanescence
• A shady friend—for Torrid days—
• A Spider sewed at Night
• A Thought went up my mind today—
• A throe upon the features—
• After a hundred years
• Ample make this Bed—
• An altered look about the hills—
• An awful Tempest mashed the air—
• An Everywhere of Silver
• As by the dead we love to sit
• As imperceptibly as Grief
• At Half past Three, a single Bird
• At least—to pray—is left—is left—
• Before I got my eye put out
• Before you thought of Spring
• Besides the Autumn poets sing
• Blazing in Gold and quenching in Purple
• Bring me the sunset in a cup
• Dare you see a Soul at the White Heat?
• Death sets a Thing significant
• Delight—becomes pictorial—
• Did the Harebell loose her girdle
• Each Life Converges to some Centre—
• Essential Oils—are wrung—
• Except the Heaven had come so near—
• Experiment to me
• For each ecstatic instant
• Frequently the woods are pink—
• From Cocoon forth a Butterfly
• Further in Summer than the Birds
• God gave a Loaf to every Bird—
• God made a little Gentian—
• Going to Heaven!
• Going to Him! Happy letter!
• Good Night! Which put the Candle out?
• Great Streets of silence led away
• He preached upon "Breadth" till it argued him narrow—
• He put the Belt around my life
• Heart, not so heavy as mine
• Her final Summer was it—
• How happy is the little Stone
• I bring an unaccustomed wine
• I can wade Grief—
• I dreaded that first Robin, so
• I found the words to every thought
• I gained it so—
• I gave myself to Him—
• I had been hungry, all the Years—
• I had no Cause to be awake—
• I have no Life but this—
• I haven't told my garden yet—
• I held a Jewel in my fingers—
• I know a place where Summer strives
• I know that He exists
• I like to see it lap the Miles—
• I lived on Dread—
• I many times thought Peace had come
• I meant to have but modest needs—
• I never hear the word "escape"
• I noticed People disappeared
• I read my sentence—steadily—
• I robbed the Woods—
• I should have been too glad, I see—
• I should not dare to leave my friend
• I started Early—Took my Dog—
• I think just how my shape will rise—
• I took my Power in my Hand—
• I went to Heaven—
• I Years had been from Home
• If anybody's friend be dead
• If I should die
• I'm Nobody! Who are you?
• In lands I never saw—they say
• Is Heaven a Physician?
• It can't be "Summer"!
• It sifts from Leaden Sieves—
• It sounded as if the Streets were running
• It tossed—and tossed—
• It was not Death, for I stood up
• Just lost, when I was saved!
• Lay this Laurel on the One
• Let down the Bars, Oh Death—
• Like Mighty Foot Lights—burned the Red
• Mine Enemy is growing old—
• Morns like these—we parted—
• Musicians wrestle everywhere—
• My country need not change her gown
• My nosegays are for Captives—
• Nature rarer uses Yellow
• Nature—the Gentlest Mother is
• No Brigadier throughout the Year
• No Life can pompless pass away—
• Of all the Souls that stand create—
• Of Tribulation, these are They
• On such a night, or such a night
• One need not be a Chamber—to be Haunted—
• One of the ones that Midas touched
• Our journey had advanced—
• Pigmy seraphs—gone astray—
• Portraits are to daily faces
• Prayer is the little implement
• Remorse—is Memory—awake—
• She died—this was the way she died
• She sweeps with many-colored Brooms—
• Some, too fragile for winter winds
• South Winds jostle them—
• Step lightly on this narrow spot—
• Surgeons must be very careful
• Taken from men—this morning—
• Talk with prudence to a Beggar
• The Body grows without—
• The Day came slow—till Five o'clock—
• The Gentian weaves her fringes—
• The Leaves like Women interchange
• The Moon is distant from the Sea—
• The Mushroom is the Elf of Plants—
• The nearest Dream recedes—unrealized—
• The Night was wide, and furnished scant
• The One who could repeat the Summer day—
• The only Ghost I ever saw
• The Rat is the concisest Tenant
• The Robin is the One
• The Rose did caper on her cheek—
• The Show is not the Show
• The Skies can't keep their secret!
• The Soul unto itself
• The Sun—just touched the Morning—
• The thought beneath so slight a film—
• The Way I read a Letter's—this—
• The Wind begun to knead the Grass—
• The Wind—tapped like a tired Man—
• Their Height in Heaven comforts not—
• There came a Wind like a Bugle—
• There is a Shame of Nobleness—
• They dropped like Flakes—
• This Merit hath the worst—
• Tho' I get home how late—how late—
• Through the strait pass of suffering—
• To hear an Oriole sing
• To learn the Transport by the Pain
• Triumph—may be of several kinds—
• Two butterflies went out at Noon—
• Undue Significance a starving man attaches
• Unto my Books—so good to turn—
• Victory comes late—
• Wait till the Majesty of Death
• We play at Paste—
• Went up a year this evening!
• What if I say I shall not wait!
• What Inn is this
• When I hoped I feared—
• Where Ships of Purple—gently toss—
• Who never lost, are unprepared
• Whose are the little beds, I asked
• Wild Nights—Wild Nights!
• Will there really be a "Morning"?
• Your Riches—taught me—Poverty

—Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment @Beleg Âlt: If really needed, they can be deleted, but imo it is not necessary, they can be just overwritten. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Deleting, overwriting, they are equivalent, still needs a discussion though —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pages like this always have to be deleted and recreated in order to break the Wikidata binding. In this case it's a edition-level item that we're proposing to turn into a work-level page. Xover (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment As a matter of technical process I agree with Jan.Kamenicek, but I do think it's worthwhile to bring up such an extensive list of poems for wider discussion prior to executing an extensive overwriting project. That said, I support either overwriting or deleting; these unsourced versions certainly need not be preserved if properly sourced versions exist. -Pete (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is a continuation of the process previously discussed here and here, and is mostly a formality since they are borderline WS:CSD as redundant anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the context. I think we're all more or less in agreement, I recognize and appreciate the due diligence. -Pete (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom (no-brainer; but I agree with Pete that it's good to have the discussion even so). --Xover (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, i.e. overwrite. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Henry William Williamson

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied; accidental creation.

Hello I accidentally published a page for author "Henry William Williamson", I meant to create an author page, but create a normal page instead, please delete. HendrikWBK (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, see Author:Henry William Williamson SnowyCinema (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Pre-1945 State Roads in Florida

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; sources located for the listed documents.

I suggest deleting the laws linked at this portal page. I do believe they are all in the public domain; however, there are many of these pages, they appear to be of minimal significance individually, and it would be a significant project to find and connect them with scanned source materials. I brought this up here in March but there was no discussion. I notified the two users who seemed to have worked on the pages here.

At minimum, if the pages are not deleted, I suggest the pages should all have their titles changed to something more descriptive. -Pete (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment It's not clear to me on what basis these are being nominated for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @EncycloPetey For more background see the above-linked Scriptorium comment. I don't feel strongly that deletion needs to be the outcome (note that I didn't !vote on this one), but it does seem something should be done to bring this content into closer compliance with Wikisource's standards. Came across it while processing a backlog; I'll pose a more specific question on your user talk, as it may be better understood as me trying to learn best Wikisource practices, than as a strong recommendation. -Pete (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey points out that it would be helpful for me to have outlined my efforts to find the source text. On several occasions, I have searched on several randomly selected page titles, as well as chunks of text from the contents of the pages, on archive.org, DuckDuckGo, and Google. I also looked at the Florida Secretary of State website, but it seems that unlike some other states, there is little or no effort there to present historical legislation. (I imagine somebody more familiar with Florida government or history might have better luck, though.) While I did ping @NE2 in my initial comment, I believe they are more active on English Wikipedia; I will reach out to them directly there, in case they have further insights to share. -Pete (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'm very conflicted on this one. I generally think we should delete things like this (old dumps of mostly data, with no source, no probability of ever finding anyone with a similar obsession willing to work on it, probably does not correspond cleanly to any actually published work and definitely does not appear here in the context in which it was originally published, etc.). BUT… from the text there it is clear that in this case there actually was a source, and whoever transcribed it at least tried to be fairly faithful to the original. And the very fact that its content is so obscure, in this case, speaks in its favour: where else online is this going to be available, and who other than the original contributor would ever put in the effort to put this online? Xover (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

   Keep. With TE(æ)A,ea.'s awesome job finding scans for these I land solidly on keep. They still need cleanup, migrating to scans, etc.; but for a transcription with no other obvious problems that's not sufficient reason to delete. --Xover (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Each individual law is a complete work, which is based off of sources (the session laws) which can easily be found (especially if you live in Florida). The laws, as laws, are in the public domain in the United States. Pete: The session laws can be found here. The first law, c. 9311, 1923 Sess., starts on p. 367 of the first volume of 1923 Session Laws. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Keep per Xover and TEA's comments. These are obscure but interesting from a perspective, and were done as a larger project originally intended to be faithful to the originals. Scan-backing them (and cleaning them up a bit) eventually will be great, though. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Great find @TE(æ)A,ea.. As a test case I've run AWB on the first few items. These should address the {{no source}} and {{no license}} issues; unless somebody sees a problem with these edits, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination, and apply these changes to the full list. Here are example edits: special:diff/14057562, special:diff/14057640, and special:PermaLink/14057548. (IMO the page title issue is not so important if the content is otherwise pretty much aligned with Wikisource standards. I don't think that needs to be pursued given that source material has been located.) -Pete (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if there are no further concerns. (I applied the wrong edit summaries of one of my AWB tasks, so that adding the PD tag is labeled as adding a source -- sorry for the confusion.) I do think there's probably a better naming scheme that would be more informative, but that's not really a discussion for Proposed Deletions, nor do I have a clear proposal for that, so I'm happy to let that part go; the pages all have links, and PD banners. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) (pinging @Xover as the only person so far in the discussion who might be leaning "delete")

@Peteforsyth: No reason to withdraw the proposal: the issue has been brought to the community and the community is collectively deciding what to do with it. So long as your current stance is clear somewhere in the thread that's all that's needed. (Actually withdrawing a proposed deletion really only makes sense when the proposal in retrospect turns out to have been really dumb and everyone participating is throwing popcorn at you. In those circumstances withdrawing would let an admin snowball-close the discussion. For anything else the community should get its say once it's been brought up here.)

On the issue itself I'm going to go slap a {{vk}} up below my original comment. I was already on the fence, and with TE(æ)A,ea.'s awesome job finding scans for these I land solidly on the keep side. We still need to upload the scans, migrate the text (matching it to the scan and modern standards), and retransclude in the context in which they were published; but that's just the general maintenance backlog and nothing that needs be discussed on WS:PD.

Regarding your AWB edits… The textinfo template on Talk: is the old way to indicate the source pre-Proofread Page. For situations like this please indicate it using {{scans available|1=[link]}} at the top of the page itself so the availability of scans is made visible and the relevant tracking category gets added. Xover (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll just add my  Keep (^as nominator) !vote then! -Pete (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

John McCain Concession Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. These speeches are not the result of work in capacity of the US Gov't and are not hostable on Wikisource.

Also:

• John McCain speech in Kenner, Louisiana
• John McCain speech on Foreign Policy to the Hudson Institute
• John McCain speech to American Israel Public Affairs Committee

These are speeches given by a senator and a presidential nominee, but in his capacity as a candidate not as an agent of the U.S. government, in some cases as a guest of private organizations. So {{PD-USgov}} seems to clearly not apply, and copyright has not expired on these 2008 speeches, and there is no indication that a Wikisource-compatible license was granted. Delete as copyright violations. -Pete (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: see prior discussions at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2024#Content_related_to_2008_U.S._presidential_election and Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2024#John_McCain_Concession_Speech_and_works_of_president-elect_Obama

•  Delete as nominator. - Pete (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Cremastra (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom.  Comment @Peteforsyth: This discussion should probably be moved to WS:CV. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

2008 U.S. Democratic party presidential debates

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. These debates are not the product of someone fulfilling their elected duties, and so are not placed in the public domain, and cannot be hosted on Wikisource.

• 2008 Democratic Debate - 13 April
• 2008 Democratic Debate - 16 April

Previously nominated at Copyright discussions by @Beardo, discussion expired with little engagement. Note that @Beleg Âlt, and @MarkLSteadman had ~voted and/or discussed this item and related ones. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning: No reason these items would been exempt from copyright, and no indication that they were released under a free/Wikisource-compatible license. Delete as copyright violations.

•  Delete as (re-)nominator -Pete (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete and ditto the last discussion, this should be moved to WS:CV. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment It looks as though one section was closed, which resulted in the archiving of the parent section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extracts from an Opera

The following discussion is closed:

speedied, converted to redirect —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

List of links to poems in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Speedied, as a duplicate to a published item with scan-backing. There is a page at The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats/Extracts from an Opera, in a published work, after which follow the items linked from this page. Hence, converted to a redirect to the scan-backed page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Captain Sharkey

The following discussion is closed:

speedied, converted to Portal —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

List of works by Arthur Conan Doyle, not itself a work —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved (speedily) to Portal:Captain Sharkey. For one, I don't think this deletion will be controversial. Two, I have found it to be important to keep series of works in individual portals so that the data about them can be easier tracked. It's better than just a listing on the Author page, because then the Wikidata items can have proper connections, etc. and it aids in searchability. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Spider Boy/TOC

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied; converted to more streamlined approach requiring only one template, rather than a new template for each work. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Only used on one page and one index. subst: and delete as a separate template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf:  Keep, there's an entire category of these: Category:Auxiliary_table_of_contents_templates, please read the docs to read why it exists. SnowyCinema (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's used for the Index TOC, and the front matter page, so as to avoid code repetition. Yes, you can use Subst, but all this will do is just put a manual code entry there. The idea is that if the TOC needs to be changed, it can just be done in one place rather than having to be at risk of being wrong in one place, and right in the other. SnowyCinema (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As it turns out, I have invented a better method in {{AuxTOC detect}}. This will make it so that making a separate template for each one of these isn't required for the same clean outcome. It's proven to work on Index:Keeping the Peace.pdf. I'll go through and change all the templates accordingly and delete them later today. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

Sonnet 140

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not redirected because there are other works known as "Sonnet 140".

I believe this is a translation performed either by an anonymous/IP Wikisource editor in 2009, or else a translation of unknown provenance with no reason to believe it complies with Wikisource's copyright policy. I believe this is a different translation of the Petrarch poem Wyatt translated, here: "The long love that in my thought doth harbor"

It should be deleted as being either out of scope or else a copyright violation; I don't think it's worth the effort to do further research to determine which is the case, if either would likely result in deletion. Please note, there are several such "prose translations" of Petrarch poems; while I have not found as much information about these others, I believe this logic would apply to all of them. See some prior discussion at Author talk:Thomas Wyatt. These full list of such sonnets:

• Sonnet 134 Prose Translation
• Sonnet 140
  • Ideally this one would be recreated as a verisons page, pointing to The long love that in my thought doth harbor and Love, that doth reign and live within my thought
  • Also, a versions page should have a note or a "see also" to Sonnet 140 (Shakespeare).
• Sonnet 189
• Sonnet 190

(All are labeled "modern prose translation" on their respective pages.) -Pete (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: With the help of some fellow Wikisourcers (see Author talk:Thomas Wyatt), I have gathered some info about this poem (Petrarch's 140) and its various translations. See this versions page I created: Sonnet 109 (Petrarch) Along with the issues I mentioned above, I believe the title of Sonnet 140 is misleading; according to Petrarch's numbering scheme it is Poem 140, and it is also known as Sonnet 109. Further reason, in my view, to replace the translation of unknown origin with a redirect (to the versions page, which seems the best place to gather the info about the various titles the poem and its traslations have had). -Pete (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Good close, but three of the four sonnets included were missed. I believe all should be deleted under the same justification. (I'll note that Beardo had marked the first of them PD-old, but I believe that was a simple error.) -Pete (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

None of those other items were nominated for deletion: they were listed in the discussion, but they were not nominated, nor were they tagged with the template for the deletion discussion. Since they were neither nominated nor tagged, no action was taken. I am not going to presume nomination. Lots of things get mentioned in discussions, but a mention is not a nomination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:Welcome

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redirected to Help:Introduction, but as this is a cross-namespace redirect, we may want to create a minimal page instead, which directs the reader to key locations.

In my reviewing of a completely different policy page, WS:What is Wikisource?, I came across this one, thinking it might redirect to it. Here we have a Project page with no header template, created in 2008 and not updated since 2013, and not at all connected to other main Project pages.

In fact, Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikisource:Welcome indicates almost no usage across the project, aside from linking on some newbie talk pages in lieu of Template:Welcome. This appears to have been the entire purpose of the page. It got 47 page views this month, but compare this to the just over 1,000 that WS:What is Wikisource? got during that same time.

This slipped under the radar for over a decade and is no longer useful for its intended purpose. I propose to redirect this to WS:What is Wikisource? or WS:About, or something similar. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment If it's gotten 47 views in a month, then we should redirect it to something rather than simply delete it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Agreed, and it's what I'm proposing. All it comes down to is which page. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Help:Introduction, possibly? That seems most aligned with "welcome". Cremastra (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have no objection in principle to redirecting somewhere, but I do think that a "welcome" redirect should redirect somewhere that actually welcomes the reader. I don't know if Help:Introduction is the place to add such a message. BD2412 T 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't immediately aware of that page, so okay by me. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Festival (Lovecraft, unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as duplicate. Cited source exists as a scan-backed copy; this copy differs from the cited source without explanation.

Which version exactly is this of the existing Weird Tales/Volume 8/Issue 6/Yule-Horror? SnowyCinema (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as unsourced edition of a work of which we have a scan-backed edition —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Descartes (Mahaffy)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Bare table of contents with no supporting scan or subpages.

Empty TOC page —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sonnet 134 Prose Translation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copyvio from Robert Durling's Petrarch’s Lyric Poems (1976).

Also two other sonnets:

• Sonnet 189
• Sonnet 190

I attempted to propose deletion previously, but failed to add notifications to the pages. But the reasoning in that proposal stands. These translations do not appear to bear any resemblance to Wyatt's work, do not come up on searches of several archives, and I believe they are either user-created translations by an anon IP, or else possibly copyright violations with no indication of their origin. In either case, out of scope. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete, these are from Robert Durling's Petrarch’s Lyric Poems (1976) and are copyvio. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:A Treatise style

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unused template superseded by CSS.

It was supposed to be used in A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism, now practically unused. Already at the time there were questions on its utility, see Talk:A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism#Template:A_Treatise_style Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. It was roughly mimicking layout 2, so I switched the last few uses to that. IOW it is now entirely unused, and this was a very bad idea to begin with even without conflicting with the dynamic layouts. Xover (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. If specific styling is wanted, CSS is also a better approach. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

National objectives and directive Principles of State Policy

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant extract.

It was tagged for speedy deletion but it is long standing and with admin edits in its history. Bringing the discussion here instead. Mpaa (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason in sdelete request: Copying the second section of Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominator here, attaching the constitution version held by FAOLEX. Joofjoof (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. If the two are not obviously different, I'd say this is a pretty clear application of CSD G4 (redundant). Xover (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete besides the issues highlighted, presumably it is an excerpt as well which makes better sense as a redirect. MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The long love that in my thought doth harbor

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to redirect pointing to sourced copy.

This item is not true to the only source I could find (see its discussion page for more details). There are two sourced versions of this translation: The Poems of Sir Thomas Wiat/Volume 1/Sonnets/2 and one of the versions on Canzoniere/Poem CXL. This one is of unknown provenance, and unless it can be tied to a distinct translation also in the public domain, it seems extraneous. Should be reconstituted as a redirect to Sonnet 109 (Petrarch), since the title used is a legitimate one. -Pete (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Song (O whistle, and I'll come to ye, my lad)

The following discussion is closed:

overwritten as redundant by Chrisguise —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced edition of a work of which we have multiple sourced editions - see Oh, whistle and I'll come to you, my lad (Burns) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I moved this to Whistle, and I'll come to you, my Lad and over-wrote it. Chrisguise (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Author:Duane Kelvin

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Not an author, but a mentioned person.

An author page created for an individual mentioned in a document we do not have. I cannot find any works authored by this person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty (unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced duplicate.

Unsourced edition of a work of which we have multiple sourced editions - see Humpty Dumpty —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Kojiki (Horne)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Recreated as a redirect.

This looks to be duplicative of The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East/Volume 13/Book 1 for the text and Kojiki for the language and notes etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're saying it's a duplicate of itself and its versions page? That does not make sense to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, wrong link. Edited to correct. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Inscription on Borsippa

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Extract that does not match the sources it claims to come from.

Extract translation —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons has two copies of the work claimed to be the source, at Index:Travels and researches in Chaldæa and Susiana; with an account of excavations at Warka, the "Erech" of Nimrod, and Shúsh, "Shushan the palace" of Esther, in 1849-52 .. (IA travelsresearche00loftrich).pdf and Index:File:Travels and researches in Chaldæa and Susiana; with an account of excavations at Warka, the "Erech" of Nimrod, and Shúsh, "Shushan the Palace" of Esther, in 1849-52 .. (IA travelsresearche00loft).pdf. The translation in said source (pp. 29-30) is different from the text here; the text here appears to be based on that used in w:Smith's Bible Dictionary (volume 3, page 1554; IA link) and found in some other sources. The section was written by Jules Oppert (author of Expédition Scientifique en Mésopotamie) who is presumably also the translator. Arcorann (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The Sight of Hell

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract. A potentially supporting scan was found and uploaded from IA; but no scan-backing was undertaken.

Tiny extract of a work with no source —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(Note: if someone wants to resurrect it, there is a scan here) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The scan has now been uploaded from IA, at Index:The sight of hell (IA sightofhell661furn).djvu. The existing text seems to be about one page's worth. Arcorann (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Breastplate (Meyer)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to multiple scan-backed editions.

Unsourced edition; scan-backed editions of this translation are available here and here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: I myself created this page (back in 2015); does WS:CSD G7 "Author's Request" apply? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but G4 "Redundant" certainly does. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to fully compare the two versions to see if they are actually redundant (WS:PD is easier lol) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a diff check. They aren't fully redundant; some words are spelled differently (e.g. "today" vs "to-day"); some words are pluralized in the scan-backed version but not the unsourced version; there are several places where the stanzas are broken up differently; and there are a few differences in punctuation.

In other words, I would consider this a different edition of the same work, and thus not eligible for WS:CSD G4 "Redundant". That being said, perhaps we should have a proper community discussion about where that line ought to be drawn :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In cases of unsourced editions, if it counts as a different edition, I'd assume that it is copyrighted or out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I like EncycloPetey's standard. Makes sense to set a higher bar where it's a different edition of a work that's known to be copyright-free or freely licensed, and scan backed. Sure, sometimes a later edition is significantly improved or significantly different, but if it's not easy to determine what edition it is, I'd say it's better to delete and focus our efforts and the reader's attention on the work we know is OK. -Pete (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Index:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Not restored, after four months of open discussion with no support; one explicit oppose; two explicit abstains (one originally supported, but changed following discussion); two additional participants who expressed no explicit opinion.

Only one user (besides deleting administrator) supported deletion, and those comments were without justification and/or not true. There is a substantial amount of English text in this work, which makes it clearly in scope. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose In the 13 years this Index was up, the six pages of English introduction were never proofread. The pages that were created included: missing images pages in Latin with English titles; blank pages; and unproofread pages in Latin. Yes, there is substantial English, but only mixed with Latin in the endnotes. It is correct to say that only one person opposed the deletion prior to the deletion occurring. If the Index were proofread first at la.WS or the multi-language WS, we could host the six English pages here, but as a primarily Latin text, it is not in scope for en.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the endnotes are about interpreting the latin text it really does feel like this is a good fit for multi-language WS. I could see a potential discussion if the endnotes were themselves meaningful independent texts but I don't understand how a 100 pages of "[Latin] See X. xx." can exist without the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

   Abstain: Due to this relevant discussion related to this topic when it was put here a short while ago and I had voted in opposition to keep the work here at that time (since only about 235 scan pages out of the total of 418 scan pages were actually in Latin; the rest being in English). It should perhaps also be noted I made the Commons edit 853982373 (among several others) pointing the Wikisource link at WS.MUL. I agree this work had floundered here previously and that it probably should not be primarily here but I also believe there is substantial English content that can and should be here (provided someone actually proofreads it). —Uzume (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

: Undelete. My interpretation of what makes a text "an English text" or "not an English text" is intended audience. Clearly this book was intended to be read by English speakers, given that the front matter, introduction, etc., were in English. Yes, the bulk of the text is in Latin, but the reason it's in Latin is for English speakers to study it in its (presumably) original form, not because the text needed to be conveyed in Latin for a strictly Latin-speaking audience.

Think of it like this: This version of the work is not strictly "a Latin version of Commentaries" but a book for English readers containing a Latin version of Commentaries to interpret. The point isn't to read the Latin natively (like an ancient Roman text would be), but to read it secondarily to one's academic knowledge of the language. So the crux of the work, while only taking up a small amount of the text, is in the English language, making me believe that this should be hosted at English Wikisource, since this is part of the English-speaking world's compendium of literature. No, I don't think Multilingual or Latin Wikisources are appropriate for this, and including the Introduction alone here (since the Introduction is not a work, but a piece of a work, and not even the only part of it in English), defies our rules on including excerpts. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

From WWSI: "The English Wikisource only collects texts written in the English language." I would consider a Latin text aimed at English speakers as not written in the English language (e.g. the untranslated Principia). Re the crux issue, my view is the exact opposite, without the Latin text the introduction / notes have little value, but an edited Latin text could stand on its own. Re excerpts, that is what will happen once we blank out the Latin, that (and the title page) will be all that remain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no, it's sort of like if you had a plate in a book, and the plate was a picture of a sign in French. But the caption was in English. So what language was the page in? English, not French, and the same logic applies to this book we're discussing... The book contains Latin to study (or whatnot), but the context of it was framed in English, so the book is descriptively an English work. And as I said below, splitting up content by language across interwikis gets complicated fast. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To take the plates example a bit further. Let's say I have a 300 plate facsimile edition of a manuscript edition of this. I would expect that we agree that none of the following would make it a work for here as a preferred relative to Latin WS:

1. There is a title page that says something like "Volume 525 in the British Museum Manuscript Series", a dedication / acknowledgement or each page is captioned as "Page 25, Book 4" instead of "Page Liber 4"

2. Notes are added comparing against other manuscript editions and these say things like "foo in the Parker Library manuscript", again instead of having "in the Parker Library manuscript be English rather than Latin

3. Notes of a highly technical nature such as a discussion of the current thinking of the identification of a particular site, or military specifics.

The experience of a Chinese historian might be different. A classicist would engage archaeologists in English, write in English journals etc., the Chinese historian next door might be presenting a paper written in Chinese based on a similar facsimile from a Chinese publisher in a conference in China. I would expect that we wouldn't consider those differences really significant.

A long series of English essays on topics to accompany the text on the other hand would make sense as a standalone work. To what extent glosses become independent works in themselves is of course up for discussion. I can see an argument, we do have works like An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary which are similar to a work like [27] which is similar to the glosses in the endnotes here, but I would hope we agree that [28] or [29] are not English texts per WWSI. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That opens us to a whole lot of foreign-language texts. Pretty much every major enough work has an edition with English notes and vocabulary for pedagogical use. I've worried about how they fall through the cracks at Wikisource, but I'm not sure supporting huge chunks of Latin/German/Spanish/French/Russian text here is a good idea either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly right. If there's an edition (that's a key word) of a foreign-language work with English footnotes or commentary, this is at its core part of the English-language lexicon. So I see absolutely zero issues with including lots of these, since they're just individual editions out of probably hundreds across the globe that exist, and it doesn't corrupt anything at English Wikisource really to include them here. What does corrupt something is for us to automatically exclude certain bits of the English compendium of knowledge from our site. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious how you came to your conclusion. The first 200 pages of the book are the text in Latin, followed by 150 pages of notes that are keyed to the text by page number. We don't host non-English texts, so we would not host the 200 pages of Caesar's text. Exactly what use are the 150 pages of notes that depend upon knowing the page numbers specific to a work we don't have? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Text is quite a vague word that can mean different things to different people. So it's unfortunate that we have a policy that doesn't elaborate on a specific definition of a word like text. For example, a poem in a larger poetry collection could be considered a "text" in some contexts. I would certainly consider that poem a work (or properly, a version of a work).

And as it turns out, if you want to use the loose definition of text that I suggested—and I'm assuming that's the one you all are using—we host quite a large number of poems in other languages than English. Why? Because these poems appear in printed works that are at the core English texts: in other words, even the one poem out of 120, that happened to be in French for some narrative or thematic reason, was broadly intended for English speakers to read. And I'm sure that most of you here would at least agree that it would be ludicrous to selectively pick and choose which bits of a poetry collection we want to include based on what language they happen to be written in.

So, I don't like the reverence to a word like "text" as if it's the be and end all, because it can't be. It doesn't capture the necessary nuance here. Let's use the word "scan" instead. That's more appropriate, yes, because that's what was brought up for an undeletion discussion, not the body of the work... And in the context of the broader scan, the intention is clearly for English speakers to read it. It was never for people in Ancient Rome because they were dead long before.

And a big part of the reason I'm making these arguments, by the way, is because of the structural importance of doing the simple thing, having this at enWS instead of making it into a discombobulated mess of interwoven interwikis. Like I said, being picky about which language is in which part of what scans is going to lead us into a kind of hellscape in terms of technical maintenance. Say you wanted to include the Introduction at enWS, but nothing else. How would you do that? How would you ensure no one proofreads the rest of it against your will? Would you use soft redirects to lead people to Latin Wikisource for the rest? Would you do the same at Latin Wikisource, to go back to the Introduction from the body? What if laWS already has 15 other versions of the same work? How would you make sure this one fits their version structure? What if laWS doesn't want this version, because they have some specific rule against some facet of your project? What if Latin Wikisource accepts your project, but doesn't want to let you soft redirect back to enWS, or doesn't have the technology/community consensus/whatever to do so? What if laWS wants the whole entire scan to be transcribed there just like we do, including the English introduction? So now, we have two places where the same transcription exists. Not good for my favorite rule to point to, the DRY rule.

Just one example of how this can get complex... I was gonna write a paragraph for both laWS and mulWS being exclusive keepers of this text, but I'm tired. Just let the platitude that it will also have major problems suffice for the penny I'm giving.

Maybe you'll shrug this off as a mere opinion on my part, that is absolutely nothing compared to the infallible word of Wikisource policy. But I do believe that texts should not be considered based solely on quantity of a certain language, but intent of using a certain language. Our policies are badly written in the first place, probably in need of decades of further reform, and shouldn't ever be someone's blindfold. (And, as far as I understand wiki culture, policies don't matter anyway if the community votes against them in a particular deletion discussion. So my vote, which is hypothetically more powerful than any policy, is still there.) SnowyCinema (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Opinions and policy are not two different things; they are two forms of the same thing. Policy happens because many people held the same opinion and reached consensus on an issue. So to dismiss policy with a wave of personal opinion is to dismiss the collective opinions of many people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily even dismissing the policy outright. It certainly has merit: we've made it clear we don't want to keep "all works in all languages" (maybe so we don't have to be one letter off from Wiktionary's slogan). But the people who wrote the policy clearly made no consideration about a specific definition of "text", that could apply across the board. Either that, or "text" to the writers specifically meant "scan" or "entire piece of printed matter" (which I think is more useful to consider, and is also a valid definition of "text").

In other words, even with their intent in mind, I could be correct. On that note, this policy was written in the mid-2000s, so I wouldn't even call it "modern consensus", but just the opinions of people in the context of that time 95% of whom are probably long inactive now, so our views on their opinions are really only speculative in nature. But one thing we do know is how they worded it, and they clearly didn't word it with a whole lot of nuance. Literally only one sentence addresses this issue, and it defines what's not allowed with a word that could mean 5 different things to 10 different people. So I'd argue, the policy can't apply to this discussion, since people (not even just me) disagree widely on how to deal with a scan like this. So clearly, the rule can't address these nuances. (And by the way, this is the case with most of WS:WWI. I think lots of detail should be used there, or at least subpages of the policies should be made to address specific nuances. So, reform is needed badly.)

Even if I were to grant that my specific conclusion (that language of context should be considered and not which language is most prevalent) is wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that a word like "text" is too vague for something like a sitewide policy. If the community is going to cite policy as an absolute arbiter of truth and authority, policy needs to be some of the most well-written and specific and all-encompassing content on the entire site. But it isn't, so I think it's fair to say it doesn't deserve that level of deference. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that a work consisting of quite extensive comments in English on a non-English text which includes this non-English text that is being commented could be in our scope, mainly per argument by SnowyCinema above that it was intended for English speaking audience who want to study the Latin text. However, I am not voting to undelete the work, which had been abandoned long time before it was deleted, unless there is somebody who wishes to proofread it. BTW, maybe we should have a specific point about similar cases in our inclusion policy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have three concerns around the idea of hosting non-English texts with with English glosses / notes.

1. The maintenance burden is increased. This extends from the difficulty of finding additional contributors (e.g. if someone proofreads 120 out of 300 pages of Thai and stops, what do we do?) to verifying copyright and fidelity concerns (are these 300 pages of Arabic what they claim to be? What is the copyright status if it is a modern scan? etc.)

2. Data model concerns. Per practice, we should turn Commentaries on the Gallic War into a {{translations}} page when this is proofread to link to the two different editions. But this isn't a translation. We could make De Bello Gallico a {{versions}} page and link The Commentaries of C. Julius Caesar from that but that breaks our wikidata model of single works with multiple editions, etc.

3. If we do start having large extracts of non-English text, we will eventually start to attract non-English speaking contributors. While that might produce collaborative work, it also brings along its own set of challenges. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ad 1: Similarly as I did not agree with undeletion of this abandoned work, I think that we should be strict about completion of all such works, and abandoned works of this type should be deleted after some reasonable time, which can be discussed (e. g. 1 year after the work stopped?).

Ad 2: In fact such a problem may arrise now as well. I can imagine that some English language work we already have includes e. g. some short poem, a letter etc. in a foreign language. Should the poem be added to the translation or version page? There is one specific example, here: Index:A grammar of the Bohemian or Cech language.djvu (currently also abandoned, but on my long list of works I hope to proofread one day). I think that such a kind of work does belong here. At the end of the book there are some works by Czech authors as "Reading lessons" in Czech, see e. g. Page:A grammar of the Bohemian or Cech language.djvu/162. I believe that such a reading lesson should not be omitted from the book, but at the same time it should not be added to any version or translation page.

Ad 3: It is quite possible, but at the same time it may also start attracting foreign contributors who speak English, and I may be considered to be an example of that :-) – after few coincidental attempts between 2011 and 2015 I started seriously contributing in 2016, after my attention was drawn to the above mentioned Grammar of the Bohemian language (although I soon moved to some different publications, as that one was too challenging because of complicated formatting). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Your response to point #2 suggests you did not understand the concern. This issue is that, if we host a Latin edition of Caesar's Commentaries then we run into the conundrum of having to possess both a Translations page and a Versions page for certain works. Neither the set-up here nor at Wikidata can currently support this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I did understand. And I wrote that we can run into the very same problem if we host an English work that includes just a short poem in a foreign language. And I suggested not to list non-English works either in translation page or a version page. That would eliminate the need to have both in such cases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But we have to list the main page title somewhere. For a work as an appendix and therefore as a subpage we don't necessarily need to build out the link but Commentaries of Caesar will point to what when we have both an English (e.g. [30] and [31]) and a Latin version under that title? Which gets back to the main text distinction (we wouldn't have this issue if it was entitled A Gallic Wars Lexicon. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The Latin version of the Commentaries will be only a part of Observations upon Caesars Commentaries. It should not be linked to from anywhere, only the whole work called Observations... should be linked from appropriate places, like from the author page of Clement Edmonds. Commentaries of Caesar can either be the translation page containing a list of English translations, or should be a redirect to such a translation page. In this way we can avoid the problem. Or somebody may later come with some other possible solution(s). Let's not forget that it is just a technical problem and thus it is a problem inferior to building up our content. Adding content useful to English language audience should be our main goal and technical means should be adapted to this goal, not vice versa. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that it's not strictly a technical issue; it's a procedural one. An it's a problem that will be created for every instance we have of hosting a non-English text. Without a plan to deal with this issue, will we just leave it unsolved? The solution cannot be to say that we just won't link it from anywhere. This also goes against SnowyCinema's principle of DRY, since we would be duplicating non-English texts present at other WS projects and potentially duplicating them here as well. Why have just this author's footnotes on Caesar's Commentaries? Why not host all the editions of Caesar's Commentaries that have English footnotes or endnotes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, playing with words aside, I think what I have written about technical problems applies to procedures too: they serve our goal (hosting proofread texts useful to English readers), we should not adapt our goal to fit the procedures.

Not linking from version/translation pages (containing links to English language works) to non-English text which are incorporated inside an English language publication, and linking only to this English language publication from other proper places, is imo a possible solution. If it is not a good solution for some reason, some other has to be found anyway, no matter whether we accept works like these Commentaries. How should linking e.g. to a fully quoted foreign language poem in an English language publication be solved? I suggest not linking to it.

We can host all editions of Caeasar's Commentaries that have extensive English comments to the original text if somebody were willing to proofread them here. What is extensive and what not can be decided case by case, as no massive adding of such works is likely to happen anytime soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a straw man to compare a critical edition of the Commentaries of Caesar to a poem quoted inside another work. The latter is a work appearing inside another completely different work, but the topic at hand is an edition of Caesar's Commentaries with notes added. The two situations are not equivalent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that the situation is the same, I said that the technical (procedural) problem is the same, because it is the procedure that was above used as an argument. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

And that is a straw man argument, as I said. The problem is not the same because of the reasons I stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The procedure is absolutely the same, so if you see any other problem, it is not procedural. I really do suggest focusing more on understanding the core of the message before you call somebody's arguments a "straw man". Reading (and thinking) twice may help to avoid some misunderstandings. Now I am going to stop beating the dead horse unless somebody comes with something worthy to think about. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Please read what I wrote initially, because I do not think you've understood, or are instead dodging the issue. The solution will never be to ignore the issue or to prop up some other argument to be battled instead of the actual issue. If we do host this work, we can't connect it at Wikidata, and we have no means for listing it here, so how will anyone find it? It's not the same as a short foreign language work appearing inside another work because we've never included those procedurally in any listing. Not when a quotation appears at the start of a book chapter, not when a biography quotes a letter or poetry, and not when a literary survey of an author's body of works includes numerous quotations either. This is fundamentally different: it's a work not in English, with bits added, and we have no means in place here or at Wikidata to deal with that, in part because no Wikisource has ever done this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the other points:

1. We can be stricter and enforce additional criteria, but that will need to be reflected in the policy language. And of course if we had a larger community, including more bilingual admins, they could help maintain such works. My point is that maintaining a large collection of works like this [32] is an increased burden relative to the same work in English, and that if concerns are raised (in this case we know it is safe, but e.g. someone uploads a 1980s collection of classical Persian poetry, and claims it is pubic domain it will be hard for me to search.

2. I will note that there is currently no sourced version of the work on la.wikisource. If people are interested proofreading latin shouldn't we concentrate on getting a complete version there? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: My example was a poem that is happenstance in another language, for some reason or another, included in a larger poetry collection of English poems. So I guess our infrastructure "doesn't support this" too you're saying (since poems themselves are works even if included in collections), yet we've been doing this for decades anyway with no contest. I've even seen entire Versions pages that only link to foreign-language poems hosted on English Wikisource, because they were included in collections multiple times. Well, anyway, if the poem in the poetry collection is in French, or in this case if the Caesar's Commentaries is given an introduction in English, in both cases the context is set in English which I've said multiple times, but that point was never addressed anywhere. The Latin body of the text is not holistically and wholesale what the work is as you seem to be suggesting... The body of the work is part of the work. Only part. I don't think of it as a Latin text with English commentary, but as an English work that has a Latin text in it. Sort of like a page in a novel that contains a photograph of a sign in French, but a caption in English. So the page is not a page in French, but a page in English using the French as a display for study by English speakers. Even though the photographed French sign might contain three paragraphs of French words, whereas the English caption is only one sentence long, the page is in English, just like this English work with a Latin text in it for the exact same kind of study. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please include examples of what you're saying you've seen, because I have only non-examples (quotes and poetry that were not indexed). But the example of a work inside a collection is still not directly analogous to this case. And I understand that you think of it differently, but this is far more like a critical edition of a Shakespeare play than a collection of literature. For a critical edition of any work, it is still an edition of that work, and not something else. All our annotated Shakespeare plays are listed as copies of his plays, because that's what they are. I cannot interpret a Latin-language work with English notes added as a fundamentally English-language work that happens to have Latin text in it. The Latin text is the core of what was published, and everything else in the publication is subservient to the Latin text. That's not an English work with Latin in it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

And let me pose a very practical question: Who gets credit as the Author for this work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Example: Posthumous Poems/Chanson de Février. Should this be deleted too, or relegated to another project? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

My point is that such an instance as that is a non-example. It's not indexed here or on Wikidata because it's not the work; it's included inside another collective work that is indexed. We have countless such poems even in English that have not been indexed anywhere at all. With the item currently under discussion, we lack the means entirely for housing the edition both here and at Wikidata because it's a work in Latin written by Caesar with critical commentary added to it. That's how any major library would index it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing vote to  Abstain—I'm not sure anymore, but EncycloPetey makes an intuitively good point in his rhetorical question about who would be credited as the author, and such like that. I can see there are both pros and cons to including this at English Wikisource, and I've gone into many of the pros. But, this is one of the only examples of a "kind-of-bilingual" gray-area work of this nature that I've even seen on the project, and the fact that it only has an introduction in English of 6 pages' length isn't doing it any favors. If it had much more substantive amounts of English content, I'd probably be more sympathetic.

I will say that I worry about the precedent this work may set for future discussion on far less gray-area bilingual material than this. I still maintain that WS:WWI should be immensely improved and made much more specific so that we're not left up to so much interpretation, and that a single sentence describing "texts" is not sufficient. We should probably investigate many different examples of foreign works with English text in them, to come to some more nuanced and universal conclusion.

I do disagree with EP's idea that poems in collections, i.e. "subworks", should lack indexing on Wikidata "because it's not the work"—see my efforts on any collections I've done like Illinois Verse, The High School Boy and His Problems, or The Way of the Wild, where I have gone above and beyond to connect all subworks to Wikidata and list each one at author and disambiguation pages, since I think they should be treated the same as any other work (and this is not inconsistent with past practices at Wikidata and Wikisource). So I think that the lack of indexing of Posthumous Poems is not a matter of "they shouldn't be indexed", but more that "they should ideally be indexed but aren't because it's hard and no one wants to take the time to do it". But this isn't that relevant to my overall change of perspective on Commentaries. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I am not arguing that "subworks" should lack indexing as a general principle. I was noting that (a) we historically have done a very poor job of indexing them, and that (b) some such works should not be indexed because of what they are and how they are included. If, for example, a novel places a poem at the start of a chapter, or (as noted above) a photograph of a sign in French appears in a book, such "subworks" are not indexed, as per standard library practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also much more comfortable being less strict with the metadata around subworks / appenda / etc.: they can rely on the stricter metadata "box" of the main work (putting aside the difference between subwork like an appendix as opposed to breaking up a chapter to wikidata a poem contained in it). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Some old bills

The following discussion is closed:

Border security bill deleted: unformatted with hundreds of broken links. Student Success Act kept: connected to WP article on the bill, and therefore of value.

These are not scan-backed, of doubtful utility (especially as they are not laws, and the version of the bill is not clear), and they are generally a poorly-formatted mess with clearly editorial hyper-links (many broken) scattered amidst. I may find a few more, but to start:

• Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744; 113th Congress)
• Student Success Act (H.R. 5; 113th Congress)

In addition, these both belong to the roughly hundred-member Category:Proposed United States federal law of the 113th Congress; these should probably all be deleted, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Organon (Owen)/Categories/annotated: redundant copy of scan-backed transclusion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as redundant

The "annotated" page is an incomplete transcription of Organon (Owen)/Categories; the latter page now properly transcludes the footnotes and sidenotes, making the "annotated" page redundant. Overthrows (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Illustrator and Template:Composer

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Superseded by changes to the Header template.

These templates were created because {{header}} didn't support adding illustrator or composer information in a structured way. It does now, and these templates are unused. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Interlinear Greek Translation:Bible

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned Wikisource translation without designated source text copy. Without a source text, it cannot be said whether this duplicates the other Wikisource Bible.

While I understand that there is value to interlinear texts, we generally only host one user translation of a given work, and we already have Translation:Bible. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bobdole2021: I believe this is a project you are involved in —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment It depends on the source text, in this case, I would think. Translation:Bible is presumably using the Masoretic text (in Hebrew) for the Old Testament, which is different from the source text for Interlinear Greek Translation:Bible, which is from the Greek Septuagint. This is one reason we want our user-created translations to clearly identify what they are translating, so that we can determine what is happening in cases like this. If one is translating the Masoretic, and another the Septuagint, and another the Latin Vulgate, then that feels like legitimate separate translations. But without having a clearly identified starting point for the translation, we cannot determine that. And even for "the Septuagint", whose edition of the Septuagint is being used? There are whole volumes listing the differences between the various Greek copies of the Septuagint. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Translation:Bible is a bit unique, in that every book has (or should have) its own source. So Hebrew works like Translation:Genesis would be translated from Hebrew, while Greek works like Translation:Esther (Greek) would be translated from Greek, Translation:1 Meqabyan from Ge'ez, etc. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  There would be a good argument to be made, that Translation:Bible should actually be in Portal space, since it is a list of separate works rather than a cohesive work itself. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but also no. The Masoretic text is a cohesive collection, and there are published editions that can be used as a basis for translation. The Vulgate is a cohesive collection, and it has published editions too. But the Dead Sea Scrolls are not; they are a collection by virtue of being discovered in the same location together. And even if you consider Genesis a "book" in its own right, there is still no single source text. There is the Masoretic edition in Hebrew, and the Septuagint editions in Greek, and the Vulgate edition of Jerome in Latin. There is not even an editio princeps as often happens with classical texts. Considering Genesis (and the other "books" of the Bible) to be works in their own right does nothing to help the fundamental issues here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Translation:Bible is nowhere near as sensible as all that :p

  I wonder if we could approach this by splitting Translation:Bible into component sources?

  • Hebrew OT books based on the Masoretic text, which is what I assume heWS has (he:ביבליה, not scan-backed)
  • Greek OT books based on the Septuagint, which is what I assume elWS has (el:Η Αγία Γραφή, also not scan-backed)
  • Greek NT books based on this scan at elWS
  • The others I'll need to research further but you get the gist.

  We already have separate translations for Esther (Hebrew and Greek) and Psalms (Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac) so we can just extend this to the rest of the works I guess.

  My main concern is the idea of having a separate "regular" translation and "interlinear" translation of the same work; otherwise, I'm open to whatever needs to be done to clean this mess up —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps we consider an interlinear translation to be something like the Translation equivalent of an Annotated text, requiring a "clean" copy to exist first? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe. I seem to recall that at some point we explicitly disallowed interlinear translations, but I can't find it now.

  [update] I found it: WS:ANN disallows "Comparison pages: Pages from different versions of the same work, whether whole works or extracts, placed alongside each other (whether in series or in parallel) to provide a comparison between the different versions." I'm not sure whether that would apply here though. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm leaning toward saying we have "no consensus" on this particular item, because we really need a broader discussion where informed folks lay out the issues at stake, and because we probably need a decision on how we want to handle Wikisource translations of the Bible. A lot of things are in play here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. Wikisource translations, like Annotations, are deliberately restrictive. But once the original text exists as a proofread and scan-backed work at grWS (or mulWS, or…) the discussion here on enWS is going to be vastly simplified. Also: The English Wikisource only collects texts written in the English language. Texts in other languages should be placed in the appropriate language subdomain, or at the general multi-language website [mulWS]. And that's in addition to the guidance for annotations that Beleg Âlt cited above. With strikes against it in three policies I don't see how this particular snowball is helped much by SPF 50. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are you advocating for deletion of all WS-original translations of the Bible? Are you advocating for deletion of all side-by-side original translations we have? Both of those positions would result in the deletion of a huge number of pages here. Hence, it is a much larger issue than just this particular translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not advocating mass-deletion of much of anything that was created before our current standards were in place (but do hold them to modern standards if they come up individually for other reasons). I'm saying this text, which is relatively speaking a new text, has so many strikes against it that it's not a difficult call. But I do think we should enforce current standards for all new texts (and this one should have been caught in patrolling when created), and most especially we should not turn a blind eye to Translation:-space as some kind of free-for-all.

  I haven't gone looking at what the other Wikisource translations of the bible look like, so I don't know what issues apply to them. But based on the above I suspect where we run into thorny issues is where someone wants to translate archeological artefacts rather than actually published works. In which case, lets apply or existing policies and standards to the ones that were actually published in any meaningful sense and save the big discussion for the archeological artefacts (which exception we may or may not want to accommodate). Xover (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  We have a grandfather rule in WS:T which would exclude Translation:Bible from the requirement that the original be scan-backed on grWS, but I agree that this would be a strike against Interlinear Greek Translation:Bible if we chose to enforce it since it was added after the 2013 changes to WS:T. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  (On the other hand, I don't see how Xover's second quote would apply, because the very next sentence in that policy is "However, English Wikisource does collect English translations of non-English texts, as well as bilingual editions in which the target language of the translation is English") —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's the English bits that are the essence (and for bilingual works we usually transcribe only the English pages). Granted that's watered down a bit by the very wide definition of "English" applied, but it doesn't extend to Greek (Ancient or Modern) beyond short quotes etc. Xover (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  While what you say have been true here for transcriptions of published works, that principle has not been applied to original translations created here. We have a very large number of bitexts in the Translations namespace, so a decision here, using that principle, would affect a very large number of our Translations. So, if this were a transcription of a published work, yes, but in this situation, the waters are far muddier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  But original translations are supposed to be "transcriptions of published works", just ones where the text is translated into English as it is transcribed. I'm not saying to go retroactively apply this to every old text we have. I'm just saying this text, which is comparatively very recent and came up for discussion here individually and for other reasons, should get the actual standards applied. Xover (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  So you agree that what you are advocating would be a change to practice? What I am saying is that such a change in practice deserves a broader consideration for its impact, beyond the one work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

O My Lord, Your Dwelling Places Are Lovely

The following discussion is closed:

Two deleted (no source or scan); two kept (now backed by scan

This and three other poems attributed to Judah Halevi and translator Solomon Solis-Cohen (d. 1948):

• The Seventh Day
• Hymn for Atonement Day
• Sabbath, My Love

These poems were added to Wikisource in 2008 by Josette, who has not edited here in a decade. The discussion page for the first identifies this web page as the source, and I have confirmed the text matches. However, the web page makes no mention of Solis-Cohen, nor does it attribute any translator or make any assertions about original publication date. I have searched extensively for pieces of the text and metadata at google.com, archive.org, and hathitrust.org, but I've come up with nothing. Difficult to ascertain the provenance of these translations, seems unlikely they are is in the public domain, or that we could definitively establish where they came from. -Pete (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Some of the poems have a little note at the bottom, saying they are from A Treasury of Jewish Poetry (1957), which does identify Solis-Cohen as the translator. However, I'm inclined to suspect these translations are copyvio. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Based on his Wikipedia article, the translations might have been published in When love passed by, and other verses: including translations from Hebrew poets of the Middle Ages (1929) but I cannot find this volume in IA nor Hathi, and it would not be in the public domain in the US unless the date is an error or a reprint. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • EncycloPetey: When Love Passed By was published in the United States and was not renewed, so it is in the public domain. I will try to access a copy of it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• EncycloPetey: Here’s When Love Passed By: File:When Love Passed By.pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is excellent work TE(æ)A,ea.. However, looking through the two pages of contents, and running content searches with the "subpagesof:" statement, I'm not finding any of the four poems listed above. Am I missing something? -Pete (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hymn for Atonement Day is on page 65, Sabbath, My Love is on page 68. I don't see the other two. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're quite right of course, sorry to post before doing a more complete search. Unless there's some mistake, I !vote  Delete for O My Lord, Your Dwelling Places Are Lovely and The Seventh Day and

   Keep for Hymn for Atonement Day and Sabbath, My Love. -Pete (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise.  Keep for the two poems confirmed to be translated by Solis-Cohen, and  Delete for the other two which I believe are misattributed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  And by  Keep I of course mean  Delete and replace with redirects to the new edition uploaded by Teæ —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Pete: The subpagesof: search only works for created pages, so it wouldn’t find text in the OCR layer where the pages have not been created. As for the other two poems, they were not identified (in the original source) as being Solis-Cohen’s, and the 1950s analogy of source gives many poems of his pen, but only the two above which are reproduced here. I believe I have a source for them, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Index:San Angelo 2022 Severe Thunderstorm Warning 17.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. User-created "scan" PDF; not the original.

This notice was a routine National Weather Service product, and was originally broadcast as plain text; the PDF is clearly a PDF printout made a few days ago in a web browser. There's clearly no need to "transcribe" a document which began its life as plain text, and is still readily available in that format; it's also unclear to me that it makes sense to bring these routine notifications into Wikisource at all. Omphalographer (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Summit on Peace in Ukraine: Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Closing by nominator since the issues have been resolved.

This is a dynamic page, continually updated, with no fixed original document. It is therefore beyond scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Each version is a unique edition, each of which is in scope. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is no version. The page is being changed with each "version" and none of the "versions" is backed by a scan. Dynamic pages are beyond scope; see "Evolving works" on WS:WWI. Someone could create pages for each "version", with a backing source, but no one has done that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  • That is an objection to formatting, if nothing else. In that case the proper avenue would be to move the current page to the proper version disambiguator, and create a versions page listing the versions. A need to do work, where you are the only one who has identified the work as needing to be done, is not, in my mind, sufficient to justify deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

    It's not the formatting that is at issue; it is the dynamic content. And there's the rub: there is no "proper version" to disambiguate. The same page has been host to eight different versions in the past nine days. This is an evolving page, which is outside our scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

    • The “rub” is that it is an issue of formatting, not of content; you are just trying to rephrase your argument on that ground. This is just a case of a user creating versions by Wikipedia rules (multiple versions in history) and not Wikisource rules (separate pages with one main page for disambiguation). In the end, the different versions of this document are all properly separate versions, and can and should be listed as such. Especially in terms of legal works, we have many items which can be said to evolve in some sense over time. Similarly, this work has utility (in being a multilateral agreement) that the works to which the evolving-works rule was directed do not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

      Replacing one set of content with different content has never been a meaning of the word wikt:formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

      • As I said, you are rephrasing the issue. The intended result is to indicate different versions; the problem in this case is that the user has gone about it the wrong way. This is because the wrong format (Wikipedia, not Wikisource) has been followed. Thus, it is an issue with formatting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

        No, it was you introduced the idea that "formatting" was somehow my issue in an attempt to rephrase it. And as I have repeatedly said: formatting is not the issue. Please stop trying to redefine words and tell other people what they think. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Recarding scans: all the versions are backed by w:Wayback Machine snapshots, which are the digital equivalent of a scan. Regarding the updates: This is not a work whose content is expected to constantly change over time. There are about 110 UN member states that could hypothetically still sign, which could drag out over a few more days or weeks, but that is unlikely to continue much longer, especially after a time scale of e.g. six months or so when followup negotiations become more relevant than the 16 June 2024 communiqué. We can only speculate on how the rate of changes will continue, but exponential decay with time is much more likely than a constant rate. I see that there's a guideline WS:VER, as suggested by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk • contribs). And I see that Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has a link to WS:VER and says that "official update(s) to the statute should be created as a new version". This case is of official updates to a major diplomatic document by a government ministry of the host country. Splitting into versions would seem fine by me. Boud (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Any objections to me splitting up the page into versions, per WS:VER? Boud (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  No. In fact if there are multiple published versions, having them listed as versions is the norm, as for example Constitution of India. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done Boud (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

World Taekwando Federation & Anor v Tuan Wing Keong & Anor (Pendaftar Cap Dagangan, Malaysia, interested party)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept without clear consensus to delete. The document has a license now, so the only concern is the difficulty of accessing the original, and difficulty of access is not a reason to delete.

A court document allegedly from Lexis Advance, but the source is not available to people who do not have an account of the Multimedia University (from Malaysia). With the source being inaccessible it is impossible to say whether it is a second-hand transcription or a transcription of an original document. The biggest problem is that the text is not available anywhere else either, and so it is absolutely impossible to check whether the transcription is correct and complete, whether it was originally in in English or it is a translation from Malay (which would raise questions about copyright), or even whether such a text really exists (I believe it does, but we have to be able to check it).

Pinging also Ong Kai Jin, who I have already asked to add a proper licence tag but without any reaction. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If indeed this is a document that originated (from legislators) in English it would be in the public domain as an edict of a government, but like you said it is also impossible to tell if that's the case without access to the original source. So,  Delete until evidence of source is provided. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have trimmed the source link to become not dependent to the institution's account, but subscription is still required for access, I am sorry if this is also not accepted. I would say this is the only authentic and original source, since this is a 'unreported' case law which it was not included into the journal for print, and LexisNexis is the publisher of this journal. The issue is no direct way for other user to validate the text, but I could not help.

In regarding the copyright, literary work, which is a copyrightable work, does not include judicial decisions. This is stated in Section 3 of Copyright Act 1987. The license tag Template:PD-Malaysia have been prepared. I assume there is no copyright issue here. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ong Kai Jin - to be hosted here, a work needs to be in public domain under US copyright law. I am still unclear - was the actual judgement in English ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to be under the public domain in both countries? Yes, the actual judgement was written in English. Why is it suspected to be in Malay language? Ong Kai Jin (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep a court judgement issued in English is solidly in scope as {{PD-EdictGov}}. That said, @Ong Kai Jin: is there any way this work can be exported from LexisNexus in PDF format so that it can be properly proofread? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The website provides two versions of PDF download, the user-customizable and the court-ready, but the court-ready version is not available for 'unreported' cases such as this work. I feel that it serves no authentic value for using that custom PDF. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Tale of the Doomed Prince

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; Index page set up and transclusion begun; the text is now part of the volume in which it was published.

excerpt translation —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. I find a version of this here, but it appears to be a fairly recent translation, perhaps self-published, linking to a (publisher?) website that is no longer online (blackmask.com), with no indication of a free license. (The TOC page is explicitly copyrighted, but I see no general statement about copyright or licensing.) -Pete (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. There is a scan of the 1913 book it is excerpted from here. Seems to me it could be kept, matched, and treated as an in-progress transcription of the full work. -Pete (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Index:Egyptian Myth and Legend (1913).djvu is set up and I have initiated transcription. With a scan now backing the text, and with the text moved to be part of the volume in which it was published, this is no longer an excerpt. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Vishnu purana

The following discussion is closed:

speedied under WS:CSD G1: No meaningful content or history —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Info page from a website without any of the actual text of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete and speedied :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Last Will of James Squire of Kissing Point

The following discussion is closed:

Nomination withdrawn after the scan was uploaded and the index page created.

I am quite hesitant about this. Added here in 2009, it was sourced by a second-hand transcription uploaded to English Wikipedia as w:File:Last Will of James Squire.pdf. Second-hand transcriptions were forbidden here much later and those added earlier are usually tolerated, but this one has absolutely no sign of its real origin. Besides, it was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2016, and only now it was just temporarily renewed upon my request. The only other source containing this text I managed to find was https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/squire/james/133137 , where it was added by a contributor in 2017, and I suspect it was copied there from Wikisource, comparing it with our 2009 version, where the name "William Cardefs" (including the question mark in brackets) appears. However, the original probably contains a different name, that is "William Careless", see a later edit done by a contributor claiming to have checked it.

To sum it up, our second-hand transcription is based on a very dubious source, containing various typos (besides the above mentioned name some long ſs were misinterpreted (Kissing having been mistyped as Kifsing), without the original being available anywhere, and so we have to rely on one contributor who claims to have checked the original and corrected all the errors, without us being able to check it again, because the original last will has probably never been published. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I believe this may contain the document in question, though the document itself seems to be inaccessible for me at the moment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Now it is already accessible (it was not yesterday), and yes, it does contain the document, although there are some differences, such as in punctuation, paragraphing, or the note in the end, so it might be better to transcribe it anew. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a fresh transcription would be the best way to proceed with this one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

And here you go: Index:Squire, James (Sr) - Probate package.pdf —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Given this, I am withdrawing the nomination. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Irpin Declaration

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No evidence of meeting WS:WWI requirements for publication; no evidence of license release.

Added with an internet link as the source. There is no other information aside from what was included in the initial post. According to the Wikipedia article, the document comes from an alleged political union, in which one of the members denies being a member and another is unconfirmed to exist. I have not seen any copyright statement, but this cannot qualify as a government edict, so it may fail on copyright grounds as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Looks like the copy on Russian Wikisource has been deleted [33]. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned table of contents; no meaningful content; secondhand transcription.

Just the ToC. Abandoned immediately after its creation in November 2023. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, also noting that even if completed this would be a second-hand transcription anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A Patriotic Manifesto for a European Future

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Likely copyvio; no evidence to support CC-BY-SA on the sources.

Digital-born document. I have not seen any copyright statement, but this cannot qualify as a government edict, so it may fail on copyright grounds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - the CC-BY-SA license is not corroborated on either of the provided sources of the document, and I have not been able to find any copy of this document that gives a compatible license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that this appears to be a translation of a text originally in German, and I do not believe that either the original nor the translation are freely licensed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Diary of a Lunatic

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Copyvio; misattribution of translator, likely through confusion with Gogol story with similar title.

Added in 2010 without a source. There is no source indicated on the Author page, nor on the author page for the translator. A search at IA turned up nothing either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Here is an edition of what appears to be this translation, that predates ours. I highly suspect translation copyvio. Also: I think that the attribution to Garnett may be a mistake, caused by confusion about her translation of Nikolai Gogol's Diary of a Madman —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Index:The collected works of Henrik Ibsen (Volume 4).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant to another scan of the same volume.

This index and all it's associated Page: are redundant to Index:The collected works of Henrik Ibsen (Heinemann Volume 4).djvu. Further, the one nominated for deletion was created by match-and-split from a copy that did not match the edition, lacks formatting and footnotes.

This is part of a cleanup of the larger mess that is our two sets of US / UK editions for this collection, which interlink with each other and do not use consistent naming. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete sounds like a candidate for speedy deletion to me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Because a match-and split was applied, it will now require a bot to do all the deleting. The match-and-split can be deleted and replaced by transcluding the copy from the other Index. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: No reason keeping a match & split of the wrong edition. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I have posted a Bot request to delete all of the pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate O. Henry Stories.

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted all and converted to redirects or versions pages. Wikidata items filled out with data prior to deletion.

Nominating in bulk stories that have been proofread in collections

• The Handbook of Hymen, Heart of the West/The Handbook of Hymen
• Christmas by Injunction, Heart of the West/Christmas by Injunction
• Hearts and Crosses, Heart of the West/Hearts and Crosses
• Seats of the Haughty, Heart of the West/Seats of the Haughty
• A Chaparral Prince, Heart of the West/A Chaparral Prince
• Hygeia at the Solito, Heart of the West/Hygeia at the Solito
• An Afternoon Miracle, Heart of the West/An Afternoon Miracle
• The Higher Abdication, Heart of the West/The Higher Abdication
• The Caballero's Way, Heart of the West/The Caballero's Way
• The Sphinx Apple, Heart of the West/The Sphinx Apple
• The Missing Chord, Heart of the West/The Missing Chord
• A Call Loan, Heart of the West/A Call Loan
• The Princess and the Puma, Heart of the West/The Princess and the Puma
• The Indian Summer of Dry Valley Johnson, Heart of the West/The Indian Summer of Dry Valley Johnson
• A Retrieved Reformation, Roads of Destiny (1909)/A Retrieved Reformation
• Whistling Dick's Christmas Stocking, Roads of Destiny (1909)/Whistling Dick's Christmas Stocking
• Two Renegades, Roads of Destiny (1909)/Two Renegades

MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I know I've been pushing for Proposed Deletion in such cases since they are technically different editions ... but I had another look at WS:CSD and I do think that these fall under the criteria for speedy deletion as Redundant unless they are substantially different.  Delete and convert to redirect. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It takes you a while, but you do usually see sense eventually. :) Xover (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The plan was always to convert these to redirects once my little O. Henry project was complete. It's very likely that there will be more batches of these in future, but I haven't mapped what non-scan backed dross we have sitting around. In any case,  Delete to convert to redirects. Xover (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I am cleaning up the Wikidata items; deleting the unsourced copies; then re-creating them as redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A History of the Civil War, 1861-1865

The following discussion is closed:

Kept; backing scan found and transcription started.

Unformatted copydump that has not been fixed since it was added in 2008. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but aside from one single issue, the formatting looks pretty ok to me. The one issue is that the HTML character entities are not being rendered correctly—and I'm not sure why that is, but I'm sure that once I figure it out it will be a pretty quick fix. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Turns out it was just using the wrong character numbers (it was using Windows-1252 encoding which differs from Unicode in those places).

Anyway I've fixed that particular issue. I'm not sure whether you would still consider this a copydump worth deleting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-unrelated—do we know how good Bartleby's transcriptions are? If they are sufficiently faithful to the source material, here is the scan of the edition that this transcription is based on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know, but the general principle here is that we do not accept secondhand transcriptions, so we would require evidence that Bartleby's transcriptions are highly accurate. If this particular one is highly accurate, and if we know the specific edition source, then it is a potential candidate for a match-and-split. However, from an initial inspection, I can see that the entire Preface is missing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A missing preface isn't an issue, since the preface is present on Bartleby and can easily be imported.

I have worked on some poetry collections that were on Bartleby, and I do know that those poetry collections are highly accurate. That being said, without some sort of published guidelines from Bartleby that suggest their standards are at least as high as ours, I'd be hesitant to assume that that level of accuracy applies across the board. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How did you determine that the particular scan you found is the edition the Bartleby transcription is based on? The title page information is different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

... you're right, the title page information is different. Friggen IA lol. The Bartleby edition is digitized from the New York MacMillan 1917 printing, which is what I thought I had confirmed that scan was, but actually the scan is of the 1919 printing. All the other scans on IA are poor quality early Google digitizations.

I have found a scan of the 1917 edition on HathiTrust, however: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011726042&seq=13 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment We now have File:History of the Civil War (Rhodes 1917).pdf to back this work by scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hanuman Chalisa

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source provided; best research indicates a modern translation, therefore likely under copyright.

This was added without source or license; but the contributor has now added a website as the source. It does not look as though it can be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: online source, not based on a specific edition, and translator unknown. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Looks like a modern translation, there are no traces of any old publication containing this text, so unless proved otherwise, we must assume the translation is copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Module:Age

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unused template designed for WP needs that do not exist on WS.

Unused. Exists to support Template:Age in years, months and days, which is unnecessary here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. These are unnecessary on enWS (on enWP they're used for infoboxes in biographies etc.), and are cut&paste imports. We should seek to keep the amount of templates down to maintain some semblance of consistency and reduce complexity. Xover (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Index:THE PROVIDENCE GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL August 9 1777 p 1.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. Redundant Index.

Replaced by Index:THE_PROVIDENCE_GAZETTE_AND_COUNTRY_JOURNAL_August_9_1777, see Index_talk:THE_PROVIDENCE_GAZETTE_AND_COUNTRY_JOURNAL_August_9_1777_p_1.jpg. — Omegatron (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

In a situation like this, where you are the creator of both, and both are created in the past few days, and one is clearly a superior replacement for the other, you can simply tag them for speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Ginza Rabba

The following discussion is closed:

Declined. No evidence of any scan-backing started at de.WS—there is only a red-linked list of volumes. ToC provided by request to User space.

Please undelete Translation:Ginza Rabba. It is under progress, as I am currently digitizing the original German source version. Please consider at least providing me with the original source code so that I can at least save it for my own personal use. Thanks. Nebulousquasar (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no source code to provide, since that page was a list of red-link contents. Are you requesting the table of contents? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am requesting the table of contents. Nebulousquasar (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have posted the table of contents to your User Talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nebulousquasar: Is the German Wikisource version going to be scanbacked? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Improve documentation

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unnecessary and largely unused template.

cf. also WS:S#Missing maintenance template.

If there's one thing we don't need it's a cut&paste-imported template with inadequate documentation to tag templates with inadequate documentation. I get the motivation, truly I do (our template documentation in general sucks), but adding another template like this has net negative effect on that problem, and is completely unnecessary to the fix (improving template documentation). [yes, I'm aware it's transcluded on two /doc pages; they'll be removed before the template is deleted ]

Courtesy ping to Pigsonthewing who imported it. Xover (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose deletion, naturally. The "cut&paste" nature of the import is immaterial since the source is correctly attributed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The “cut&paste-imported” objection is to the transposition of use without considering whether it is necessary here, not because of attribution. The attribution issue (if it existed) would not require a deletion discussion. As, however, the template is not used and has no use, the origin (another project) is relevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This temple is of no use here, and is not used. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:The color printer (1892).djvu and pages..

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The challenges of transcribing this work are not cause in themselves for deletion.

Transcribed in good faith, but for various reasons it's proving difficult to get the color samples to be consistent between pages, I had a template based approach, ( sub pages of the index) which I've now removed or marked for speedy. I am of the view that if this work can't be consistently transcribed then it's not worth transcribing, and thus despite my good faith effort, should be removed, so to not have an inaccuarte item.

If you do not want this to be deleted, please come up with a way of ensuring a "consistent" reproduction of the colors in it, that's true to the original, because I couldn't make it work.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And it seems someone already transcribed this. - https://www.c82.net/color-printer/ ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: Interesting - https://www.c82.net/color-printer/about#digital-edition (Check the licensing section). If we can get a proper OTRS, we might be able to use that transcription's "restored" illustrations... Anyone wanting to approach the author of that site? If can we get the base 11 colors (to start with), everything else is easier to reconstruct.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The base colors used in that transcription are:

1. Red: #ff2b27
2. Yellow: #ffe534
3. Blue: #1f6cbf
4. Orange: #ff9925
5. Green: #50b880
6. Purple: #a0449a
7. Navy Blue: #0c3f7a
8. Rose Lake: #ff336b
9. Lemon Yellow: #fff55e
10. Vermilion: #ff5143
11. Grey: #8c9a97
12. Black: #252729

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the full list —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you check with the author of the site? The "design" of the site is under copyright, otherwise the colors there would have been used. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't copyright data, and you can't copyright the colours of a book that is in the public domain. Some elements could conceivably be copyrightable (e.g. the SVG files based on the original designs), but if we make our own versions of the graphic elements that isn't an issue.

Also bear in mind the official position of the WMF: "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but I hadn't used those because the site "design" was under copyright. This is why I was suggesting someone clarified what the licensing was. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The list of colors is mere data. When they say "design of the site and posters" they clearly mean the general website design plus the specific posters listed on c82.net/color-printer/posters. The restored illustrations, and thus the specific color values used, are covered by "restored illustrations have been released under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain license and can be used freely without any restrictions."

But more to the point, if you would like to work on this text then communicating with this person would not be a bad idea. They clearly care deeply about this book and its digital restoration. Xover (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I was being very careful. I'm based in the UK, which has broader rules than the US on what counts as 'effort' for copyright purposes. If someone on Wikisource wants to make advances to the maintainer of the other site, than I would suggest they do so, with a view to getting, some confirmation of the CC0 grant in OTRS (and thus potentially the CSS color values they've defined).
In the meantime I'm inclined to 'self-close' and withdraw the Proposed Deletion, and handle the color value issue through a different process? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the best way to proceed - if you're not comfortable working on this due to UK copyright law, leave it for someone else to work on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Having tried various color combinations, I remain unconvinced that this can be recreated accurately without more information on potential pigments used for the basic 12 + white colors.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I just had a look at the licensing section of the c82.net transcription, and it explicitly states that "The restored illustrations have been released under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain license and can be used freely without any restrictions." You don't need OTRS for this :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:Wikiproject Classics

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long abandoned project.

This Project page does not conform to our best practices, and has languished unused since it was started in 2008. The only edits to the page since the start of the Project have been to disambiguate links or remove dead initiatives. Although a great deal of progress has been made in the sphere of Classical texts, that progress has been made without any use of (or reference to) this Project page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject Food and drink

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long abandoned project.

Project page abandoned shortly after creation in 2022. No activity on page, or related contributions by the project's founder since creation of the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cite DNB

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unneeded and unused.

This template is unused and I don't really see a use for it. If we use content from the DNB, might as well take it from the scans. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject Homeschooling

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Project inactive since 2007.

Unused since 2007, and largely redundant to Portal:Homeschooling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject The Samuel Smiles Project

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Inactive; duplicate of list at Author:Samuel Smiles

Another abandoned WikiProject with no progress. One of the listed works was transcribed recently, but without any reference to this Project. It is mostly a list of redlinks that are duplicated at Author:Samuel Smiles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as superfluous. Contents moved to full Index.

Extract from Index:UN Treaty Series - vol 999.pdf, to which it is superfluous. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Vertical header

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unused template incompatible with Wikisource table-related templates.

Cut&paste import from enWP, made in good faith by Matrix in April. Currently unused, and I'd like to keep it that way because…

…the template is inherently problematic from a technical perspective. Web standards (and hence web browsers) provide no native way to rotate table headers. So all the ways to achieve the apparent same effect are various degrees of hacks, with big drawbacks and that are prone to breaking. In particular this template makes assumptions about font size and line height that are neither guaranteed in the long term nor even accurate currently, and does not integrate well with our standard table formatting tools. Or put another way, it's a handy template for use in some specialised cases on enWP, but on enWS it's problematic. Xover (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment There are a number of works that use vertical headers in this manner, where the text is rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise. As far as I know the closest to achieving this using other templates is to apply {{rotate}}, while {{vlr}} and {{vrl}} both rotate the text 90 degrees clockwise -- completely the wrong direction. Recommendations for what to do in these cases would be appreciated. Arcorann (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The recommendation is to simply not try to reproduce rotated headers, frustrating as that is. The fundamental problem is that web standards simply do not support rotated table headers, and as we've seen for all such cases (dot leaders and drop caps being obvious examples) trying to fake support creates more problems than it is worth. Much like advanced typography, this is a level of fidelity that the state of the art and our tooling simply does not allow us to do in a sustainable fashion. It is absolutely infuriating that web standards still do not support these things, but by trying to hack our way around this fact we are creating problems for ourselves.

However, in this case, I proposed {{vertical header}} for deletion because 1) it's calling convention clashes with our other table templates (it's a bad fit) and 2) it is unused. We have, as you noted, {{rotate}} that is equally problematic (it does essentially the same thing, technically speaking), but which is widely used and does not clash with our other table-related templates. Personally I would prefer we not use that either, but that would be a much bigger discussion (it would be a policy-level discussion for the Scriptorium on all such templates, not a proposed deletion for a single template). Xover (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Arcorann - if you can show what to use for vertical headers in cases that would be appreciated. A lot of templates like this are just straight up hacks, but we need a solution even if it is a bad one. The reason I created this template was because I saw a table in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (I can't remember the page number/volume) that required it, so I c&p imported the template from enwiki but then I just forgot. —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• When I needed something like this, I found a template on Wikipedia—I don’t remember which one—and copied over its formatting. I oppose deletion absent a consistent, community-supported choice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please keep in mind that when you do this the odds are pretty high that although you got the effect you were looking for in your web browser and on your device, you have created problems for other people using a different web browser and a different device. And if you copied over raw markup into a Page: page we can't even sensibly track the usage to fix it whenever web standards catch up and start providing what we need. I strongly recommend not doing that unless you're enough of a web standards nerd to really know what you're doing and all its implications. Xover (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101: No, all templates like these are hacks, which is kinda the point. If it was just the single template implementation then we could just fix it or migrate to something better. But for this (and a few other things we commonly run across) web standards simply do not support what we need. Xover (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicative Venona Documents

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as duplicates; Wikidata items linked to scan-backed copies.

I believe the following three documents are unsourced versions where sourced scans exist. I suggest converting into redirects.

• "Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45", duplicative of Venona: FBI Documents of Historic Interest/Belmont Memorandum 1957-11-26
• FBI Memorandum identifying Harry Dexter White as agent Jurist duplicative of Venona: FBI Documents of Historic Interest/Ladd Memorandum 1950-10-16
• FBI Synopsis on "Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45" duplicative of Venona: FBI Documents of Historic Interest/Belmont Memorandum 1957-11-26

MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Letters Patent of Privileges granting Algeciras and its term to the City of Gibraltar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Excerpt translation.

Excerpt translation. Per precedent, this should be deleted until/unless someone adds the original source work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:Wikiproject Salvation of Israel Project

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned since 2010.

Wikiproject with two participants inactive since 2010. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject Paleontology

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned project consisting of a list of two members and a dozen categories.

Page consisting entirely of a list of two members, one long inactive and the other with no edits in the subject area. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Category:WikiProject Paleontology and its subcategories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Annotated compilation. A source was located, but not for the compilation. The source could be used to create a Portal for the individual components.

Compilation, annotated, unsourced. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The annotations are four footnotes, hardly excessive. The compilation is not problemantic, since the e-mail can be easily separated and the main page converted into a portal. As for the source, the defense exhibits can be found here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  If someone copied the Defense Exhibits both in form and content, then we would have a backed source. But what we currently have is an unsourced, annotated, compilation, and that's three strikes against the current page we have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Odes of Solomon

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published works are beyond the scope of what Wikisource includes.

This was imported today from the website where it was self-published. I can find no academic credentials for the authors, and there are essentially just two reviews on the website to support its quality. If someone can find published reviews of this translation, it would help to make a judgment, but we usually do not host self-published works from the internet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The authors appear to be genuine scholars: Zinner and Mattison That said, the work is evidently self-published and thus seems to be a clear  Delete as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that this is out of scope. Wikisource policy distinguishes original English-language translations from other categories of work, allowing for open-licensed translations in addition to public domain materials, unlike, for example, more analytical scholarship. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Translations page you linked to is a proposed policy, not current policy. The requirement of actual policy at issue here is that the translation in question was not published "in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls"; and self-publication is specifically disallowed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what your link has to say:

For translations, the first priority at Wikisource is the contribution of previously published, public domain translations. However, in light of the fact that there are countless source texts published in other languages that might never be translated otherwise, plus the fact that new, complementary translations can improve on existing ones in many ways, Wikisource also allows user-created wiki translations. For more information regarding translations, see Wikisource:Translations.

Chuck Haberl (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I know what it says. I do not understand your point. This is not a user-created translation under discussion. User-created translations have a whole set of additional requirements to be met, which this translation does not meet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My point, to be clear, is that the prohibition to self-publication is not entirely relevant with regard to translations (user or otherwise). The "whole set of additional requirements" to which you refer is part of the proposed policy (not current policy, as you noted) that also allows for open-licensed translations, so they are evidently also not relevant. If you could point to something in the current policy library that specifically excludes open-licensed English language translations of original sources, that would be extremely helpful. Chuck Haberl (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The proposed policy is proposed because it summarizes some practices in place. The ones limiting user-created translations are part of current practice. The proposed policy summarizes some current practices and some that are proposed. We are enforcing the user-created restrictions as regular practice now. But WS:WWI specifically disallows self-published works, and that is the core issue here. It is not that we disallow open-licensed works, but we disallow self-published ones. I stated this two comments ago and quoted from the policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: This is a reliable, thoroughly researched translation that completely fits within the scope and goals of Wikisource. Nebulousquasar (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This may be a reliable and thoroughly researched translation that completely fits within the goals of Wikisource, but because it has not been published it explicitly fails to fit within the scope of Wikisource as defined at WS:WWI. I really hope they publish this work, because it would be a great addition to enWS once that important step is completed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure "no academic credentials" is fair. Zinner has a PhD in Modern Language and Literature from University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002), and has a scattering of varied academic publications. Given the current academic environment in the humanities where getting a full-time academic position is extremely difficult I suspect we will have a bunch of these grad school trained translations, because that is what people who are trained are able to do and they enjoy pursuing it. And given they are not in academia directly, they end up creating these webpages, going on podcasts etc. rather than going through academic publishers and reviews in academic journals. In my purely subjective opinion, we probably should focus on the various pre-1930 translations and not try to wade into credentials / quality merits of contemporary translations unless there really isn't an alternative. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "no academic credentials" would not be a fair statement. The problem with the Odes of Solomon is that it is poorly studied, so this is currently the best and most reliable translation that's out there. Nebulousquasar (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"Extremely difficult" is a bit of an understatement! I can't imagine the type of institution today that would hire someone working on the Odes of Solomon. By and large, seminaries are not interested in someone who would spend time on translating or teaching such materials, and most secular institutions would find the material entirely too arcane (I went through the American Academy of Religion employment listings for the last two decades and could only find four positions, world-wide, that specifically referenced Christian apocrypha). Furthermore, we are discouraged from employing translations such as these for purposes of hiring and promotion, as they are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as lacking intellectual and analytical heft unless they include substantial commentary, in which case they would be clearly out of scope for Wikisource. If the pre-1930 translations were noteworthy in their own right as artistic or scholarly productions, by all means we should include them as sources, but otherwise there's a lot of merit in registering the most recent English language translation of an original source in place of earlier English language translations of that source. Chuck Haberl (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

E.g. https://archive.org/details/odespsalmsofsolo02harruoft and https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100836140. The 1916-1920 Harris edition: "The introduction and notes of what was for decades the definitive edition, although there are hardly any published reviews, are still basic to any work on the Odes of Solomon. The edition of the texts that were then available, and consequently also the translation , have now been superseded by the work of Charlesworth (1973, 1977), Franzmann (1991), and Lattke, "which nowadays form the scholarly basis for further studies." Like almost all of our pre-1930 translations. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy  Keep I considered this issue very carefully before I put this up on Wikisource. The authors are serious scholars with relevant educational credentials, and are fully recognized as such by the Biblical studies / early Christian studies academic community. Please see the endorsements page too. w:Charles G. Häberl (an Ivy League professor) and w:Bernhard Lang (biblical scholar) (a well-known German professor) both consider the translation to be a major milestone. Nebulousquasar (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource also hosts a lot of translations that completely authored by anonymous Wikisource editors. As such, this is an unfair double standard. Zinner would be much better qualified than the rest of us here, and yet Wikisource allows translations by anonymous editors with no no proven credentials whatever. Nebulousquasar (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

EnWS hosts two kinds of translations: published translations, and translations created by Wikisource editors. Yes, this is a double standard. No, the Nuhra Project translation does not fall under either category and does not meet either standard. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Our Wikisource translations MUST be tied to a published original text, so that readers can compare our translation against the original. Such works that have been published have undergone editorial review in the process of publishing. This particular translation does not provide that side-by-side comparison, and so the appeal to Wikisource-original translations is a straw-man argument. Likewise, we require that recent texts we host be published "in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls; this excludes self-publication." This is why, in my nomination, I asked whether there were published reviews of this translation. That might at least satisfy the peer review requirement. Self-published reviews on the same website have the same issue, of being under the control of the self-published authors, and do not evaluate the work fairly, as only positive reviews will be published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:All the Year Round - Series 2 - Volume 40.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Scan is missing dozens of pages that make it useless for transcription.

This file is missing 90 pp. in 29 separate ranges. I have been working on scans with missing pages with placeholders, but this would just be a waste of time. There’s been no work done on this, so it’s not really a big deal to lose it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Come,_Thou_Almighty_King_(unsourced)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No source found for the form listed; Source for a possible substitute listed at the versions page.

Scan backed version in "Come, Thou Almighty King" in The Army and Navy Hymnal, 1920 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have speedied this long ago, but for one thing: we don't have a scan-backed edition that includes the second verse beginning "Jesus, our Lord, arise". For this reason, I am conflicted about deleting the unsourced version, and my !vote is  Neutral. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I found a source that includes the second verse, although the typography is not quite the same: [34] --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Response to Mahmud of Ghazni

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Excerpt translation.

Excerpt translation. Per precedent, this should be deleted until/unless someone adds the original source work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Verse to Mahmud of Ghazni

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Excerpt translation.

Excerpt translation. Per precedent, this should be deleted until/unless someone adds the original source work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Intrigues of Hermaphrodites and Masculine Females

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Apparent extract without supporting source.

Extract; no source. Possibly speediable as beyond scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject Diary of Samuel Pepys

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Tagged as "historical" per discussion.

Project to add the Gutenberg copy of Pepys' Diary to Wikisource. It operated from 2005-2007 and completed its goal. As Gutenberg texts are no longer admissible on Wikisource, this project has no further function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Unlike the other projects which never had any real value, this one did do work so the project page should be kept for historic purposes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Technical and practical principles of German classic poetry into Azerbaijani language

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Abandoned incomplete work without a supporting source.

abandoned work containing only the abstract of the paper. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Full and true account of the birth, life and death, of Judas Iscariot.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant to other scan; pages in scan illegible.

A different imprint of Index:Full and true account of the birth, life, and death of Judas Iscariot.pdf with the same exact text. The nominated copy is missing parts of pages 3–6 (the lower four-fifths), which would only really be replaced by the other file. The index talk and pages can also be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Encouragements and Warnings - Schurz - 1896.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Pages of loose-leaf Index transferred to the scan Index; loose-leaf Index deleted.

Different scan of Index:Encouragements and Warnings, which is already complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Wouldn't it be better to shift everything to the DjVu Index, instead of keeping it at the loose-leaf one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Divine Pymander in XVII books Everard John French 1650 The Corpus Hermeticum.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant to second scan and missing a dozen pages.

This index was missing pages. When these pages were obtained, the index was regenerated as Index:The Divine Pymander (1650).djvu. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper Vol. 11–12.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Defective scan missing multiple pages.

Another index with too many missing pages (in thirteen separate ranges) to be worthwhile to replace. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper Volume 17.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Defective scan missing half the pages from the volume.

While it’s hard to tell because of the replacements, this index is actually missing more than half of the pages (the first fourteen issues). Any replacement would be more replacement than original. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource:Text integrity

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.

This page was created in 2006, and seems to cover information that is mostly out of date. I do not see anything here worth preserving, nor any reason to have this information on a separate page. The page is mentioned, and linked to, from the top of Wikisource:Protection policy in a parenthetical note. -EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but mark historical, I suppose. The information is not really that outdated, anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why keep it and mark it as historical? It is a page written by one person in Jan 2006 that does not seem to have ever been significant. It discusses options that were expected to be implemented, or that were "new" in 2006, such as partial protection. Historical status is for pages that were once active, but have gone inactive. This page was only "active" for one person in a single month, and thereafter its history is one of minor maintenance edits and vandalism. The last significant edit was the removal of a chunk of text eleven years ago, noting that it was "completely out of date and not the current reality". There have been no significant additions or updates since 2006, aside from that major removal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all of this text is already written somewhere else, e.g. the protection bit, or about technological then-projects that did not turn out that way.  Delete as I really can't see what use this can be to anyone. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. I see nothing worth preserving here. Xover (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete—there's nothing actually historic there because the ideas weren't implemented. I note the talk page conversation about revamping it in 2008, which never came to pass. As a general comment, essays and procedures from before the proofreadpage extension was implemented have little value other than explaining the state of some residual pages that need to be converted to scan-backed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Letters to Atticus

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Old, incomplete work, but scans of the source are available.

I suggest deleting this work for several reasons. Although individually they might not be considered sufficient for deletion, summing them up led me to this proposal. In its current state I think it is better to make space for adding a scanbacked work in compliance with our current standards. The reasons are:

1. Abandoned incomplete non-scanbacked work.
2. The given source is [35], which means it is a secondary transcription from a nowadays obsolete and unmaintained personal webpage of a professor of classical literature. Although it was added here in times when secondary transcriptions were not forbidden, now they are and it is not possible to finish the transcription from this source anymore.
3. Some chapters were annotated by the WS contributor: For example, Letters to Atticus/1.2 are subtitled "ROME, JULY" in the source while in our transcription it is subtitled "Rome, July 65 BC", with a link to the author's subpage added to the year. The same applies to Letters to Atticus/1.3 and others.
4. On the other hand, some annotations present in the source were not transcribed to the Wikisource version. One example: Letters to Atticus/1.2 does not contain the annotation "[p. 17]" which is present after the words "very strong idea" in the source.
5. Our version is also not typografically faithful to the source, comparing e. g. the capitalization of titles and subtitles of individual letters.

Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Although the Pomona pages were used for copy-pasting the text, those pages were a transcription of Evelyn Shuckburgh's translation, published in four volumes, and scans of which are available from multiple locations. So although the work is incomplete, it can be finished using the stated source, albeit not by copy-pasting from the secondary transcription. The user-added annotations should be removed, but their presence alone is not cause for deleting the entire work. Neither are errors in capitalization reason to delete an entire work; but it sounds as though the comparison was made against the Pomona copy rather than against scans of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for more or less EncycloPetey’s reasons. The above problems all originate in the fact that there isn’t a scan used, but the scan could very easily be obtained. It’s also not incredibly incomplete, so I don’t think that it should be deleted for that reason. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Open Letter to America

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Converted to redirect to the scan-backed copy at Radek and Ransome on Russia.

Unsourced raw OCR which includes even page numbers and many other OCR artefacts like "politi- cal fiux" and many others. Better delete and create space for a new transcription from scratch. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: It could be fairly easily proofread (by me) from this file if you’re willing to create the index. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is great, thanks! The index is here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Radek and Ransome on Russia now exists, and is fully proofread from the scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe redirect Open Letter to America to Radek and Ransome on Russia? — Alien333 ( what I did
  why I did it wrong ) 01:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but we leave discussions open for a week before taking action. It is possible a second edition will be created in the meantime, in which case we would make a versions page instead of redirecting. And if we did redirect, we would first delete the source-less version. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Author:Paul W. Roder

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Author with no hostable works.

Non-notable author with no hostable works. (I'm basing the claim of non-notability on the fact that he has not merited an article on Wikipedia). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 18:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment We don't judge based on "notability" the way Wikipedia does. A person is an author if they have a published work; though their works may not be hostable or within our scope (for example, they may have only self-published works, in which case we would not host their works or have an Author page for them). Absence of a Wikipedia page is no useful measure: there are many, many people who have no Wikipedia article even though they qualify for one, and many of our Author pages have no corresponding Wikipedia article. What is most important for Wikisource is whether they have any hostable works, or the likelihood of such a work being hostable soon by virtue of impending translation or end to copyright. In general, we have deleted Author pages for modern authors with no known hostable works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

From Help:author pages: Generally, author pages should not be created for an author with no known compatible works. A few very popular authors have pages, which are marked with {{copyright author}} to make this situation clear, because those authors are common places for people to add lists of copyrighted works. This is a defensive measure to prevent people repeatedly adding their works; it does not mean that all modern authors should all get such a page. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 19:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. I don't know who Roder is, but the fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article is how I know he doesn't merit the exception we occasionally give to certain very popular authors. Whether or not he fais w:WP:N is, as EncycloPetey points out, irrelevant. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The usual examples of "very popular author" are Stephen King and J. K. Rowling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet, somehow they are not the only individuals in Category:Author-PD-none ... —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of the authors in that category do have hostable works (see for example Author:Robert Cardillo, who worked as an employee of the US Gov't); and the remainder are typically Author pages created before the Help page was written, and the principle established. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• The two works are both credited to Frank H. Netter in library catalogues (and in the books themselves), so I don’t know where the attribution to Roder arises. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Subdivision navigation templates and the templates it contains

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted since a grandiose 99% supermajority of the desired county portals were never created to make these templates useful. Their content has been migrated to Wikisource:WikiProject Geographic Portals/Navigation, to maintain their use for project tracking and the eventual recreation of the templates if enough county portals get created in the future. I'd estimate a reasonable 75% minimum of the counties of any state would be satisfactory for any of the templates to be reinstated.

These are all exclusively redlinks (minus the one example listed below), so they serve no purpose in navigating anything to anything. I have no idea why these exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think that these were created with Portal:Randolph County, North Carolina in mind (which is linked from the North Caroline template). I don’t think that they’re useful here where there it would be difficult to find enough items to fill a portal for many, if not most, of the counties. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe someday if someone gets super-diligent about posting all kinds of county-level resolutions for a certain state or maybe there are a number of county-specific historical documents that someone could transcribe, but in the next 70 years or so, I don't think we're going to need these. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

These were created (I think) as part of Wikisource:WikiProject Geographic Portals. (Pinging @SnowyCinema as they made it and may be interested in the discussion). The argument is, from the project's page, that there is a quantity of local-level texts, e.g. newspapers, which is probably true, but as it stands,  Delete as we don't have much of that and will not for a long while, after which these can be undeleted. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 23:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit that this is a project I lost interest in quickly after I started. I created this with the intent of creating the actual portals, which I barely started. Although these portals are technically possible to create given the vast amount of documents that exist associated with each county, the time I calculated that it would take to populate the portals was pretty insane. I believe there were about 3000-something counties overall, and with the careful precision I was using, the process might take months to even as much as a year, just to create the portals, assuming I did it consistently.

That's not saying anything for the time it would take to transcribe works that should populate these portals, which might by itself take several more years (again if worked on consistently). This is a significant problem since there are some users (including one who I suspect will participate in this discussion on the negative side) who are entirely opposed to pages that solely contain red links, for reasons that are certainly not without merit.

You will find a county here and there that's a blue link (e.g. Randolph County mentioned above, Portal:Hudson County, New Jersey, Portal:Scott County, Kentucky), but it is by all practical measures an absolute sea of red. And I do think more of these "geographic area portals" should be created since the site should ideally be diverse in its geographic coverage (we don't have Portal:Chicago yet and idk how that's even possible by 2024). It'd be nice to have more "local" works transcribed. And even with what works we already have—if you apply the more rigid "no portals with all red links" rule—there are a number of county portals that can be created (generally America's more populous or well-known counties, that have several encyclopedia articles about them and the like).

What am I getting at with all this? It's a project that, if resurrected, probably needs to involve several dedicated editors, and those editors likely don't exist. How many times have I said we really need Wikipedia's ginormous interest-area editing base here? So I suppose gutting the templates for now would be the best solution. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: SnowyCinema (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. A scan has been located and is mostly proofread.

Old, non-scan-backed text with lots of links in contravention of the annotations policy; but, more to the point, its source is a wiki that not only can but has been changed after it was cut&pasted here. This treaty must be available in actually published versions from which a future transcription can be made.

Note that the missing license isn't really an issue. It's a 100+ year old treaty so it's almost certainly either EdictGov or PD-old. Xover (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is just like the Treaty of Versailles (in many ways). If you could create an index from here I can start working on the transcription. In any case it can be match-and-split and work done from there. (The wiki-as-source problem isn’t really an issue, as the text is the same as that which can be found on a number of other text repositories.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have uploaded File:Treaty of Peace - Trianon (1920).pdf, which will need the Google notice page stripped from the front. Once that is done, I can set up an Index page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: I’ve removed the page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

    The Index:Treaty of Peace - Trianon (1920).pdf is ready for transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Commons top icon

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unused and unneeded.

Now-unused template that puts a Commons logo in the indicators area. It used to be used on the file description pages of files hosted on Commons (through hooks provided by MediaWiki), but is now unused. It has no use outside that context, and the only reason it exists as a distinct entity is that templates (vs. Lua) do not support modularization through subroutines and similar (otherwise this whole template would have been a function inside a larger template). Xover (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Constitution of the Esthonian Republic (1934)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. User-original translation is now tied to a scan-backed original at ee.WS.

This translation has two key problems: (1) It is based on an English translation, not on a copy in another language. (2) There is no original backed by a scan on the parent language Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: it claims to be a translation of the preceding constitution, which has different text. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

How did you get that from the document? It claims to be based on another English translation, to which it links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

And that translation is titled: Constitution of the Esthonian Republic (1920), not 1934. (It's the same one that's linked in the previous header link.) I checked with the copyvio detector, and it is indeed a different text, with the '34 one having a few rephrasings/additions. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 16:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What is relevant for the purposes of a user-created Translation on Wikisource is that it must be a translation from a non-English original language. Translation from modern English to modern English is not a Translation. Being based on a public domain English translation isn't relevant here, particularly when the editor of the page has previously made errors in posting dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know, this was just a note passing by,  Delete anyways. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 17:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But your note is incorrect. It does not claim to be a translation of the 1920 constitution; it claims to use the language from that translation for a translation of the 1934 constitution. Hence: based on. --EncycloPetey (talk) EncycloPetey (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 17:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the 1934 constitution isn't a fully-fledged constitution, but an amended version of the 1920 constitution. Hence, the parts of the 1920 version which were not affected by the 1934 amendments were kept as-is. Glide08 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Notes & Queries for Somerset and Dorset v4.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. BAdly damaged scan with missing and unreadable pages. Also a duplicate of Index:Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset - Volume 4.pdf

While it says that p. 278 is missing, that’s not actually true; it is there, just so poorly scanned as to be useless. (The back of the plate facing p. 360 and p. 361 are missing.) But that list isn’t complete: here are all of the pages with scans so poor as to be useless: 398, 44, 59, 120, the image in between 132 and 133, 145, 188, 224, 236, 244, 246, 250, 274, 278, 317, 338, 376, 382, vi, and many pages at the end which were the title pages of individual parts of the volume. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Collective Edition of 1883"

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Long-abandoned table of contents with no backing scans.

Empty TOC, no content after 10 years —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Decade years navbox

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Redundant, and unused.

Unused template; redundant to and less flexible than {{categories by date}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Bongbong Marcos' Second State of the Nation Address

The following discussion is closed:

Kept by consensus.

This address has large sections with multiple paragraphs at a time not in English. It is a mixed language speech for a bilingual audience and should therefore reside on mul.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support, agree that it belongs on mulWS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Although there are some parts not in English, most of the text is in English and so for me it is OK to host it here. I think that we should try to avoid moving texts to mul if it is at least a bit justifiable for them to be hosted here, because mul: is not really a user friendly site. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The challenges present on other Wiktionaries are not a reason for keeping a work here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an English-language text. In a formal transcription the Tagalog-language text can be proofread on the appropriate language version and trans-language section-included here, as is the case for other works with multiple languages. This logic would require all dictionaries on all versions to be deleted and move to old Wikisource, which is not useful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Dictionaries are a straw-man argument, since the dictionaries have a target audience that speaks English. But the target for this speech was a bilingual audience, not an English-speaking one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Several Maccabees

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Empty and abandoned translations with no source text.

The following:

• Translation:2 Maccabees
• Translation:4 Maccabees
• Translation:5 Maccabees
• Translation:6 Maccabees
• Translation:7 Maccabees
• Translation:8 Maccabees
• Translation:9 Maccabees

All of these translations have sat unfinished (some with only a header) and abandoned since 2012. There is no designated scan-backed original for any of them. As far as I can tell, there isn't any copy for any these books on el.WS, whether scan-backed or not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Boykisser (song)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published, and therefore beyond scope.

These are lyrics from YouTube, which is effectively self-publication, and is not allowed under WS:WWI. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. I appreciate the good faith contribution, but I don't see any wiggle room here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The sourced video is at nearly a million views. Many works we accept only sold copies in the thousands or less during their time. Its subject appears to also be moderately culturally relevant in modern times. Our transcription of it also got 52 page views this month, not at all an insignificant number. I tend to pay close attention to our page view statistics, in the pursuit of my personal interest in "Wikisource recruitment", and I'll just tell you a whole lot of very academically notable works get a lot less views than this.

 Abstain for now. We should consider that perhaps our site could get some badly needed attention if we used modern consumption trends (social media, video games, and we've already been doing movies extensively) as a tactic to gain new editors and readers through exposure. The reality is that social media defines the modern ecosystem, whether we like it or not. I certainly don't, but it is a reality, and all I'm saying is Wikisource could benefit if we somehow took advantage of that.

I also understand the sentiment that we don't need to become a dumping ground for whatever garbage someone wants to throw on TikTok or YouTube. It'd be ideal to draw some sort of arbitrary measure for where to draw the line with "social media", but I don't know what that margin should be. If it has a Wikipedia article about it (like Me at the zoo), that's usually pretty uncontroversial to include already, but obviously this "Boykisser" video doesn't, so it wouldn't apply to that rule. This can be subject for a broader policy discussion, one of these days. (Wiktionary has relatively recently changed its rules to allow Internet sources instead of just traditional paper sources due to similar kinds of lexical restraints they were having, and maybe we could consider a similar path.)

I'm just brainstorming, don't take it too seriously. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Without some objective criterion for inclusion, one that isn't subject to whim or trends, the point is moot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is the potential for "Documentary Sources" which something like Me at the zoo, can fit into (and which allows self-publication). If it is referred to elsewhere it might arguably qualify as "evidentiary" (e.g. Me at the zoo merits inclusion as evidentiary documentation of YouTube). Is this being included for it's artistic value or because of it's broader societal importance? MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: I wouldn't wager the editor who added this really cared about our policy all that much. It may have evidentiary value to some broader meme community or something, but I wouldn't know. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In general we have been pretty strict under this criteria, and not really trying to make this a focus area of us to be a comprehensive documentary site for anything: whether political (such as diaries of people in war zones or on political campaigns) or cultural (as is this case here with apparent reference to furry culture, but could be whatever). MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don’t think that a strict application of the self-publication rule is appropriate in this case. Historical factors have led to self-publication as a viable alternative to what would have been formal publication, without the correspondent negative associations which prevailed at the time the policy was enacted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Should we accept such sources under some circumstances, we need to define such circumstances and modify our rules first, not vice versa. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Shafting Plan for Turbine Engine for Christiansborg, 22nd October 1920.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Mostly image, but also in Dutch, which is not in scope.

Out of scope, Image, not text? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is text, but it appears not to be in English. Dutch, I think. Probably Transwiki to nl:. — Alien  3
3 3 10:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. This is a blueprint, not a textual document. It contains some short bits of text, but they're all labels and legends which would be meaningless out of context. Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The item has not been tagged for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Database Normalization and JDBC Implementation in Relational Databases by Ashlan Chidester.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published, and thus out of scope.

Proposed for deletion on Scope grounds. This appears to be self published tutorial material, better suited to Wikibooks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This text doesn't appear to have been previously published anywhere. Omphalographer (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Undelete FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui

The following discussion is closed:

Not restored. No support after a month; the original decision stands.

In closing the discussion EncycloPetey has taken a stance on a matter currently of much debate: the “original source” for the purposes of items returned pursuant to FOIA requests. While the discussion in regards to this item did not touch upon the subject, the closing comment necessarily falls down on one side. Here are the two opinions:

1. The original source is the work as originally created. This means that each individual e-mail, witness statement, report, &c., within a FOIA request is its own separate item, and a source file can be extracted to fulfil the purpose.
2. The original source is the work as released. This means that each PDF returned from a FOIA request is a separate source, and the source file is the entire returned item.

I am of the former opinion; EncycloPetey is of the latter. This has come up with more force in the discussion above on “Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement.” In that case, which is as good an example as any for this sort of discussion, the FOIA release is an 83-page PDF containing numerous documents relating to a military trial of a detainee. One of those documents, found on pp. 43–45 of that document, is the statement which is presented as an individual work here. The question, then, is what is the original source for the statement? Is it the three-page document which contains the statement, or is it the 83-page PDF which contains the statement and other items released pursuant to the FOIA request? I use the statement as an example because nothing of it has yet been deleted, but the same logic applies to the e-mail in dispute. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The key point in closing this deletion request was that the "FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui" was neither an individual work, nor an element of the source found, but was a compilation selectively assembled by a Wikisource user. The fact that this was a user-assembled compilation was one of the reasons Jan Kameníček nominated the work, and we have previously deleted such compilations. The compilation was also annotated, which violates our Wikisource:Annotations policy.

We also had no source for the collection of emails. In the discussion, TE(æ)A,ea. pointed to a web page claiming it as a source, but I was not going to click through a hundred links on that page to try to hunt down the source. We have a claim above that there is a PDF as a source, but no link to this PDF has been provided. Since we had (a) a compilation, (b) annotated, with (c) no source, there was more than sufficient reason to delete, and there is no reason to undelete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Exinct sincerae devotions affectus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. No scan supported copy at the original language WS. A potential scan was found, but no progress transcribing it after a month. If the original is transcribed, then this translation could be restored.

Not in accordance with WS:T: "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki..." -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a fairly important document, and otherwise not readily available in English. I think it's worth trying to salvage. I've uploaded File:Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, tomo 15.djvu to Commons; once I figure out how to navigate esWS I'll start transcribing this section. (Note, even though the work itself is in Latin, it is published in the Spanish periodical es:Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, so I'm assuming that its proper location is esWS rather than laWS) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a work in latin go to la? As far as I'm aware, only the language of the text means anything inclusion-wise. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 14:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the Latin text is only a couple of pages embedded within a work written in Spanish. It's similar to how the Maori text of Translation:Ka Mate is hosted on here on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

But then wouldn't this constitute an excerpt translation? — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I suppose an argument could be made for treating such works as "excerpt translations" ... but Translation space is weird like that sometimes. Some rules don't apply there, like the rules against self-published original works, or the rules against evolving texts. But if the community is concerned about it, I can start setting up Translation:Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia for the page to reside in. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Notes & Queries for Somerset and Dorset v9.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unusable scan because of multiple missing or illegible pages. A new scan needs to be found.

This has a similar problem to volume 4. The following pages are either not scanned, missing, or were scanned such that some or all of the page is unreadable: viii–2, 4, 10, plate facing p. 35, 62, 74, 84, 106, 108–110, 114, 117, 225, 229, 237, 247, 255, 257, 276, 282, 303, 309, 341–342, 344–345, 347, 361, 379, 383, 385, back of Part LXXII. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Signpost and the pages it contains

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Collection of self-published articles, thus beyond scope; superfluous duplicates of articles hosted on en.WP

Per WS:WWI, as the Signpost is self-published. This belongs at w:WP:, not in mainspace. — Alien  3
3 3 19:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete but from me, it's not because of them being self-published as a rationale by itself. For me it's more because they were self-published by Wikipedia itself on Wikipedia, which from a practical perspective seems extremely redundant. Having "transcriptions" of Signpost articles here means we are effectively duplicating content that was already available in a wiki format in the first place.

Well, say we decide to keep these Signpost articles at Wikisource. Here's what would need to happen: If Wikisource wanted to be comprehensive (which we should want that for all of our Wikisource content), we would need a bot that automatically publishes those same Signpost articles at Wikisource right after WP publishes them. But can anyone think of any benefits to that? It seems like that would create a new maintenance project, with hours spent on coding and maintaining, and very little practical benefit. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral I think this is a grey area for self-publication. However, if kept they should all be moved to subpages of The Wikipedia Signpost. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Question: Is there added value to having the pages here as well as Wikipedia? Curious to hear your thoughts. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If we only consider that through the lens of "added value", all secondary transcriptions, which, although not accepted anymore, are not deleted, would be. (I wouldn't personally object to that outcome, but some may). — Alien  3
3 3 19:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not. One could also ask if there is added value to having pages here as well as Internet Archive, Google Books, etc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There's added value to those pages because the transcriptions on Wikisource are in wiki format and have been proofread, unlike the scans and unchecked OCRs on those projects. A Wikipedia Signpost article is already in wiki format; creating a slavish copy of it on Wikisource doesn't add value. Omphalographer (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The category has not been tagged for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, completely forgot, now done. — Alien  3
3 3 18:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A Narrative of the Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump without source.

copydump —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019/Schedule 2

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Uploaded text does not match the source.

Doesn't match text given in root source. Delete and start again with KNOWN edition and scan please.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The American Revolution (scriptural style)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Unformatted copydump; a match-and-split Index exists that can be used to create this work.

Direct copy of IA's raw OCR. — Alien  3
3 3 12:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Unintelligible.  Delete; an index page has been created from the DjVu. That can be proofread. Cremastra (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Official Toki Pona Dictionary and Notes on lipu pu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Though both items are extracts of a larger work, the larger work is not hostable. Both items were released under a compatible license, although the including work was not. It is therefore not possible to include them within the containing work. No general solution for such situations was proposed, so both are being kept in their current form.

These are extracts from Toki Pona: The Language of Good (2014) and Toki Pona Dictionary (2021) respectively, and hence fail WS:WWI. It is perhaps worth noting that these extracts have been released under a CC license, while the remainders of these works have not (and are not available online at all). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons you have given. Insofar as they have been separately released, they are whole works. Notes on lipu pu is already scan-backed, and it shouldn’t be too hard to get a copy of the 2014 book for other scan-backing purposes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  But the first text is pulling content from a copyrighted work and slapping a CC license on it. That's a serious problem, because I don't see how you can claim CC on copyrighted material. The second work appears to be a response to the original text, quoting from it, and does not appear to be an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: From a technical standpoint, obviously, one must have copyright on certain material in order to release it under a license. I assumed (without looking in to the matter) that the license was legitimate. I found a forum post which says that the dictionary was released into the public domain in the original book; if this is the case, the license is not an issue. Given that statement, I have ordered the book and will scan the dictionary if it has actually been released. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, the author of this work has put this section of the book under a CC license. The copyright status of this portion of the work is not an issue. The issue is that it is an extract of a published work, which is currently banned under WS:WWI, and the copyright status of the rest of the book prevents us from hosting it in full. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

    @Beleg Tâl: The Wikisource:Extracts page says that the reason for banning extracts is mainly that "The act of making the extract introduces a bias, placing emphasis on certain points and potentially eliminatig counterpoints or contextual information. Even an extract made in good faith may inadvertently change the intent of the original work." But in case of Toki Pona dictionary, assigning a different license specifically to the dictionary was the intent of the original work. --Ssvb (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    That is one of the reasons, yes. Another reason given is "The intent of Wikisource is to create a library of freely available, complete texts", which is impossible with the texts in question. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

    • Beleg Tâl: Yes, and these are complete works, as I have said. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

      I disagree. Giving this extract a different license, is not the same as publishing it as its own complete work. It just means that the extract is more accessible. It's still an extract. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

      How does Wikisource handle mixed-license content in general? E.g. a book with pubic domain text, but also with still copyright protected illustrations? Or a newspaper issue with some articles already in public domain, but not the others (edit: Wikisource:Periodical_guidelines#Copyright seems to provide some guidelines)? Should Wikisource have an index for the whole Toki Pona book, but with blank placeholder pages for everything except for the CC-licensed part? --Ssvb (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

      Templates like {{image removed}} have been used in cases like that, but that content should be removed from the file also, else commons/us would be hosting copyrighted stuff in that file. — Alien  3
      3 3 06:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete, noting that the "scan" of the Notes on lipu pu seems to be just some self-published pdf. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Jan Kameníček: No, that’s just a copy of the “notes” section from the 2021 book, which has been published. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

    I see. I am striking my vote for now and will think about it again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Nizami's poem

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as extract.

This work is an extract, it is part of the work Khusru and Shirin included inside Sykes's A History of Persia on p. 141 inside Chapter 54. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per WS:WWI. Cremastra (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Author:Friedrich Simony

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Author with no known works in English that can be hosted at Wikisource.

Does this Austrian chemist have any known hostable works? All the listed works are in German. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I could not find any English translations of his works, so I don't see the use of this author page. Ping to @LlywelynII: what was your reason for creating it? Are there translations or something else hostable that I couldn't find? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

He is linked to from an Encyclopedia Britannica article where his scientific measurements are reported. 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete: I did not find any English translation either, and that EB article has already many redlinks, one more will not change much. — Alien  3
  3 3 07:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Licensed Prostitutes Regulation Order

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. WS-original translation with no scan-backed original copy at the Japanese Wikisource.

Not in accordance with WS:Translations#Wikisource original translations: A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Translation:“Regulations for the Control of Licensed Brothels and Prostitutes” in the Korean peninsula under the Administration of the Empire of Japan

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. WS-original translation with no scan-backed original copy at the Japanese or Korean Wikisource.

Not in accordance with WS:Translations#Wikisource original translations: A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Last of the Mohicans

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version. Redirect founded instead.

This unsourced version duplicates the scanbacked The Last of the Mohicans; a Narrative of 1757 which was proofread in its entirety in the Monthly Challenge in February. Pasicles (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Fill line

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per criterion G7

I created the template {{Fill line}}, but since then I found out there's already {{Form field}}, which was trying to do the same thing. I lacked some functionality, but I rewrote it to be better. Now there's no need for {{Fill line}} anymore. Eievie (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Done; this qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G7. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Case Against Vaccination

This section was archived on a request by FPTI (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC) This work has been replaced by a scan-backed transcript, so it no longer needs to be deleted.

The source cited is not currently available online. It was, rather than a library, an anti-mainstream medicine website.

If that were the only issue, I would note that a proper source is needed, and move on. But the transcription as listed here does not even match the original source! A quick scroll-through revealed many differences from the original. It seems that @AllanHainey may have edited the already second-hand transcription as they "transcribed" it.

So, this transcription is an edited version of a source that may itself have been edited.

I uploaded the correct, scan-backed source here. I'm going to work on this, and hopefully get it done in the next month or so. As it is, the current transcription is incorrect.

Is this enough for deletion?

I don't know, but I thought I would put it out for more experienced editors' input.—FPTI (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Delete - yes, that's more than enough for deletion, as a lack of fidelity to the original source, as well as not being scan-backed, is particularly against our policies. SnowyCinema (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per above -Pete (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(You should tag with {{delete}} pages you bring to PD.)

It's not that different from the source, and not being scan-backed has historically not been a reason for deleting works dating from before the ban, so I'm not 100% sure that in itself it'd be deletable.

But as soon as you're done, this will be speedi-able per WS:CSD#G4, replacing non-scan-backed works (Thanks a lot, by the way, we need more of that), so  Delete anyways. — Alien  3
3 3 19:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Keep, As of today I have replaced the page with a source-backed version. So we can just keep this page up, now that the issues I have addressed are fixed. Thanks for the input! —FPTI (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)