Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2025

Extracts of For the Sexes: The Gates of Paradise

The following discussion is closed:

Turned into redirects as extracts

That page contains a two fragments of [1] (p. 2 & 21), and is where it should be added in full.

Three other pages contain three fragments of that same work, as rootpages, and should be deleted as extracts:

• The Gates of Paradise (p. 2)
• Of the Gates (p. 19-20)
• To The Accuser who is The God of This World (p. 21)

— Alien  3
3 3 10:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A New Song of New Similies

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

Is an extract of [2] (p. 332), so delete per WS:WWI#Extracts. — Alien  3
3 3 13:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely an individual poem has its own existence and does not become am "extract" merely by having been included in a collection of poems ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a poem is, broadly, a work, and can have a version within other works, such as periodicals or collections. Typically what we'll do is delete it after a scan-backed version has been provided. That particular collection looks like a rough project; I'd wait. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case I  Keep unless/until we find a collected edition of Gay's poems which we use. -- Beardo (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep until replaced by a scan backed version.

FPTI (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 13:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No Peace Before Victory

The following discussion is closed:

Kept

Is an extract of [3] (p. 307), so delete per WS:WWI#Extracts. — Alien  3
3 3 14:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way - there is no delete tag on the actual page. -- Beardo (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak  Keep, as speeches are themselves a type of work. I don't like that it's not scan-backed, but I'm reluctant to delete it if we have nothing to replace it with. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

There is another version of that speech (without that title) at https://archive.org/details/speechhonhenry00davis/page/n5/mode/2up -- Beardo (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep We typically consider speeches / bills / laws etc. as independent works even though they are typically published in large collections (e.g. the Federal Register, Hansard, Congressional Record, etc.). For example, we just discussed Lavrov's speech at the UN General Assembly without requiring proofreading the whole collected set of the whole General Assembly session for the year. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 13:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Last of the Plainsmen

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

Only contains chapter one, and does not give a source. This page and user who created have had no activity for a year and a half. — Alien  3
3 3 14:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has a decent quality scan if someone wants to take this up properly: https://archive.org/details/lastofplainsmen0000zane_b4h9 Omphalographer (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 13:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Undelete File:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted

According to the deletion discussion, it entered the public domain this year. Norbillian (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Norbillian: Done since no matter what the case was in 2018, it's in the public domain now. And feel free to also assess if it can go to Commons now, and fill in more info. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you also delete the index file? Norbillian (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Done SnowyCinema (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed the Index also had pages, will undelete them. — Alien  3
3 3 07:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 07:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

For the US, yes,ut since this was published in India, and the author died in 1987, the file needs a "Do not copy to Commons" template with the author's date of death noted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It also needs a {{book}} template present and filled out. Title, date, author, and source being of particular importance. Xover (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 08:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 13:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Gregg Shorthand Manual

The following discussion is closed:

Converted to dab page

They are not editions of the same work, they are different works. The list is redundant to the list of works in Author:John Robert Gregg. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Added a forgotten {{delete}}. — Alien  3
3 3 13:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. The 1916 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million: New and Revised edition" with copyrights of 1893, 1916, 1901. The 1902 linked title is "Gregg Shorthand: A Light Line Phonography for the Million: Revised edition", copyright 1901, 1902, 1893. The 1898 link is entitled: "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-line Phonography for the Million copyright 1898, 1892. The 1893 is entitled "Gregg's Shorthand: A Light-Line Phonography for the Million", copyright 1893. Why are these not different editions of the same work? Of course new and revised editions have updates, new material etc., I get that the first edition US edition is 35 pages with five 4 page lessons that have been expanded to 154 pages with twenty 8-10 page lessons in the "Fifth edition". The author describes them as editions rather than new works as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What led me to the conclusion that they are separate works was the very different content of the books, compare e.g. the First Lesson of the 1888, of the 1893 and of the 1898 book. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The actual content covered isn't that different if you read it, certainly they are closer in content than say versions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. But even so, when is the solution to we have works by the same author with similar titles (e.g. completely different poems with the same title) deletion as redundant to the listing on the Author page rather than conversion to a disambiguation page? I really don't see the problem with listing "Light-line Phonography" on a disambiguation page for "A Light-line Phonography for the Million" or vice versa. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I agree with conversion to a disambiguation page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Rise of the Grubbs and Colemans

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an extract

This is just an extract from Historical Papers and Addresses of the Lancaster County ..., Volumes 17-18 - see the google books link on the talk page. It doesn't seem to be a full item, just a subsection. -- Beardo (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Even more so, it's an extract of a speech inside a section. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 19:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Frederick II generalis litterae, 1224

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as not in english

Work is not in English - so does not belong. (Also no source given). -- Beardo (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy-deleted under WS:CSD#G8

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Esszett

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus to delete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 20:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G4 as redundant

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

Speedied as redundant per WS:CSD#G4.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Self-published translations from stihi.ru

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

Here is the list of the works in question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 17:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Elegaic Sonnets 1.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per WS:CSD#G4 as redundant

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 19:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Maynesborough Charter

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. 12-year-old unsourced copydump.

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

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

Do you still plan on doing so? and, I didn't understand, do you object to deletion of this version or not? Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:WD author

The following discussion is closed:

Closing without prejudice, as this has veered off-topic and is unlikely to get anywhere constructive

This template is explicitly promoting a single user's ideology, which is at odds with the practices and policies of Wikisource, Commons, and Wikidata. The Example given in the template documentation advocates a linking style with a Wikidata item that has been deleted because it fails to qualify for notability.

Specifically, the first parameter of the template is meant to link to the work data item at Wikidata, and the second parameter is meant to link to a data item for the scan. RaboKarbakian (talk • contribs) has regularly been creating data items for scans (not editions) at Wikidata. Both Billinghurst and I have explained there multiple times that this goes against policy. Nevertheless, this continues, and each time a different excuse for continuing the practice is offered.

This template is designed specifically to prop up one user's skewed ideology and practices at variance with everything done both here and on other projects. The template should therefore be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak  Delete because it seems like an improper usage, as there could be multiple scans of the exact same edition of a printed work. That being said, I'm not against using Wikidata to pull data generally, if the data is produced properly (like, if the template actually referred to an item for an edition and not a scan). It can be quite useful, and powerful—so maybe this specific template is out of place, but to generate work links from Wikidata isn't something I'm fundamentally against. I've thought of specific use cases like populating publisher portals from Wikidata queries automatically (not yet tested, just an idea), or populating city portals with authors born there according to Wikidata, which could increase visibility, efficiency, and accessibility of our content. So I don't want the precedent set here to be "don't produce work links from Wikidata" fundamentally—more that, specifically, scans should not be viewed as if editions. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the principle of pulling WD info is intriguing, but this template isn't being used to pull desirable data, isn't producing desirable results, and does not provide hints to the user about how to effect changes. Over the past month, when I have followed links generated by this template, I have sometimes gotten local links, sometimes links to Wikipedia articles, and sometimes links to Toolforge. And there is no means to determine from the setup what is causing a particular link to happen, nor any obvious means for adjusting any link that is wrong. And all that on top of its use to prop up condemned practices. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I’m not quite sure if the practice employed through the template is the best, but the nominator’s hysterics makes me believe that it can’t be all that bad. The only reason offered for deletion, despite the multiple paragraphs of whining, is that the nominator doesn’t like the use of Wikidata. Absent a discussion (which should probably be at the Scriptorium) to ban the use of Wikidata, I think it’s inappropriate to ban it here through banning the template. The attitude of the nominator seems inconsistent with his status as an administrator; although this is by no means the first time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  You have misunderstood and misread the nomination. Your objections appeal to perceived "hysterics" and "whining" as reasons to ignore them, without actually bothering to investigate or to verify the problems and issues under discussion. If you do not understand, you can ask for clarification or examples rather than blaming "attitude[s]" of other people.

  Please look at d:Q107644932, which the template documentation specifically advocates as a correct second link. Then note its deletion on Wikidata and their reasons for deleting it. See also Wikisource:Requested texts/1929#Novels, a section using this template as a result of these edits by the template's creator. These must therefore be understood to be "correct" usage of the template, at least according to the template's creator. Yet these template calls generate undesirable links to Toolforge and other bizarre locations. Why retain a template specifically and intentionally designed for incorrect links? Note also that the template is not pulling data for the Author or the scan; but is merely being used to pull the title and to (incorrectly) link a location off-site from the title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issue Teaea brings up is not about the substance of the nomination, but about social dynamics. I don't think they are the one misunderstanding things. -Pete (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you mean that their vote is based on social dynamics, and is not based on the substance of the nomination? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey: My vote is based on your proposal’s lack of foundation—in anything that actually matters. Your “social dynamics” comment goes to the point I made: you made this nomination to harass another user, plain and simple, which is frankly unbecoming of any user, much less an administrator. It’s telling that you are trying to convince yourself that I “do not understand” the problem, when I can see your username right in front of me. Similarly, you “misunderst[and] and misread” by response, and attack me as a way to ignore it without addressing my comments. In fact, your reply illustrates exactly the fact I noted in my response: that your nomination is pure hysterics—and histrionics, for that matter. Your reply states your reason for opposing the template—but it just as clearly shows an objection to its operation, not its existence. You wish the template to function better; perhaps you should work on trying to fix it, or so something else that’s useful, instead of wasting your time here? You rushed me to get Orlando Furioso (v. 4) in six months ago, and you’re still not done, so that sounds like a good place to start. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

    I see. You are using gender-based derogatory comments like wikt:hysterics and wikt:histrionics to claim that my behavior is unbecoming. Please desist from making derogatory comments; doubly so for comments inherently based on gender. Such comments are unbecoming of anyone.

    I fail to see what in this request even implies that I "rushed" you somehow on volume 4 of Orlando Furioso. Please provide an explanation of why you think you were "rushed" and how you believe that pertains to this deletion discussion. You seem upset that 15 pages out of 282 are not completed from the volume 4 that you prepared a scan for, and on which I have been proofreading even this week and as recently as 8 hours prior to you posting your complaint. You have never before (that I can find) expressed such irritation, nor indicated that there are time-limits to complete the proofreading of requested scans. Before you complain about such things, I recommend first posting a notice at the top of User:TE(æ)A,ea./Requests, so that requesting editors are aware that you intend request completions adhere to some time frame. But this is hardly the forum for such a discussion.

    Your assumption about my motives for the nomination are incorrect.

    My nomination is based on the fact that, not only does the template malfunction (and uses created as recently as in the past month by its creator do not function), but that the documentation shows it is intended to malfunction. I am not against the idea of pulling data from Wikidata, but this template is so broken from the ground up that it cannot simply be fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

    • EncycloPetey: You say “I see” as if you have come across some grand conclusion, and not (as is the case here) like you have simply made something up. If you bothered to read the dictionary definitions you went out of your way to mention, you would realize that neither has any gendered connotation. To copy your language: “Please desist from making” statements which are outright false. “Such comments are unbecoming of anyone.” On that note, you seem to invent a restriction which I have not made anywhere on my requests page. As you can clearly see, there are other users who have numerous requests which have been open for a longer time—and I have made no statement against anyone but you. I am saying that you should spend your time doing something actually beneficial to the project, like proofreading the volume I got for you months ago, instead of lying about and harassing other users, which is what you are currently doing. It is telling that you begin your response by lying about my actions instead of trying to defend your course of action. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

      I apparently read more of the dictionary than you did: wikt:hysterics "hysteria; a bout of hysteria" -> wikt:hysteria Etymology: "From New Latin hysteria, a back-formation from Latin hystericus, from Ancient Greek ὑστερικός (husterikós, “suffering in the uterus, hysterical”), from ὑστέρα (hustéra, “womb”)"; Usage notes: "Some usage advisers recommend caution with the terms hysteria and hysterical, because the medical and psychiatric senses of the terms over the centuries have been inextricably bound up with bias via stereotypes about gender; in medicine, the words are no longer nosologically current. Some advisers recommend avoiding these words even in the broadest sense that is arguably gender-neutral."

      You failed to answer my question about why you claimed I "rushed" you. What is the basis for this claim? What was your purpose in pointing out the length of time it's been worked on (twice now)?

      I have spent my time being beneficial to the project. I completed two plays this month, including one that you provided, per request. If this does not satisfy your expectations that I should be doing something beneficial, then the problem lies not with me, because I have been proofreading works you supplied, which you stated is beneficial.

      You are now accusing me of lying. Please point out the lies, specifically, or kindly retract your claim and apologize. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

      • EncycloPetey: I’m not a doctor, so whether a term is “nosologically current” is irrelevant to me. I wasn’t even using the term in a medical sense, as should have been obvious from a cursory glance at what I wrote. I get that you like Aeschylus and his crew, but I don’t consult the Ancient Greek etymology of every word I use to divine whether you will consider it problematic. You keep asking me to explain my points, but if you would so kindly read my previous statements you would receive the answers you seek. I’m not saying that you’re not a net benefit to the project—you could make an argument for it—but that you’re not being beneficial in … well, I’ve said it already: “lying about and harassing other users, which is what you are currently doing.” But it is auspicious that you have once again brought my mind to the issue, as during the pendency of this very discussion you have continued your harassment of RaboKarbakian with another nasty message. Do you want me to point that out, too, or is it recent enough for you to remember? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

        I say again:

        (1) You failed to answer my question about why you claimed I "rushed" you. What is the basis for this claim? What was your purpose in pointing out the length of time it's been worked on (twice now)?

        (2) You are accusing me of lying. Please point out the lies, specifically, or kindly retract your claim and apologize.

        (3) You claim that "during the pendency of this very discussion you have continued your harassment of RaboKarbakian with another nasty message", but I am unaware of any harassing or nasty message. Do you mean this reply, stating that discussion would decide the issue? Do you mean this message, chastising the inappropriate altering of another user's comments? Please support your claim with evidence, or apologize. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow entirely. OIs the problem that we use WD to link the page here to the backing document on Commons and index file? E.g. using WD fields such as (P996, P724, P1957, P675, P1844)? Our example {{Authority control}} says "authority control data should be added to wikidata" and the example provides ARCHIVE=, which is a scan level and not a Work or Edition level property. Routinely we have multiple scans at commons with multiple archive IDs of the same edition, are these all supposed to pile up on the same edition in WD? MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I also think this gets into the murkiness around what is an "edition", e.g. if changes are made within a print run such as a correction changing the year on the title page, adding "second thousand" etc. Do we start making these as 1a edition, 1b edition etc.? For example, this image [[4]] was removed from later copies of the first edition such as the one we currently are proofing [[5]]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason this is hard to follow is that the template's creator regularly conflates work / edition / scan in creation of Wikidata items.

• item created that is marked as both a work and an edition, with further editions of the work/edition listed
• edition data added to work data item
• Transfer of content on Wikidata pertaining to an edition from a Wikidata item for an edition to a Wikidata item for a work e.g., and vice versa.

Or compare this insertion of the template on Wikisource coupled with the insertion of edition-specific data to a data item for the work in general. Likewise here.

The template added here then is linked to the now confused Wikidata items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That is orthogonal to the discussion at hand, which isn't about whether adding "publisher" to a work entry in WD to for example populate a WP Infobox is prohibited, whether they should create a work level "first publisher" separate from "publisher" and editions etc. I would note that P123 says "literary work" is an allowed entry, and links to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q44996 as an example usage which is a work and not an edition. The solution would be to put a constraint that these properties aren't allowed on works in WD. This was explicitly rejected on the discussion page "For the vast majority of books ... it seems much better to assign a publisher to the creative work, rather than expect WD will create book entries for them all." For publication date the description says: "use 1st edition when referring to works" implying that is also an acceptable usage when referring to work.

My POV fwiw;

a. Author pages list works, version pages list editions / scan hodgepodges (as we don't have a three-level hierarchy).

b. We don't make a distinction between version / edition pages until we have multiple editions when we create version pages. Linking from Author directly to a particular edition is widespread practice.

c. We don't expect creating a version page for every single work to enforce version / edition separation unless multiple editions are present. We also don't mandate redirects in preparation for a future version page. That means we don't have separate work and edition targets. Propose updating our policy to mandate creation of separate targets on our end before complaining about confusion, i.e. every scan back edition should be linked to either a redirect or version/translation page under the main title

d. I am generally fine with create a hybrid WD for the work early with the edition and scan info, then create the edition and move those properties once we have an edition target, i.e. once we start transclusion.

 Keep

MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep-All that needs to happen to satisfy "The Book Project" (which has shown more interest in not having inter-wiki links) is if Redirects are allowed here and to be used at wikidata. The history of John Brown's Body (Q124282449) and John Brown's Body (1928) really tells it all. I put the link of this single finished work into the main wikidata for this work (John Brown's Body (Q6223425) so that it would render on en.wiki and perhaps en.quotes. As you remember, all of the interwiki links were deleted because wikidata would be providing them. And, Petey lectured me of the "Book Projects" requirements for the wiki links (the part at the bottoms of the data that are for the wikis). I think that a redirect was made so that the link could appear there; and no (if not that one, several others were deleted previously); that is not how the book project does things.

That I am being harassed by Petey has more evidence than not because, having failed at chastising me properly (or whatever) for some datas I was adding to versions at wikidata, Petey immediately launched this deletion request; not even waiting a day of "good faith" or what have you. Perhaps there is better evidence that Petey is a fine person who would never do such a thing. I am open to any fact regarding this.

But simply allowing redirects will satisfy the Book Project and also provide the inter-wiki links, which is what wikidata is supposed to do.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Users at Wikidata have been trying to explain to you the difference between "work" and "edition" since 2018. That's six years of "assuming good faith" before acting to rectify a problem that isn't being solved through such discussion. Moving links around to get links to show up the way you want them to, in opposition to the Wikidata standards, is not the solution. Wikidata has a community-agreed upon set of standards. Flaunting those standards for six years, and arguing that you are right and the community is wrong, means that good faith can no longer be assumed on this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Check: Is this data item for a work or for an edition? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy close/keep without prejudice: I would request at this point that an uninvolved admin close this nomination without prejudice, pending further discussion and a fresh (and more transparently reasoned) nomination, if necessary. Parsing the wall of text above is not a great use of Wikisource volunteers' time. Any user (and especially administrator) should make an effort to set aside disputes they are invested in, and work for resolution in ways that do not tax the rest of the community. -Pete (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 14:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Al Mawakeb Research Center(AMRC)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied per precedent discussion by EncycloPetey

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

James Cook and South Georgia in 1775

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 09:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Author:Ijaz Hussain Batalvi

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Recent author with no known works in English.

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Chanchal Sarkar

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Faust: A Tragedy

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 06:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bronx and Its People/William Henry Steinkamp

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Now backed by a scan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents abridged

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Self-published abridged edition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Dada Manifesto (1918, Tristan Tzara)?

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not renewed, I believe.

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Ok, thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness

The following discussion is closed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Song of the Battle of Abin

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as an extract

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Executive Order in Response to Russian Hacks.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Consensus to delete

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

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

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

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

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 18:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Enzikiriza Y'omusiraamu Entuufu.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Speedied. Not in English, and thus beyond scope.

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

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Stautes of the Realm

The following discussion is closed:

Withdrawn by nominator.

Minimal effort, Files are too big to reliably thumbnail:- Index:The_Statutes_of_the_Realm_Vol_2_(1377-1509).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 3 (1509-47).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 4, Part 1 (1547-84).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 4, Part 2 (1586-1625).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 5 (1628-80).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 6 (1685-94).pdf Index:The_Statutes_of_the_Realm_Vol_7_(1695-1701).pdf Index:The_Statutes_of_the_Realm_Vol_8_(1702-7).pdf Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 9 (1708-13).pdf

Easier to delete these to allow for a different contributor to "start again" with a known quality edition actually compatible with Mediaki/Wikimedia infrastructure. (I've ommitted Volume 1 as that had more substantial contributions, and can be migrated when someone uploads the relevant volume as part of a KNOWN set of scans, that display reliably)

Due to changes elsewhere, these very large files, also need to be replaced with less resource intensive ones. ( Penn University has as set of scans on Hathi - (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012297566 ) which are nearly the same edition as the very large files.

Perhaps someone can work through these, checking for missing pages and generate appropriately slimmed down Djvu and replace the PDF's that aren't seemingly compatible with the infrastructure. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn as another contributor plans to squeeze the files. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:75 FR 43825 anti-circumvention exemption.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleting as an extract (we have the full index too)

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

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

Done, closing. — Alien  3
3 3 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Alien  3
3 3 07:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)