Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource

Jump to: navigation, search
←Community pages Proposed deletions Archives (current)→
Shortcut:
WS:DEL
WS:PD
This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

Possible copyright violations should be listed at Possible copyright violations. Pages matching a criteria for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more experienced users or administrators. (Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.)


Contents

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Plain text pages

While looking through Special:Deadendpages, I have found a few "plain text" copies. According to Google, these are the only two named "plain text":

I can see us wanting to have duplicates for printing purposes, like wikibooks does, but that can be achieved with transclusion. John Vandenberg 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Among the deadendpages, I have found a duplicate for printing purposes: Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions/Complete Edition. We should tag/categorise these. John Vandenberg 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankenstein/Full Text is another print edition that uses transclusion. The automatic footer has inadvertently buggered this up. John Vandenberg 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
here is another: Ecclesiastical History of the English People/Full text (uses transclusion, if I understand correctly). Tarmstro99 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thus Spake Zarathustra has a print edition. John Vandenberg 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All, since it is unbelievable that we'd ever have this for all pages, having it for only a few only confuses and further muddies our attempts to create a cohesive project. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Jefferson Davis 03:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteThese pages appear to be experimental redundancies. Eclecticology 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Found another one: AP Latin Syllabus/Catullus. I also vote delete for all of these. Tarmstro99 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Another has been created: Stories from the Arabian nights/Plain text. John Vandenberg 21:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As long as the person shows that he is continuing to work on the project, I don't mind keeping this large file as a temporary holding file. There may be a way that these could be better named so that we can track their progress. Eclecticology 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly we need some way to find all these pages and ensure that none of them are redundant.--Poetlister 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As these were all missing {{delete}}, I have added this and propose we give editors more time to notice this proposal.--BirgitteSB 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm confused here as to what specifically is being proposed here. I created Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions/Complete Edition in a fashion similar to what is being done on Wikibooks as a transcluded compilation of the whole book. Is the proposal here to remove the "full text" versions of any books here on Wikisource, or that the transcluded version like I created here would be considered more acceptable? Compiling books via transclusion doesn't have any technical problems, until you exceed the 2 MB limitation of MediaWiki software on transclusions. For purely text transclusion (rather than heavily nested templates with multiple options) this is a very difficult amount of material to hit and will work with nearly any book-length document. I agree that having redundant text on multiple pages is not worth maintaining other than as a temporary holding place while breaking up a text into something a bit more readable under a typical web page interface. IMHO a full version like I did for Interesting Account is something that should be done when appropriate for the text, as it does help the reader/end user of the content and doesn't really hurt the Wikisource database. From an administrative viewpoint, this is also incredibly easy to maintain as well via transclusion. --Robert Horning 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another one that uses transclusion: The Art of War (Sun)/Full Text. I dont have a problem with the transcluded ones, but we do need to fix the others, and we do need to collate them all so that they can be administered together. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • For The Art of War (Sun)/Full Text the chapter texts are fully duplicated onto templates, and these templates are transcluded into the full text. A correction in one of the chapters would not even appear in the full text. Eclecticology 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all (whether transcluded or not). I'm glad someone else nominated this, because I was too lazy to do it myself.  :)—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I still support deletion, but is there any way in which the "Printable version" might be modified so that a full-text version could be generated on demand for any work without the need to have these save on-wiki. When "Printable version" is called it could be as simple as checking a box to include sub-pages. Eclecticology 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think in order to do what you propose (which I think is a fantastic idea) would require getting a dev to change the print preview code. And we all know how difficult it really is to get these sorts of changes made.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    This would be pretty trivial to do using JavaScript; I'll code a mockup tonight or this weekend. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, that just shows how much I know about any of this coding stuff. ;) That sounds great, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing as delete, no opinions in nearly four months and consensus exists to delete the pages. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page/archive 1

At present, Main Page/archive 1 says it is a Russian text that looks similar to this, which is about a 1990 event. I doubt it is public domain. Prior to this change, it was an discussion archive, but it looks very similar to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-04. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Yann 09:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayvdb, This is an account of tragic political events in 1990 in Baku, Azerbaijan. I think it has historical reasons to be published here or there. The authors, I presume, wanted to be anonimous for security reasons, or this is more or less official text that doesn't need to be copyrighted. I would not worry about this leaving the responsibilities to those who published this text. Yours, Dmitrismirnov 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless evidence of (1) prior publication elsewhere and (2) a free content release by the original author(s) comes to light within a reasonable period. Tarmstro99 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the burden of proving the text is public domain or an acceptable license falls onto the shoulders of those wishing to keep the text. I believe Dmitrismirnov's comments fail to do so. Daniel (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultra-Complete Index

There are three pages called "The Ultra-Complete Index..", and they are all using invariant sections, which is against our policy, and none have the appearance of having been published, which puts them out of scope:

I also found w:User:Dyss#wikisource:The_Ultra-Complete_Index_to_Dirk_Gently.27s_Holistic_Detective_Agency which may be a completely useless piece of related info. I've emailed the authors. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will happily (some might say, floopily) proceed to change the licensing terms of the present text and remove the invariant sections so that it may be moved to wikibooks, as discussed with Jo{h}n by e-mail. --mathiasmaul 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly for Wikibooks.--Poetlister 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikibooks is for collaboratively-edited textbooks (including annotated texts). I don't see how this is an annotated text. Maybe I'm missing something, but this is a list of where certain terms appear in the books? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a reference work, and if it goes on Wikibooks maybe people will collaborate to improve it. My point is that it shouldn't be here! --Poetlister 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if it goes into Wikipedia someone will work on it. Maybe if it stayed here people would work on it. Both are probably true, but it doesn't mean that it belongs here! Wikipedia is a reference work too, but you'll note that Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. Wiktionary is a reference work, but we're not Wiktionary either! (etc...) Just because it doesn't belong here doesn't mean it automatically belongs at Wikibooks. We have an inclusion policy just like every other project; please respect it just like we respect the inclusion policies of every other project. Since this doesn't fit your inclusion policy, you might ask if Wikiversity would like this; theirs is rather liberally applied, and covers a wide range of materials. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pcu123456789/source2

This is a list of pages that were deleted as beyond scope. As a userpage, it has outlived its usefulness. Alternatively, blanking the page might be appropriate. I cant see how to contact the user. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless the author wants it removed, I'm loathe to remove anything in UserSpace that isn't violating copyright law. Hell, my profile is mostly a collection of broken links - I'd vote to leave this be unless we get a green light from Pcu123 Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King 23:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of categories

[edit] Category:Teachers, Category:Educators, and Category:Professors

I don't think there is sufficient difference between these occupations to have a seperate category for each. Maybe they could be merged into a single "Educators" category. (Or, alternatively, the teachers and professors could be made subcategories of the educators category.) Wild Wolf 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree "Educators" is the best route, it's difficult to categorise many ancient and antique persons otherwise :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill 04:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree. Professors, maybe, a subcat? But teachers and educators are close enough, I expect. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think maybe subcats would be the most appropriate course in this situation. While all teachers and professors are educators, it does not quite work the other way around (I'm thinking of people who focus more on the educational theory side or do teaching that does not happen in any kind of classroom or academic setting--still educating but maybe not in the traditional sense as teachers or professors).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that all professors are educators, but broadly I agree.--Poetlister 16:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think "educators" is all that's needed. "Professors" could be kept if we think it's useful, but "teachers" is not needed. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All professors and teachers are "educators" to some degree, so I suggest merging into that one category. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Acts of the Scottish Parliament

This category is currently empty. All Acts of the new Scottish Parliament are currently Crown Copyright, and this will be the case for many decades unless the law is changed. There is already a separate category for Acts of the Pre-Union Scottish Parliament (pre 1707). Having the category might encourage people to contribute texts that are Crown Copyright which is unhelpful to Wikisource.

John Cross 11:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Poetlister 16:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
206.01 Edicts of government. Edicts of government,
such as judicial opinions, administrative
rulings, legislative enactments, public
ordinances, and similar official legal docu-
ments are not copyrightable for reasons of
public policy. This applies to such works
whether they are Federal, State, or local as
well as to those of foreign governments.

The template for that is {{PD-GovEdict}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep, the category is no longer empty, and John is correct without contest on the copyright issue. Therefore, there would appear to be no grounds in the nomination to delete this category. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, In use and no copyright concerns about pages in it. Additionally, I have added it to a parent category where if fulfils an important role. Suicidalhamster 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Quebec authors

I'm not sure if this category is needed, since few of the other nationality categories have seperate categories for each of their political subdivisions. This should probably be merged into Category:Canadian authors. Wild Wolf 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, it belongs as a subcategory of Canadian authors, just as we might use Navajo authors or Romani authors, they're distinct populations not easily bunched together with the overall country. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Honoré de Balzac 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, For reasons stated by Sherurcij. Also, from 1534 to 1760, the overwhelming majority of "Canadian authors" are in fact "Quebec authors". The genesis of a national literature in the French language occurs in Quebec during the 1800s. While nobody doubted the existence of a literature in English in Canada, until the 1960s, it was still an object of debate whether or not there was something like a "national literature" of Canada (meaning, an English language literature specific to the Canadian nation). Nobody doubts it today, but writing its history is still a problem. Meanwhile, Quebec's literature kept on being written primarily in French in parallel to Canada's English literature. The two are clearly distinct, although English translations of Quebec's French language literature appear to have impacted the English writers of Canada to a certain extent. -- Mathieugp 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' Basically, this means French Canadian authors; would it be better to rename? An English-speaking author from Quebec would be quite different from the french-speaking ones.--Poetlister 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. It is better to distinguish by territory, if only to respect the usage in Québec. Littérature canadienne-française is only used in a historical sense in the French language today. We always say littérature québécoise. In what is called Canada today, 90% of those who speak French as their everyday language are Quebecers, hence their calling themselves Québécois more often than else. Québec English-language authors, although usually more strongly attached to the rest of Canada by identity of language, also insist on being identified as Quebec writers. Even if it is never the intent, it always is perceived as some form of discrimination to speak of Québec writers as only writing in French and likewise as a negation of the distinctiveness of Québec and its culture to speak of French-Canadian authors as if Québec was not home to such a high percentage of them. (If I refer to percentages, it is because I read on your user page, after staring in disbelief at your photograph, surely a fake, that you are a statistician. :-) It should also be pointed out that Quebecers, French-speaking ones at least, insist on their distinctiveness with the French even more strongly than they do with their co-citizens of Canada. Basically, to us, Quebecers are to the French as the Yankees are to the English. To mix up the two peoples is unspeakable profanity. If we go by language alone, making abstraction of the territory of Québec, some people will think that "French Canadian" authors means all Frenches in what is now Canada and therefore include the distinct literature of the French-speaking Acadians. That is unfortunately more complicated than that. "French Canadian" would actually exclude Acadians, who form a distinct nation, and include diaspora writers in the USA, mostly in the New England States bordering Québec. I apologize if I made things even more confusing. If I failed completely at explaining Québec, let me know and I'll make it even more cryptic in a poem just for you on your talk page. ;-) -- Mathieugp 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Economy and Category:Economics

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to be about the same subject. Wild Wolf 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy would include statistical material such as National Accounts and price indices, which describe the economy in numerical rather than economic terms.--Poetlister 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Writers

This category probably should be deleted, since there there isn't much to differentiate between a "writer" and an "author". Wild Wolf 20:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have no objections. You are right Dmitrismirnov 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
However Writers means here the prose authors that differs from the authors of poetry etc. So it has some reasons to stay here. What do you think? Dmitrismirnov 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:Novelists for those writers who wrote books, if that's what you meant. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Cookbooks 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that poets are authors rather than writers. They are both, and anyway ought to be in Category:Poets. Category:Novelists would not cover writers of short stories or non-fiction works.--Poetlister 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, by the broad stroke of "Writer" would apply to every authorpage we have, since we're hosting letters they wrote, speeches they wrote or something similar. I don't see the need for it anymore than Category:Humans, to be faecestious. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: John Gould 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sherurcij, given the scope of Wikisource (text works) I think the "Author" category would be a wee bit pointless. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:History of specific countries and Category:History by country

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to deal with the same subject. Wild Wolf 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes should be merged. Would prefer to end up with Category:History by country, which also fits with en-wikipedia. Suicidalhamster 09:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American history and Category:History of the United States

These categories should probably be merged, since they appear to deal with the same subject. Wild Wolf 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion requests

[edit] Iraq

As per the recent vote to include works that are not copyrighted in the US, due to coming from countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq - I'd like to propose we re-establish Author:Saddam Hussein which was deleted under the pretense of his works being copyrighted in the United States - which simply isn't true, according to the Circ 38a of the US Copyright Office and everything else which I've looked at. The PD-Iraq template however should mention that under 1971 law, Iraq uses a death+25 rule ,and thus these works won't be PD in Iraq until that time. The translations were similarly public domain (and obviously I supported, even then, the deletion of BBC interviews and the like, this is only about his speeches, etc). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could another admin undelete the author page at least temporarily so that the rest of us can see what is being discussed. The text on the author page is obviously GFDL so there is no copyright problem. John Vandenberg 05:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I listed the vaguely PD texts at User:Sherurcij/saddam already, removing the interviews somebody had added, which as I said, there is no argument, they definitely are copyrighted in the US. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I undeleted the Author page which may be temporary pending the outcome of this discussion. Sherurcij, sometimes you lose me in these discussions :P What situation exactly are you saying Saddam's works fall under in US law?--BirgitteSB 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
International Copyright Relations of the United States, 38a. Iraq's copyright law is not recognised in the United States, same as the previous Iran discussion. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sherurcij. For everyone's convenience here is the original deletion discussion and a related Scriptorium discussion. Personally I am going to abstain on this. In contrast to last weeks discussion , I am no longer certain what consensus is about the general situation.--BirgitteSB 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that every single work of Saddam Hussein will be under copyright in Iraq (im using that as the higher threshold for inclusion), but have yet to find any clear provision for any except his UN speeches. We do not want to indiscriminately undelete all of these texts due to the lack of treaty, as our ability to justify using that provision is severely lessened as the number of texts in that category grows. (discretion is the better part of valour) I find it odd that neither [1] nor [2] mention copyright. Anyway, rather than have a long and messy discussion about an author page, there are plenty of PD texts about Saddam, and we can use the {{copyright-until}} template to document our best efforts to determine the copyright duration of his works, so I suggest we keep this undeleted, and unlink the red links until we have better license templates to cover the texts. John Vandenberg 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link that explicitly says the United States subscribes to the Iraqi copyright law? Because my link explicitly says that it does not. It is possible for an American-backed "Provisional Authority" (was it the PA?) to enact a local law which is not recognised in the United States. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Jefferson Davis 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The United States currently recognizes Iraq's copyright law, since we made it, but before 2004 we had no copyright treaty with Iraq. (This is also true of Afghanistan before 2002, Ethiopia, San Marino, Bhutan, Iran, Nepal, and possibly Yemen.) However, Jimbo Wales has vociferously and publicly opined that we should not use works copyrighted in other countries simply because we don't have a copyright treaty with those countries. (In his view, it is unethical to do so.) Jimbo's word is not binding in this, but consensus usually tends to go with his strong opinions in borderline cases, and the English Wikipedia only uses Iraqi works if their copyright has expired in Iraq. (See w:Template:Iraqcopyright.) All of Saddam's works first published before 1958 would be in the public domain in Iraq. Later works are considered copyrighted there. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion, as per my understanding Afghanistan still lacks copyright law, so I'm not sure about your "pre-2002" clause - and I think Wikisource's mandate is towards preserving history and information in whatever instances it is legal to do so. Thus, a comment once made by Jimbo should not be binding us to not only paranoia about the legality of works in the United States, but even about works whose legality is certain. Can you find evidence that suggests that the Iraqi parliament has passed copyright laws, that the United States respects those laws (since I've found evidence stating that the US does not respect Iraqi copyright laws), and that they are retro-active? Barring that, these works are definitely not copyrighted in the United States (they're speeches, so they also fit your recent criteria at the Scriptorium. I can see no valid reasons preventing these works from being un-deleted. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise several point, and I'd like to refer to each in turn.
  1. First, this isn't about "copyright paranoia", as you suggest. The copyrights on pre-2004 Iraq are categorically not enforceable in the United States, and there is no legal liability for us using them. We can all agree that it is legal to republish these. It's about whether it is ethical to do so. Jimbo feels it is not. I am agnostic on the matter. You say "I think Wikisource's mandate is towards preserving history and information in whatever instances it is legal to do so", and that's a valid opinion. But Jimbo seems to disagree here: "Simply saying 'Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it' is not a very compelling argument."
  2. You're right that Afghanistan does not have a copyright law right now. It may have never had one, I don't know, but there was certainly no copyright treaty between Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the U.S.
  3. Iraq currently respects copyright for 50 years p.m.a., per s. 2(11), Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 2004/83. The U.S. respects this copyright law. It is not retroactive.
  4. These speeches were written down (fixed), and not merely off-the-cuff comments, so Mike Godwin's comments do not apply.
I hope this clears things up. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the help. Consensus seems to be that they are legal, and it is just a question of "ethics" as you put it, whether or not we host them. I'm not sure how you know they were fixed pre-spoken, but I suppose the onus is to prove otherwise? Regardless, even without Godwin's comments - the speeches are not copyrighted in the United States, and if we are pedantic about removing works where they're PD everywhere except the United States, I think we owe it to these works to accept works that are PD in the United States, regardless of "self-censorship for the purpose of ethics" Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that if there's no copyright treaty between Afganistan and the US, then they use US copyrights without hesitation. If you want copyright protection, then get your country to obey the quid-pro-quo that's necessary to have it.--Prosfilaes 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another Undeletion

Russian POW suicide note (translated by US Dept of the Army) was one of many suicide notes deleted as a copyright violation, but as the authors were Soviet citizens (thus putting the work under the Soviet copyright lawPRINCIPLES OF CIVIL LEGISLATION OF THE SOVIET UNION: Copyright), and as a veteran of the Great Patriotic War (WWII), the creators died before January 1, 1950 - and has been that way since at least 1993. Thus this text falls under {{PD-1996}} Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your logic in applying Soviet law here. The work was written in Fort Dix, NJ. I can't imagine this was ever published in the USSR or how else it would come under Soviet domain. I would have to think this should be considered an unpublished work from the US and is copyrighted until 2015.--BirgitteSB 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Soviet law states "Copyright is also acquired by Soviet citizens...in works first published abroad or existing in material form on foreign territory"[[3], so it would seem to be an issue of Soviet law - and under Soviet law, the text is definitely PD and has been since before 1996. Under Soviet and US law, the translation is PD. I'm not sure whether or not US law would still apply, but the issue of foreign authors in US Copyright doesn't seem to suggest that a Prisoner of War's note written in Fort Dix would fall under US Copyright Law. The issue of national origin isn't much help either, and I admit I don't entirely understand under what pretenses a work would fall under the US Copyright Law. But a Soviet POW who is held against his will in a POW camp doesn't seem likely to be beholden to US Copyright Law. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask around some more. In regards to your last sentance the author(s) killed themselves at the prosept of being shipped to the USSR against their will, they were less moved by the issue of being held in Fort Dix against their will.--BirgitteSB 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And don't forget that they were German combatants presumably captured outside of Soviet territory. So the Soviet connection is extremely tenuous.--BirgitteSB 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This also agrees that the men were Russians. The fact they were anti-Bolshevik does not mean they weren't Russian. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
They were Russian, but not Soviet POW's. They were German POW's of Russian nationality.--BirgitteSB 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that they're Russian citizens/nationals, who fought in favour of the German advance against Russia? They're Russian "Traitors" as I understand it, not Germans. But I could be mistaken about the facts - is there a clear statement proving one of us wrong about the status of the men? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
According to w:Betrayal of the Cossacks Many of the repatriated were never Soviet citizens (having left Russia before the end of the civil war) or were born abroad. Also remember that the Soviets advanced to Berlin. In order for these guys to end up as American prisoners they had to have been captured far away from Soviet land. Possibly even Northern Africa (Enemy soldiers capurtured in Europe were more likely to be held in England rather than the US while nearly all those captured in Northern Africa were held in the US due to a "similar climate" clause in the Geneva Convention). So I would very surprised if they were fighting along German/Soviet lines (i.e. anywhere in Eastern Europe). But I do not have any details on the hisory of these particular men.--BirgitteSB 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeleting Goldman's Durruti

Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2006-04

Durruti is Dead, Yet Living was published in 1936 by Author:Emma Goldman, who does not appear to have registered any of her copyrights (being an anarchist, not surprising), and Stanford confirms that she definitely didn't renew any copyrights. Thus this text is PD. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare

  • Undelete. Project Gutenberg lists all copyright renewals for 1950-1977 (for works originally published 1923-1950), independently of Stanford's listing. Gutenberg's list yields renewal records for periodicals, pamphlets, drama, artwork, etc., whereas Stanford lists only books. Gutenberg confirms that no copyrights were renewed for Emma Goldman's works. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete No copyright issue.--Poetlister 18:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest undeleting, no contrary opinions in nearly three months. Daniel (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright waiver

There has been some recent discussion on WS:COPYVIO regarding allowing works via the crown copyright waiver. ({{UK-Crown-waiver}})

In the past this has been seen to be incompatible with a project wide "GFDL". See WS:COPYVIO(2006-04)#British Statutes After 1955 where Zhaladshar refers to WS:S(2006-03)#Copyright debate at mailing list, which links to the mailing list archive for Feb 2006, where there are a number of threads, some baulking at attempts to use CC-BY-NC-ND[4], others claiming that all UN resolutions need to be deleted.

Now I can understand that we do not want to accept entire works under CC-BY-NC-ND as the GFDL is quite clear about requiring that commercial reuse is permissible, but I fail to see any provisions under the GFDL to stipulate that any modification or any reuse is permissible. The GFDL is not a license to do anything with a work - it is a license from the licensor to the licensee on what restrictions are imposed by the licensor.

In this case, the crown waiver would require that downstream users also adhere to the crown criteria which means that if they modify our texts, they cant modify it so that it no longer complies, and if they do re-use it, it cant be used in a non-compliant manner, etc, etc. Those restrictions are not imposed by the contributors - they are imposed by the law.

This is no different from moral rights not being revocable. Keep in mind that trademarks are permissible on Commons, and fair use is permissible on Wikipedia - both of these sites are also covered by the GFDL. There are always restrictions of all sorts imposed by many laws, and it is merely our duty to communicate any relevant restrictions to the recipient. We should not exclude works because downstream commercial re-use may be inappropriate; doing that robs all of the readers that are by definition in compliance, and all potential reuse that is in compliance with applicable laws.

As a result, I request undeletion of all of the previously deleted crown acts, including:

John Vandenberg (chat) 08:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of the waiver, as I have noted in regards to deletion discussion of Category:Acts of the Scottish Parliament, these works are considered ineligible for copyright in the U.S., so we can tag them with {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-GovEdict}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all you would be better off comparing the waiver to the cursed Wikisource:Copyright policy rather than the GFDL (even though that was done historcally). I believe you are missing one historical discussion where I was pointing out the the cursed policy is impossible because if it read to be workable in regard to moral rights than it would allow Crown waivers. However that discussion ended with me conceding there were more problems than just moral rights with the Crown Waiver (the argument had something to do with translations). Looking at the Crown waiver again I see a few limtations on use and modification which do not qualify as either simple attribution or transmission of freedoms, nor are they equivalent to the "moral rights" clause found in some juristiction. First all reproduction of the Material should be made from an Official version. This means you may not make a reproduction of the text hosted on Wikisource and be covered under the waiver. Second the Material must be reproduced accurately. In the case of translations into other languages, a competent translator must be used where the translation is to be issued to the public This would seem to preclude some of the collaborative style translation that takes place on Wikisource were drafts known to need improvement are available to the public. Other restrictions of the waiver seem mostly equivalent to interprtations of moral rights.--BirgitteSB 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikisource:Copyright policy can change. Where is this historical discussion? I am basing my request for undeletion solely on the US copyright office explicitly stating that laws in the US and overseas will not be given a copyright if sought, and the "fact" that 99% of the world would cough and splutter at the idea that the government has any right to control distribution and modification of the laws using copyright, in this day and age. Who in their right mind would say that I am not allowed to copy a recent law here in Australia, in full, make a proposed modification and send it to my fellow, or an MP, for comment. We have the ability to add to Wikisource the laws of every land, as currently amended, by taking advantage of the US jurisdiction the servers are located in, and where the laws of the local nation place additional controls on those laws, we can note these restrictions as we learn of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am basing my request for undeletion solely on the US copyright office explicitly stating that laws in the US and overseas will not be given a copyright if sought Then why are you talking about moral rights?? Just link to something supporting that what I quoted is true. I find it believable that the quoted statement is true, but a good link would make things much smoother. With a caveat that these things being US ineligible has nothing to do with Wikisource accepting Crown Copyright Waivers. Regarding your appeal to common sense, I believe you may have forgotten we are discussing copyright law? ;)--BirgitteSB 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned moral rights because it is another example of rights other than copyright that place limits on reuse, and there is truckloads of discussion that have occurred in the past regarding the interplay between moral rights and free licenses, esp. the GPL.[5]
See #Category:Acts of the Scottish Parliament.
wrt the Waiver, if we did adopt a position of laws being PD-ineligible, I think we should need a specific template for the modern UK laws, so that UK readers are aware that recent laws have additional restrictions. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I support undeletion with {{PD-GovEdict}} (which might need to edited to emphasize that non-US mileage may vary when used on non-US works). I am not convinced that we can accept Crown Waivers.--BirgitteSB 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that if an official work is copyrighted in the source country A, other countries that also copyright their own official works will mostly likely honor the official work copyright from country A, even if they do accept the rule of the shorter term. As {{PD-GovEdict}} does not cancel the official work copyright in foreign source countries or other countries honoring the right from the source, the template has to be edited accordingly. If we can post copyrighted British laws here with {{PD-GovEdict}}, how about the laws of Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and more? These once-British places all copyright their official works.I mention Hong Kong and Singapore because they officially speak Chinese as I natively do.--Jusjih 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete per {{PD-GovEdict}} rationale, as presented in the Scottish Parliament deletion request above. I find this argument to be very persuasive, and agree that I believe these works are not eligable for copyright in the US regardless of the status of their copyright in their home country. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Richard Brookins

This page contains two newspaper articles, both verifiable. The deletion discussion is at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2006/09#Walter_Richard_Brookins.

I propose it is undeleted, moved to Author:Walter Richard Brookins, and the redirect then deleted. The two articles can then be split onto separate pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Part of our problem is an overabundance of categories that get bogged down, leaving a million half-complete projects.

The dreamscape below is a huge hotch-potch of aboandoned projects and things for other people to do that will never get done. It could easily be rationalized with 90% of it deleted, and nobody would miss it. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I prefer organization via categories, rather than projects. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-English works

I'd also favour getting rid of Category:Non-English works whose languages are not known and again, if once a year we do get such a work, we just ask each other until we figure it out...not add it to a category that nobody watches.
  • I think this should be kept as part of the transwiki infrastructure. John Vandenberg 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete For now there is only one work on the list, apparantly in romanized Sanscrit or Pali. It can probably be deleted. Yann is more familiar with this kind of work, and can be asked. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's currently empty and if any article is in an unknown language it should be deleted - how can we know if it's published or copyright if we don't know what it is? Even if a title and header is given, how can we know if it's accurate? --Poetlister 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--Poetlister 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Historicaly people ask around until they find someone that recognizes the language and then {{unknown-language}} is changed to {{known-language}}+|Foo and it is transwikied to the the appropriate place (unless it alreday exists there). This category has been consistantly used in the past but not a high enough volume to require we use the category system for this.--BirgitteSB 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christian works

{{Ancient Christian works}} and :{{Ancient Christian author}} are both unnecessary if we simply make the "Previous" tag in the header point back to Wikisource:Christianity. Also, the portal's being deleted as I recall.
I disagree with the suggestion. Christianity is obviously much broader than Ancient Christian works.--Poetlister 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--Poetlister 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a useful category, and it is much easier to add categories to a work (when importing the work) than to add the work to multiple project pages. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and create some sort of page that makes sense... it is highly useful as a catalog of authors. The Christianity portal simply does not help in finding these authors and their texts at present. Perhaps making the template point to something like Wikisource:Christian Authors before 1000 AD and creating additional portals for Christian authors from 1000-1500 and 1500-1600, 1600-1700, 1700-1800, 1800-1900... I know it isn't a perfect solution, but if you were looking for what Christian Authors were here, this would help categorize them by era. Looking, for example, at Author:Augustine of Hippo, there is currently no categorization of this sort. --Mkoyle 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More non-English works

Category:Non-English works whose languages are known should just be a sub-cat of Category:Transwiki templates so we have all the "move this off our server" stuff together.
Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Napoleon Bonaparte 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is fine where it is under "works by language" as that is a common sense way for people to find works to transwiki to a different subdomain. John Vandenberg 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If something needs to be transwikied just do it. Don't put a tag on it and wait for somebody else to act. Eclecticology 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource:Requests for cleanup

[edit] Deletion of indexes

[edit] Wikisource:Anonymous texts

The index system isn't being used to keep track of authorship, and there is no common thread to these works. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource:Searching and Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print

Orphan index pages that don't really provide any information that couldn't be summed up in a single sentence on one of our many Help pages (or even on the Special:Search page for the first and Wikisource:Sources for the latter) - at this point they're basically massive advertisements for Google. "Extra" indexes will only work against us, as readers find them and marvel at how poor some of our pages are. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, they are not index pages - they are project pages. The "Wikisource:" namespace is the publicly visible name given to the "Project:" namespace (try hovering over Project:Works to see that the URL it will take the reader to). The searching page could be moved into the Help: namespace, however there are many "project" pages that are neither help nor topical indexes. As I keep saying, we need a "Topic" namespace, which has grown into a large separate collection, like the "Author" namespace. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of their exact nature, the pages are useless tripe that isn't helpful to Wikisource readers. If there is any valuable information on either page, it should be merged into Special:Search, Wikisource:Sources or Help:Reading. But requiring a reader to find all eleven pages that are about "searching" to get a full grasp on the concept is counter-productive. Have one page about searching WS. Since when does WS "suggest installing the Google Toolbar"? The page is rubbish, and instead of "cleaning it up", we should clean up Special:Search, Wikisource:Sources and Help:Reading Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They are in the Project namespace, as they are useful to some project members. I have Wikisource:Searching once or twice since I updated it, in order to recall how to use the "google:" keyword. If you want to move WS:SEARCHING into the Help: namespace, or merge the "Google Print" page into another list, be all means go ahead, but do a good job of it.
There is very little benefit in deleting any project page; OTOH, it is useful to keep the historical project pages visible (under a redirect) to non-admins who might be curious enough to want to learn the history, for whatever reason. I find it extremely rude to remove peoples contributions from their list of contributions, unless there is an overwhelming need for it to no longer be viewed by anyone. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we either move the pages to User:Jayvdb/stuff (similar to User:Sherurcij/stuff) where you can keep all the links that you use "once or twice" on your personal userpage and subpages. The problem with leaving them in the "public" is that they distract readers who come across them, give a poor focus to WS ("wait, why does WS suggest Google for all my searching needs? And why should I install their toolbar? What does this have to do with WS?"), and sap up information that should be collected on a single page or two, and spread it across dozens of pages. Moving it to userspace will preserve its edit/contribution list, if that is important. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the idea of Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print is useful. Sure, it is far from complete, but I don't see the harm it would do if we keep it. Yann 13:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any convincing reason why it shouldn't be merged into Wikisource:Sources though? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Augustus John Cuthbert Hare 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to merge these. Abandoned projects don't need to be kept forever. Seemingly competing projects by long departed users soon become little more than clutter. Eclecticology 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe both pages are useful to the project and I have actually used Wikisource:Searching a number of times. I understand the reason for merging Wikisource:Public Domain Books in Google Print and Wikisource:Sources, however if this is done, as much of the information on the former should be added to the latter. John brings up the important point about retaining the history of these pages which is, in my opinion, a good argument for not deleting. Suicidalhamster 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of Templates

[edit] Template:Portal:Scheme

Does not seem to be in use at all. Contains only a red link to "Portal:Box-header" .

John Cross 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete; no use.--Poetlister 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see this page; is the link incorrect ? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:57, 17 February 2008

This is one of Birgitte's from 2005; she likely has forgotten that it exists. Eclecticology 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see some related discussion at User_talk:AllanHainey#Portals and Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-12-31#Portals. If this was ever in use in production, it should be kept in order to allow viewing old versions of pages. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was simulating a portal design from en.WP using trial and error as opposed to using any real technical understanding. I created the template because it "made things work" with the coding I had copied and pasted. If deleting it will not break anything outside my userspace, please go ahead.--BirgitteSB 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There doesn't appear to be any transclusions. Per BirgitteSB's comment directly above, delete. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HideIfEmpty and IfEmptyDo

These templates are programming hacks that were used before the implementation of ParserFunctions, and are now redundant with {{#if:}} programming. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:03:54, 06 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Proposed_deletions"