Wikisource:Proposed deletions

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:PD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.
Proposed deletions

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. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. 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 Copyright discussions. Pages matching a criterion for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{sdelete}} and not reported here (see category).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.

The United States Headquarters Agreement is not formatted correctly. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are two different works, though the critical text is (theoretically, at least!) the same:
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
retain as different editions/versions, hat note the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Inductiveload: You seem to have a grasp of what these works are. Could you move the editions of the same work to suitably disambiguated pages, create a versions page (or pages, if relevant), add {{other versions}}/{{similar}} hatnotes to link them together, and tag them all with {{migrate to}}? I think this and the below section are about two editions of a UN—US treaty and a distinct agreement relating to implementation of that treaty, but I quickly lose track of what's what here. --Xover (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The United States Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations is not formatted correctly. It also includes the acts of the US Congress that should not be a part of the article. A new version can be found at UN-US Headquarters Agreement -- Jesuiseduardo (talk) 09:13, 05 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, these are different works that contain the same text with different "contexts":
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Inductiveload is saying that they are different editions, then retain, and ensure that we suitably disambiguate with a {{versions}} page, and hat note each with {{other version}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I think it's time we have this conversation…

Translation:Manshu describes itself as a Wikisource translation of A 9th century Middle Chinese text regarding the geopolitics of southwest China, particularly the historic kingdom of Nanzhao. It is an important historical source for the period. This translation is based upon a digitized version of the recompiled 1774 movable type edition edited by the 武英 (Palace Museum Library).

However, looking at it more closely it appears to be much more an original analytical work than anything that could be shoehorned to fit within our definition of a mere translation.

The front page is almost entirely original work (apart from a table of contents), partly semi-encyclopedic and partly meta-discussion about the effort itself.

Looking at Chapter 1 we find some actual translation, but mostly comparisons with a professionally published previous translation (Luce) that is quoted extensively, and translator's commentary that far exceeds the actual translated text itself. It also features a lot of images that obviously do not appear in any original, but have been picked to illustrate a particular point (i.e. how Wikipedia would construct an article).

Chapter 2 and onwards are the same, except they lack the extensive quotations from the published translation (Luce), but only because the effort to compare has not reached that point yet. Around Chapter 9 the translation appears incomplete with only the Chinese original text present.

Irrespective of the rest of this work, there is a question regarding the extensive quotations from the previous professional translation (link). It is a 1961 publication with copyright notice, so there is a high probability that it is in copyright (and thus the quotations are also copyvios). I haven't looked at this issue in detail, but if this discussion ends up keeping the work in some form we will have to address that separately (and if it is not in copyright, why are we not transcribing that instead of making our own?). The sole contributor to Translation:Manshu has a somewhat haphazard approach to copyright (e.g. claiming satellite imagery from Google Maps or similar as "own work") so the issue will have to be checked thoroughly.

But all that being said, this is also a great effort and a unique work that really should exist somewhere. If it were completed I'm certain it could have been professionally published, and it would be a real shame if all the effort that's gone into it was wasted. The contributor has not been active since 2018 (and the last large progress was in 2016), so I don't think it very likely that it will now ever be completed; but if a place is found for it even the partial translation is valuable, and could conceivably be completed by others at some point in the future. If the outcome of this discussion is that it is out of scope we should make a real effort to see whether a project like WikiBooks would be interested, and, if not, rather than simply delete it we should move it to the contributor's user space (a practice I am usually vehemently opposed to but am making an exception in this particular case).

In any case, it has kept popping up on my radar for various reasons, and I have always been torn on what to do about its issues. It seems clearly outside of scope per WS:WWI, doesn't meet WS:T, violates WS:ANN, and would most likely need cleanup to meet WS:COPY. So now I'm putting the question before the community: what do we do about this? --Xover (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WS:T ought to address contributions like this, the first section on published works is redundant. Are there examples of Wikisource translations that have been in some way verified (validated)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: Not a lot, but they do exist. Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions is a recent example. --Xover (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could go in User space for the time being. Maybe Wikibooks would want it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm only able to comment on a small portion of this, which I hope might be helpful: has no results for Man shu or southern barbarians as title; nor Luce, Gordon as an author name; nor do Cornell University or Southeast Asia Program or Oey or Fan, Cho seem to have a relevant renewal under their names. Southeast Asia Program as a title reveals registration of other of these data papers as copyrighted works, but no renewal of this one. This suggests the copyright was never renewed on the Luce translation (possibly this is not surprising, as these weren't exactly blockbusters...) and it is now public domain, judging by Help:Public domain#ref renewal. If accurate, this should resolve the WS:COPY concern. Good luck with the rest of this matter! Dingolover6969 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response by author[edit]

Hi there, I am the primary author, an admin on English Wikipedia. I would say I have spent upwards of 500 hours on this translation. During the time it is alleged that I have been inactive, I was a founding team member at a very important company you would have heard of, and provided some of the earliest COVID map coverage on Wikipedia (webm gif). Currently I run seven (7) companies and have a family, so it is fair to say I have 'other commitments'. I do still intend to complete the translation. Aside from time constraints, partly I have not been active on Wiki projects recently because I am living in China and this makes editing Wikiprojects a massive hassle due to the requirement for a VPN. Nevertheless, I noticed this deletion attempt by Xover and would like to respond objectively for the record. If we summarize the alleged issues they are as follows:

  • The translation includes commentary
    • That is simply because it is a good (ie. transparent/honest) translation.
    • Any accredited historian will agree this is a good (positive) feature.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work is incomplete
    • I am still finishing, I am just ridiculously busy and have been so for five years.
    • Incomplete and pending further effort is often simply the nature of voluntary work.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes quotations from previous translations
    • Fully cited and contextually presented, in academia, this is clearly fair use.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The work includes satellite derived images
    • These images were constructed with great care based upon detailed context and are both low resolution and substantially original work in themselves.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • The translation is done by the contributor and openly licensed instead of being an out of copyright work of someone else which has been uploaded
    • IMHO as a student of history original translation is *great* to welcome and should be encouraged.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates 'What Wikisource Includes' (WWI)
    • Wikisource includes "Works created after 1925" / "Analytical and artistic works".
    • Wikisource includes "Translations"
    • To be perfectly honest I consider this assertion a truly baseless accusation that I frankly find highly offensive.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • "Doesn't meet" WS:T
    • Unclear what this means
    • The WST page clearly states that original translations are in-scope and acceptable (there is only one prior English translation and it is bad and incorrect)
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Violates WS:ANN
    • I have never seen that page before in my life
    • Apparently it doesn't like parallel text
    • I would suggest strongly that parallel text provides the basis for most high caliber academic translations, it is my view that the policy page is wrong and further discussion to correct it should occur there.
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.
  • Requires cleanup to meet WS:COPY
    • Unsure what this is actually alleging
    • Aside from original work there is only contextual quotations from other works in line with an academic translation
    • This does not in any way support 'delete'.

Sincerely, Pratyeka (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that Xover also deleted my maps. This is a great loss. I cannot recreate them as I do not have access to the context at the time. This is truly a tragedy. I am ... highly alarmed and stressed at this turn of events and will cease contributing further to Wikipedia projects. Pratyeka (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could someone with more time please go through the undeletion process on my behalf. It is... truly a great tragedy. Multiple academics had thanked me for this work. Pratyeka (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pratyeka: These maps are not appropriate for enWS (or Commons), because they contain copyright material: the satellite photos. There is no allowance here, as there is at enWP, for fair use or de minimis, and resolution doesn't affect it. I imagine the "correct" solution is to either locate a suitable base maps from Commons (or NASA or other PD source), draw your own, or commission them via c:Commons:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
If the presumption of copyright is incorrect (e.g. the photos are PD or freely licenced), then let me know and they can be restored and correct attribution and licence declarations made. In that case, they actually belong at Commons.
Sadly, being thanked by academics does not overrule copyright.
Even if these are copyrighted, I can also provide you with the files if you do not have access to them any more. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pratyeka: I'm glad to see you're editing again. I'm not sure why you felt it relevant to mention that you have +sysop on enwp, but since you bring it up… as an admin on enwp you should be well familiar with the need to make policy-based arguments in such discussions and to familiarise oneself with the policy on the project. I have raised several policy-based concerns, and your response addresses none of them. However, to reiterate the challenges:
The text on Translation:Manshu is not a mere translation of a previously published work. It contains substantial portions of your own analysis, comparisons, and commentary: all of which is original rather than previously published content. In enwp terms, think of it as "original research": it's not a perfect analogy, but the problem is similar. This is out of scope for English Wikisource. In addition, you include extensive quotations from the other (professionally published) translation, but that translation is not public domain or compatibly licensed. Fair use content is not permitted on English Wikisource (and even on enWP only in very narrow and limited circumstances), which puts in violation of our licensing policy.
Now, as I wrote above, this is an impressive work and I am sure it is a valuable contribution to the knowledge in that area of study. It just isn't compatible with the policies on Wikisource. In other words, if it is to stay here it will have to be stripped down so that it only contains the translation, without embellishment, of the original text and all non-public domain elements removed. I imagine that's not your first choice as I get the impression it is the analytical parts of the work that interest you the most. So as an alternative, works such as this may be in scope for WikiBooks: their scope explicitly includes original works so long as it falls within their definition of "educational". As another Wikimedia sister project it is possible to import the pages between projects, even preserving revision history. If you need it we can try to facilitate contact with the Wikibooks community to get the ball rolling. --Xover (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This whole situation is insulting. The work is clearly a Wikisource translation of a work in the public domain, and is thus in scope, your complaints about the annotations aside. This discussion should never have been started, and much less dragged on this long. The problem with the maps is unfortunate, but the rest is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, and I would love nothing better than to see much much wider participation in discussions here and on WS:CV so that we could properly determine community consensus and within a reasonable time. That's why I so very much appreciate your efforts to participate in both venues! However, meanwhile we have to operate within the reality that exists. I am sorry if you found this insulting, but there really is no other way to address such issues. --Xover (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copydump, what formatting there is uses raw HTML, with no source and no license. A superficial look also suggests this is a modern translation (the specified translator shows up in Google as a paralegal) so it may also be a copyvio, but I'm too lazy to do the research on that just now. Xover (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weirdly it looks to have been originally published in English so I am not sure what that translation is about, see e.g. here (which says public domain). The source is almost certainly from the copyrighted source here: since it has the chan robles header. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please look at Republic Act No. 8293 Section 176 (which is also here in Wikisource at RA 8293#Sec. 176), the Philippine law stating all Philippine government works (including your proposed Act No. 3815) are and must be not copyrighted and are in the public domain.
Also, all Philippine laws are written in English and not a translation of any kind.— 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yivan000: Thank you for working to improve this text; however, please familiarise yourself with our style guide. enWS does not use the automatically generated table of content that MediaWiki provides, does not use the heading syntax of MW wikimarkup (we use direct visual formatting instead), and we use formatting templates rather than raw HTML. Paragraph breaks should be done by simply inserting two newlines, and italics should be done with wikimarkup, not HTML. In short, while massively improved from the cut&pasted text that was there before, this is still a mess. Xover (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The complete works of Count Tolstoy[edit]

Some page scans of (mostly) Wiener's "The complete works of Count Tolstoy" exist as 2 versions:

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_01.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc01tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_03.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc03tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_04.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc04tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_12.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc12tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_13.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc13tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_17.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc17tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_21.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc21tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_22.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc22tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_24.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc24tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_26.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc26tols).pdf

Index:Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_28.djvu Index:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksofc28tols).pdf

To avoid that people start editing them twice, one of these sets should be deleted. Because the indices with the *.djvu seem to have been used already in the , the preferential deletion should target the PDF versions, not the DJVU. [On the other hand, the PDF volumes seem to be complete but some DJVU volumes missing, so a homogeneous name space would rather keep the PDF...] R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's frustrating, given that I speedy deleted several of the pdfs as duplicates back a few months and someone has blithely recreated them. Yes, once any proofread pages have been appropriately dealt with, delete all the pdf versions and also delete the template that lists the volumes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a message of some "InductiveBot" of 2021-05-17 in Page:The_complete_works_of_Count_Tolstoy_(IA_completeworksof02tols).pdf/107 which says that some DJVU pages have been moved to the PDF pages. Will something like this happen again, if the PDF scans are deleted? (I'll start to copy all contents of the PDF pages to the DJVU...). - R. J. Mathar (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@R. J. Mathar: InductiveBot is a bot operated by Inductiveload If it moved these pages it was probably in response to a request someone made. I would suggest you hold off moving any pages until we figure out the background and decide definitively what indexes we are going to use. It is also probably best to let an admin do it to avoid a lot of cleanup afterwards. Xover (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(E/C) This was talked about before, but no much seems to have happened: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2021-05#Tolstoy_(Wiener)....
@R. J. Mathar: please do not copy the content, that's a complete waste of everyone's time and removes history. I'll move any pages if needed. Manually moving pages between indexes is rarely the right thing to do, because if you do that, whoever does the move properly will need to delete the copied pages first.
Volume 2 was missing pages in the DJVU, so it was migrated to the PDF (see the deletion log at Index:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu). If we want to go for a full set of DJVUs, that needs fixing. Or do we want a mixed set?
If a batch upload of the missing DJVU volumes is desired, I can do that if provided with a spreadsheet of metadata as explained here User:Inductiveload/Requests/Batch uploads. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had in mind to do some Tolstoy a while back and found this mire, when I noticed an admin assisting the disruption I stopped trying to sort it out. It is very easy to waste a lot of thoughtful contributors time with a few clicks. Can someone please ping the relevant accounts? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is one of the templates, Template:The complete works of Count Tolstoy volumes, and the history of the other. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker: do you have any comment on what you were attempting to achieve? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I recall, I started importing this set for the inaugural MC because someone recommended Anna Karenina. I didn’t realize that someone had already started this one as a DJVU set because it wasn’t listed on the Tolstoy page. Then, while looking through some of the Tolstoy works, I stumbled across the partial set of DJVUs. So, I requested that the text be merged over to the PDF because some of the DJVUs had missing pages or were worser quality. Beeswaxcandle then deleted the PDFs leaving to partial sets. Soon afterwards, I had to take a wiki break. It seems that in the meantime, someone began improving the DJVU set and restored the PDFs. Now, it seems like we have three choices. First, move the pages over from the DJVu to the PDF and delete the DJVU set. Two, import all the PDFs, move the page list over, merge the PDF pages to the DJVu, delete all the PDFs. Three, create a mixed set of PDFs and DJVUs by moving the pages over from the PDFs to the DJVUs and then deleting the PDFs. Two seems like the most work, three will produce a more confusing template, and one will require a bot to move stuff. Languageseeker (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the missing pages 311 and 312 (that is 337 and 338 if counted from 1) to the Complete_Works_of_Count_Tolstoy_-_02.djvu version on the wikimedia commons, copying the pages from the PDF scans. So at least that djvu-volume does no longer have missing pages. It would be useful to know exactly which other dvju volumes miss which pages. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@R. J. Mathar: It should be noted that File:The complete works of Count Tolstoy (IA completeworksof02tols).pdf is based on Internet Archive identifier: completeworksof02tols however File:Complete Works of Count Tolstoy - 02.djvu was based on Internet Archive identifier: completeworksofc03tols. The First is a Univ. of Florida scan of one of their prints while the latter is an MSN scan of a CDL print. It appears you created some strange Frankenstein of the two of them. I just upload completeworksof02tols.djvu over it and change the documented source (which was originally only documented as "Internet Archive"). —Uzume (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference between these two can be easily viewed by comparing:

The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy translated by Leo Wiener: volume scans:

I filled in the missing DJVU Index pages (and media on Commons) since only Volume 2 and Volume 20 are currently transcluding from the PDFs (where as Volume 12, Volume 23 and Volume 24 are from the DJVUs). They aren't particularly pretty but they are now there (the PDFs seem only slightly better as some of the DJVUs seem to have extraneous pages and the OCR is misaligned between pages). —Uzume (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uzume: You appear to have some level of grasp of the various and sundry issues here?
From the above discussion it seems like the most desired outcome here is ending up with just the DjVu-based indexes, with whatever proofread pages currently associated with the PDFs moved over. In addition I think I hear that there may be some technical issues with some of the DjVu files. Is that roughly correct?
If someone can spoonfeed me the things that needs doing here I can help out with bot-moves, deletions, and (probably) DjVu fixing (misaligned OCR is usually fixable, and extraneous pages can be deleted if worth the effort). Xover (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Well, I believe I did when I wrote that four months ago (did you wait to respond until the exact same day four months later?). I really am not sure whether the PDF files or the DjVu files "should" be used, however, I did go ahead and fill in and fix many of the DjVu file issues at Commons as well as stub out the Index pages here. In doing so, I ran in to issues with IAUpload for three cases where IA had no existing DjVu files (it was creating extraneous pages not in IA PDF files causing misaligned OCR). As memory serves (I would have to spend time to look it up again), I backed off and had used PDF to DjVu conversion as a work around (which fixed the content but also causes the quality to drop). I am pretty sure I gave some feedback about this on tickets in Phabricator (along with other issues I found in the tool). I shall try spin back up on this (it might take me a few days to find the time) and then "spoonfeed" you a few things to help get this cleaned up, however I shall likely move such discussion to your talk page then and leave this discussion as more a status update (assuming few people here really want to hear about the detailed technical minutiae). —Uzume (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uzume: Ping? Xover (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover:: Pong? —Uzume (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was promised a spoon-feeding. :) Xover (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: original by Languageseeker, with claim “out of scope - secondary transcription.” However, there is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. A secondary transcription is a transcription made at another site and then imported here, from my understanding of the closed proposal. This work is marked as “no source”; thus, it is not evident that it originated from an illegal source. For the record, I oppose the deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm interpreting the policy as including "no source" as being "secondary transcriptions" by default. Languageseeker (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no evidence that this is a secondary transcription. If there is no source, then it cannot be a secondary transcription, and if it is a secondary transcription, then it has a source. The two cases are inherently mutually exclusive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey What is to stop users from source washing by simply omitting the secondary source? Languageseeker (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be good to communicate to contributors clearly what we expect them to do, if what we want them to do is to provide a source we should explicitly communicate that to them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did reach out to the user and offer to find them a scan. Part of the rationale for this policy is to stop further unsourced/secondary transcriptions. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean: how can you police the honesty of contributors? That's an entirely separate issue, and not relevant for this deletion discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk)
It’s about making a presumption that no source = secondary transcription as the most likely scenario. The other works that the user posted are from a secondary source. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This almost certainly was copied from one of the many secondary transcriptions online, which are probably copying each other and I hazard likely eventually back to Yet More Poetic Gems, which is a British 1980 compilation and therefore copyrighted (the compilation, probably not the poem). It would be a lot better if the original source could be found, probably in some periodical, but if it can't be, a "naked" text is the best we can have, though there would always be an open question over whether it was modified in the 1980 edition (with a small but non-zero risk of creative input: cf. the posthumous "improvement" of Charles Bukowski's work). So it could be an exception to the second hand text thing based on lack of public domain source. Any ideas where the original was published, anyone? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia, the poem was first published in 1962 in More Poetic Gems. Languageseeker (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)–Reply[reply]
That can't be right, it sounds like it was likely first published in some local Dundee paper around the time of the event. That Wikipedia list looks like someone has just transcribed the TOCs of the collections at the IA. For example, apparently the one about Gilfillan was published in the Dundee Weekly News, not in a 1962 collection, 60 years after McGonagall's death. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This begets the question of how much work do we need to do to hunt down the original publication. If the uploader transcribed the poem from an original publication, they should be able to easily list it. Otherwise, I'm inclined to presume that they simply copied it from an online source. Languageseeker (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Can you solve the mystery and tell us the source of this poem? Languageseeker (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worldcat says that the poem was originally published in 1899. But I haven't been able to find an instance of the original publication. DoublePendulumAttractor (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker, @DoublePendulumAttractor: You might want to note that "Lines in Praise of Tommy Atkins" was also published in More Poetic Gems (1962).
I really don't have any access to print media (although I surely wish I did), and searching Google Books doesn't yield anything with "Preview available", but I do know that several other poems have been published posthumously; that might have been the case with these two poems. Just giving you some advice. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Shāntián Tàiláng Thank you. This source would make it a secondary transcription and out-of-scope. Languageseeker (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It rather seems to me that this poem will not be easy to scan-back due to lack of unambiguously copyright-free physical copies. While any one poem is clearly in the PD, the actual book Yet More Poetic Gems is not because copyright subsists in the collection itself, so we can't host a scan of that book.
Thus, I suggest that this poem should be permitted, since it's unreasonable to expect someone to use a scan if no-one can find a scan. If a scan comes along in future, probably due to digitisation of some local Dundee broadsheet, this "unsourced edition" (in that it's not clearly tied to a physical edition, though it likely is YMPGs) can be replaced with a suitably backed copy. In the mean time, we have {{unsourced}} and {{second-hand}} to make it's provenance, or lack thereof, clear.
This is, IMO, an appropriate time to invoke a WS:WWI#Consensus exception due to the unusual lack of any hostable scan for the work.
If scans were available, I would expect those to be used instead for all the usual reasons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
apparantly there is a broadsheet floating out there [1]; [2] - but it might be hard to find to scan. when you delete it you make it harder to find. (maybe you should contact the Univ Edin. group at WMUK --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
National Library of Scotland has a print copy dated 1899 [3]. Therefore in scope (as are any other of McGonagall's poems being nominated). As we have NLS people involved here talk to their liaison contact @LilacRoses: and see if they can help. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a severely incomplete dump of a US Census Bureau website, containing only a tiny fraction of the data, and that is sourced to the Internet Archive archive of the website rather than the website itself. It is also mainly raw census statistical data (apart from the cover page), so strictly speaking out of scope. But mostly it's just pretty pointless for us to (badly) mirror the Internet Archive's mirror of a born-digital website which was subject to USGov archival regulations to begin with (you can still FOIA-request those pages and expect to have them handed over). Xover (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep (weak). This page is in scope, and the dist.all.last directory is also technically in scope, by being an accompaniment to the main report. However, I do not think the table listing should be hosted, and I certainly think a listing of the first one hundred items in that list is more definitely so. However, excluding the somewhat related attachments, the page is complete, and connects to other pages. I would prefer neither of the pages be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep born digital file that our "open" government persists in publishing in pdf. when you have reliable data link, migrate to commons data. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text has been compiled from several sources, and such compilations are excluded from Wikisource scope by WS:What Wikisource includes. Deleting the text will create space for addition of some original publication.-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose. I don’t what the “compilation” was supposed to mean, as all three sources have the same, full text of the treaty (so far as I can see). It is not as if the “Treaty of Versailles” is a compilation of three separate works; it is one work, which has been published as a whole. Scan-backing may be performed against the copy in the United States Treaty Series/Volume 2. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The sources do not have identical texts. E.g. the given source does not have preamble and protocol, which are taken from another source. The source does not have the table with signatures which has been taken from elsewhere. Our text is a compilation, as it was also noted at its talk page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with the deletion rationale. Languageseeker (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The text currently hosted here is clearly a compilation from three separate sources and therefore corresponding to none of them; and two of the sources are secondary transcriptions from no known original. The current wikipage(s) at Treaty of Versailles should be deleted and, once the edition of the treaty published in USSL has been proofread, replaced with a redirect to that. Once multiple editions of the treaty have been proofread, the wikipage can be turned into a versions page.
    The treaty was published in the Australian Treaty Series (1920 No. 1), as well as the United Kingdom Treaty Series (004/1919 / Cmd. 153) and United States Treaty Series (Vol. 2 p.43); and probably in the United States Statutes at Large, although I couldn't find that version just now. All of these or either of them would be acceptable here, but separately and in context (for example, in UKTS Versailles was published along with a treaty between the UK and France guaranteeing protection to the latter in the event of German aggression).
    I think it's probably necessary here to clearly distinguish between the Treaty of Versailles as a legal construct, and the various editions of the text of the Treaty of Versailles. The legal construct should ideally have an identical interpretation irrespective of text source, and can in fact deviate from the plain meaning of the text if legal interpretation says it means something else. This interpretation can change over time, and can temporarily or permanently become divergent. But in essence, this "true treaty" exists as a meta-entity in the heads of legal scholars and so forth. The text on the other hand, exists in multiple editions and variants, that are, presumably, identical in terms of the legal construct, but can differ markedly and drastically in bibliographic and historiographic terms. Mostly not in terms of the text of the treaty itself, but perhaps in formatting and layout (unless it's a facsimile) and certainly in context (what addenda and prolegomena it is published with; or perhaps even annotation and commentary inserted into the text itself). The legal construct of the treaty on enWS only corresponds with a versions page (or possibly even a Portal); but it is specific published editions of the text of the treaty that are in scope for us to host. --Xover (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Xover: The United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, because of the League of Nations; the US–Germany Peace Treaty (which was published in the Statutes) mentions that treaty and incorporates some of its provisions, but the text of the Treaty of Versailles is not to be found in U.S.Stat. I think one consideration which needs to be had here is the number of internal (and external from Wikipedia) links to this copy of the Treaty of Versailles. That is one of the main reasons I proposed keeping and backing to an existing scan: so that all of the links can stay operational. Your thoughts? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Good point. I agree it'd be best if we could have a (policy-compliant) text of the treaty here, but I don't have the capacity to fast-track a proofread just now. If somebody else wants to volunteer I'm sure nobody would object to leaving the old one up for a while.
    When replacing it we need to delete the old page and recreate it just to keep Wikidata correct (it detects deletes automatically; but if we just replace the content the Wikidata will be wrong). But that's just a technical issue. --Xover (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is supposed to be a 1961 translation, but without scan it is an unattainable goal to keep the work faithful to this edition, as people keep adding more alleged prophecies taken from elsewhere, like here, or removing them, like here, and nobody stops them, probably because this particular translation is not available anywhere and so no addition or removal of parts of text can be checked. I believe that works of similar kind always have to be scanbacked and therefore suggest deletion of this one, which will create space for adding some of many other, better available, translations. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep (for now). I will try to obtain and scan a copy of the 1961 translation, and a match-and-split can solve this problem. I ask that it not be deleted too quickly. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete But always happy to hold off on such deletions if someone is actually willing to do the work required to save it. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please keep in mind though, that, given the current random state of the text, we're talking about actually proofreading all of it. Just moving the current unverifiable mess to Page: and retranscluding it does absolutely nothing for us. --Xover (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Xover: Quick update: I’ve picked up a copy of the book in which the translations were published, and have confirmed that it is in the public domain. I will be able to scan it soon. It also contains a fair amount of text beyond the actual translation, but it’s not necessary to proofread that to be able to keep the work for right now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I really hope to get this scanned in either this week or next week. Jan Kameníček: I looked at the two examples you provided to see whether they were true additions. There are only ten centuries which survive in whole; however, within the “Duplicate and Fragmentary Centuries,” there are some additional prophecies, including two from an eleventh century and a number from a twelfth century. The prophecies of the twelfth century are not numbered ordinately, and there are noticeable gaps in the original. All of the prophecies added by the first IP, including the one removed by the second IP, are forgeries, and are not to be found in Leoni. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Xover: I have scanned the book; the scan is in five parts (owing to page limits on scans), but one was too large to upload locally (but see 1, 2, 3, 5). Where should I upload it? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Impressive work! Several thoughts:
  • Why not upload it to Commons? I've confirmed that its U.S. copyright was not renewed here: [4] On Commons, the template is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.
  • I believe one of the several reasons DJVU files are preferable to PDF is that they are typically smaller. Also, unless I've missed something, DJVU is required for Match & Split. I'd be happy to convert these, and perhaps combine them into fewer files, if you'd like.
  • Have you kept (or could you make) higher quality individual scans of the image plates, and upload them as PNG?
  • Are you aware that it's possible to send a book to be scanned by the Internet Archive? I have a few I've been meaning to send, but I have not personally used this process. Could be worthwhile for future projects. See these links: Overview; Webinar, discusses their process in depth;form to send them a book
  • Also, it is possible to upload files larger than 100MB, but not with the standard form. I believe I could help with this as well but I have to refamiliarize myself with the process. (One easy, but roundabout, way to do it is to upload first to IA, then use the IA Upload tool to transfer to Commons.)
  • I owe you an email separate from all this, and it's on its way.
-Pete (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pete: 1. When I scan a book in multiple parts, I upload them without metadata here so they can be combined and reuploaded as one file with metadata at Commons. 2. Especially for books of length, that would take a great deal of time; this book, scanning with PDF as native, took me over six hours in two sittings. I usually make (and will make in this case) high-quality scan images of pages with images. Another problem is file size: I have to scan to a flash drive which only has about 6 GB of free space, so scanning high-quality images would require more sittings. (It’s a twenty or thirty minute walk to scan things, by the way.) 3. The book is not mine, so I cannot send it in; like most of the books I scan in, they are borrowed from libraries of other universities. 4. Annoyingly, the fourth (of five parts) is ~107 MB, so I can’t upload it locally. To upload it there, even, I have to use the miserable Wizard. It also requires me to use Commons, which makes it worse. I do have an IA account, which I have been using to upload some microfilm scans; but I don’t know how to use IA Upload (and I don’t think that would be the best move in this case because it is a partial file). 5. Okay, I’ll be on the lookout. (Thanks for reminding me to check my email.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Thanks for explaining your process, that makes sense.
  2. Again, good to understand your process, I'm all the more impressed with this effort given what you're telling me.
  3. Yeah, I should have been more clear, I understood this one was from the library, but it seems like a good option to be aware of (because sometimes we have the books we want to get scanned.) Just wanted to offer the info, please disregard if irrelevant.
  4. I think I can help with that, but I'll have to think through how to best help. IA Upload is a tremendously valuable tool! It can be a little fiddly but it usually works. If you can get it uploaded to IA, I can do the IA Upload transfer from IA to Commons...and I could walk you through the steps if you'd like.
  5. OK, check your inbox again -- sent now. -Pete (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can upload works of arbitrary size to the Internet Archive as zips of images and then copy them to Commons with IA upload even if they are oversized.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea. (CC @Peteforsyth): You can upload files of arbitrary size (up to either 2GB or 4GB, which is the hard limit) using c:User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. It's not particularly intuitive or user friendly, but if you're at all technically inclined you should be able to figure it out. That lets you upload single files of arbitrary size to either Commons or enWS (you need to install it both places).
The biggest limitation is that it only uploads single files (so it's for the end product). Batch upload of individual files can be done using one of the Standalone desktop applications for Commons. I haven't tested any of these, but the most commonly mentioned is Pattypan.
Uploading images to IA is also a good option. One thing is the ia-upload tools and similar, but if you want me (or someone else at the Scan Lab) to generate a DjVu for you (with or without modifications), IA is a convenient place to download the individual files from. But, of course, that presupposes the images are more or less completely processed (crop, levels, orientation, etc.) and are PD worldwide.
Regarding this specific scan, just use bigChunkedUpload.js to upload the last PDF along the other four and I'll extract pages and generate a DjVu. Unless you want to do the extra work of uploading the individual images to IA. Working from individual images rather than the PDFs will avoid some generational loss (multiple lossy re-compressions), but may not be worth the effort in practice (depends what tools and data you have convenient etc.). Xover (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work was probably originally added as a secondary transcription of the 1949 version of the constitution, but I often see somebody adding later amendments and thus making it a compilation of versions, where it is impossible to distinguish what comes from 1949 and what is a later addition. Trying to stop all the good-will contributors is a Sisyphean task without the work being scan-backed, especially as two of the three links in the talk page are dead and the third one refers to the 1996 version instead. The problem was already noted by a user in 2018, who commented on it at the constitution's talk page too. Therefore I suggest deleting this compilation and thus creating space for a scanbacked version (or, even better, versions). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There is a PDF version of the Constitution, as updated, available here, and a fully-proofread copy of the original constitution already transcluded here. A versions page seems appropriate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Numbers of Indian foundation documents need to go back and be properly versioned and restarted afresh with DJVU scans of originals. So I am in favour of their deletion ONCE we have a project in place to get this right AND properly explained in what we are looking to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A nearly fifteen year old mess of a copydump. Languageseeker (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a horrid mess, and I approve its judicious clean out with a clear mind that there is probably some things there that can be saved, but much rampant copy and paste should just be culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-scanbacked, the given source is , but the text in this source differs significantly in some scenes from the text we have here, compare e.g. The Mikado/For he's gone and married Yum-Yum with . -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep absent a scan-backed alternative. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I'd rather start fresh than have this text that differs from the published version. Languageseeker (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and scan back with Index:The Mikado or the town of titipu.djvu. The text originally uploaded in 2006 appears to be based on the Chappell & Co. Vocal Score. At some point JVB found the Schirmer edition and put that link on the Talk page. If I recall my G&S history correctly, the Schirmer editions were based on pirated scores from the American touring productions. The Index: that Clockery uploaded in 2013 is the official publication of the libretto by Chappell & Co. and is the one we should be using as the primary edition. The Schirmer can be an historical oddity for interest. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot import seems to have mangled both the text and references. I've attempted to repair but it would be better to delete and start again with KNOWN edition and scan.

I am suspecting that plenty of other cases imported at the same time have related issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Now that you’ve repaired it, it’s fine. It would be worse to delete it than to keep it. Not many are like this; it was just a problem where a reference swallowed the majority opinion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SF's edit removed 37k characters. What were these? Is this text complete, or is it missing chunks?
    BTW, I'll note BenchBot imported rather a lot of these with tons of problems with, among other things, references. All of them are also in a custom format rather than reproducing a previously published edition, and without its normal publishing context. We are, in other words, here serving as a poor man's findlaw with unreliable texts of the cases we host and huge holes in our coverage. Xover (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the work is in scope, it is not scan backed (though has ext link to scan) and has been long abandoned and is well incomplete. It serves no real purpose in its current form. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, it's a stupid name but the chapters transcribed are actually transcribed. It just needs to be at a less stupid namespace. I'll do it.  — LlywelynII 12:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: It is not the solely the name, as I took it away from "An introduction to ..." as it needed disambiguating, and knew at the time that I was nominating for deletion. The work needs to be fully backed by scans or deleted. We don't accept partial, abandoned works where they cannot be completed without their source to tie them to an edition. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're obviously around more, but of course it doesn't and that's a silly policy. Half-done work is better than nothing for expansive collaboration projects like this. There's literally nothing gained from removing it; the original text is perfectly available; and it provides greater access as is.
It's exactly the same situation as these silly ancient year categories. Sure it's currently useless. It's within scope and better to have it ready for the next guys with interest/helpful completionists. — LlywelynII 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty year categories[edit]

These are all empty year-based categories, which could never contain valid works anyway. Speedies all challenged without ground. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Challenged without ground??? They are long standing pages, and we don't typically delete legitimate categories, especially long-standing, that was said on why. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep There is little value in deleting them as they can and often will be regularly recreated as they are redlinks on templates in those pages. We should be redesigning the templates and the concepts of the pages prior to jumping into deletion discussions. They are doing no harm, and they are within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There shouldn’t be categories which are empty anyway, but these categories especially are out of scope: the Law of Æthelberht, the earliest in-scope text for an English Wikisource, is from the seventh century A.D. I plan on going through the rest of these obviously incorrect categories and correcting dates and marking works for copyright violations as I go along, so this deletion proposal also extends to those categories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep While the work you quote is most likely the oldest extant work in English, it is not the oldest work we host—given that we host works in translation. Code of Hammurabi, for example, is from the 1750 BCE period and I expect that at some point we will end up with other works from that time, which will belong in the categories referred to in the nomination. Thus they are not out of scope here. Please don't waste your time by adding additional year/decade/century categories to the above nomination. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Beeswaxcandle: These categories used to have that “Code,” but I removed them; that is why they are now empty. I removed those pages from these categories because the “year” parameter in the “header” template relates to publication date, and as an English Wikisource hosts only English works, and because of our focus on editions (as opposed to PG, for example), the “year” refers to the year of the publication of the edition in question—which would, of course, refer only to the translation, not a nebulous date of creation, which would make referring to editions impossible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well then you mucked up. There should be a dab page between translations that should be catted to the actual year of the original work. — LlywelynII 13:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to delete this text for several reasons:

  1. The alleged source electronic publication is nowhere to be found. Most probably it was a sort of selfpublished "electronic book", judging also by the non-professional design of its cover, and was not preserved permanently anywhere, now being lost forever except its Wikisource copy. As a result, it is impossible to check whether our text is faithful to this "publication" or not, or even if really all these texts were included there.
  2. Without the source publication it is just a random compilation of independent newspaper articles, some of which do not exist in English version.
  3. Many of these articles imo have copyright problems. Although the release of texts under GNU-FDL is allegedly confirmed by ticket:2008032110005275, I am convinced that it applies only to the main author Andrey Lubensky, but not to all other coauthors and translators of the individual texts.

These include Valery Asadchev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/1.21, Andrey Derkach and translator Dmitry Sudakov for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/1.26, Andrei Dashkov for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.2, Vera Solovieva for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.9 and many others, Vladimir Mikheyev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.3, Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.55 and Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.56, Maria Gousseva for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.4, Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.7 and many others, Dmitry Sudakov for e.g. Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.2 and many others, Leonid Kuchma for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.19, Leonid Sauta for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.23, Major Melnichenko for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/2.24 and Alexander Grigoriev for Ad notam. Diverse years' notes/3.11. I really doubt that all these people were included in the correspondence with the OTRS team.

I asked about the ticket at the VRT noticeboard already a week ago, but the VRT team seems to ignore the question. However, I think that the first two reasons I have raised above suffice for deletion. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. The work is complete, and thus the lack of a source cannot be used as a deletion rationale. Thus, your second objection is also moot. As to your third point, I believe that the ticket permission would cover the entire work, as Mr. Lubensky would have had to have obtained the rights for the works in question, and thus would have been in contact with the authors of the respective portions of the publications. Absent doubts being raised about the scope of the ticket’s permissions, this work should be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am afraid the lack of a source is a big problem, as the work has become absolutely unverifiable, nobody will ever be able to check it, and Wikisource has thus become the primary source of the compiled e-book, which is not our goal. As for copyright, it hase never been sufficient when a person declared that other people people agreed with releasing rights, they have to agree personally and communicate their agreement to OTRS/VTR. Otherwise we would soon be flooded with alleged public domain releases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is my understanding of the situation wrt the inclusion criteria (separate from the copyright details):
  • Author publishes a series of articles in journals / newspapers. The individual articles are presumably all in scope as not self published.
  • Author then uploads these works to WS and declares this particular collection an ebook
The question is: Can wikisoure host the works under the ebook as is or should instead the individual articles be moved out as works (e.g. under Pravda/<date>/) and then linked (either from Author or Portal) with just the Ad Notam page being deleted? The actual content seems to be in scope (provided the OTRS meets the copyright clearance requirements). MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we have ever deleted a set of, say, Times obituaries for being a "random compilation of independent newspaper articles" and hence out of scope, or say a collection of works by a particular author scattered across a bunch of magazines? I also don't think anyone has raised concerns about things such as Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 lacking an independent source. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The situation is different: 1) Various articles were published in a newspaper. 2) A collection of these articles was selfpublished in an e-book. At least some of these articles were not published word by word in this e-book, but they were edited first, e.g. they were translated from Russian to English, such as this one. Some of them are not accessible anymore and we cannot check how much edited they were. 3) Copy of this e-book was hosted in 4) The selfpublished e-book disappeared from the internet. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only differences I can see are that one is born digital and one is born print and that in one case the self published ebook is hosted by and the other it was uploaded to commons. Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 lacking doesn't exist outside of commons / either right? How do we know that we have a high fidelity copy besides trusting that the version uploaded was correct? That example has a copy hosted here which is what mentioned on the page. If the entire issue here is that the source is free text in the footer rather than being listed in the header / talk page I am happy to move the links to the talk page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarkLSteadman: Landon in The Literary Gazette 1820 is most emphatically out of scope and we have definitely deleted such texts before. In this particular case I have tried to work with the contributor (this is not the only such invention they have added), but they get stressed out of all proportion by it (and I don't have the stomach for leaning hard on them about it). It's a real pity because a very large portion of their work is creating new editions (compilations, mostly) that will eventually get deleted, but they otherwise do good work transcribing that could have been of great value to the project had they stuck to proofreading actually existing (previously published) works instead of constructing their own. But to the degree you considered these frankenstein compilations precedent, they most definitely are not (they're even speedyable). Xover (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So after long waiting for an answer on the VRT noticeboard I decided to ask a VRT volunteer personally by email and have learnt that none of the following people have released their rights, (which looks like a very bad work of the volunteers who approved the ticket):
So even if my first two points were not taken into account (though I believe they should), the parts co-authored by these people need to be deleted for copyright reasons anyway.
However, I still believe that the whole self-published collection should be deleted per what I wrote before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom. We've had problems with alleged VRT/OTRS-released works related to Lubensky before, that on inspection turn out to be nonsense (it's most likely Lubensky himself or someone connected to him doing the uploading, and they appear to have no real conception of how copyright works or take into account other people's contributions). But in any case, there seems to be a primary element of self-promotion in everything related to Lubensky's works, which makes me even less inclined than usual to accept unsourced, self-published, compilations.
    There is a reason we have a previously published requirement, and there's a reason we forbid excerpts and annotations. This seems to be exactly that: an author (or someone close to them) ripping bits and pieces out of the context in which they were actually published (if they were actually published), creating a compilation of them designed to promote that author. So in addition to all the issues Jan notes, I think we should draw a line here due to the attempt to use the project for promotion (free web publishing, with a built-in audience and high Pagerank, with no independent editorial control). But the bottom line is: this particular "edition" exists nowhere outside Wikisource, and as such is very much out of scope. --Xover (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I have to nominate my own posting and all its transcluded pages (62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74). The story was first published in the Cosmopolitan, July 1942, according to the Galactic Central. The renewals for the Cosmopolitan turned out to be listed as "Hearst's International Cosmopolitan in the copyright catalogs and that's why I missed it. --Nonexyst d 23:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nonexyst Could you link to the page in the Catalog of Copyright Entries where you found the renewal? E.g. (talkcontribs) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CalendulaAsteraceae:, --Nonexyst d 21:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nonexyst: Thanks! In that case I'd say you can speedy the text and its transcluded pages as CSD G6. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 22:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nonexyst: Speedied as copyvio. But you'll need to redact the DjVu too. Are you fixed for tools to do that, or do you need me to do it? Xover (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the tools, and I will redact the djvu over the following 24 hours. --Nonexyst d 13:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Wikisource Translation has been incomplete (the Rubaiyat is about a thousand verses) and abandoned for well over a decade. It purports to be a translation from a previously published French translation into Scots, but the Scots looks kinda iffy to me (not an expert, could be wrong). It also lacks scan-backing and is not connected to a Proofread original version at frWS, in violation of the translations policy. And just for good measure it looks like it contains some user annotations in violation of the annotations policy. We have several previously published English-language editions of this work in various states of quality and completion, so it's not like we're gagging for a user translation. Xover (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the concerns raised at Scriptorum.

There have been some very serious ethical concerns raised about the work, and the work in question has been retracted.

Whilst Wikisource is not generally censored, it should also in my view not become a platform by which material with a high potential for harm remains in publication (even though it has been retracted), or by which it could be seen to inadvertently support unethical (or potentially illegal) practice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. The paper meets the inclusion and licensing requirements; I need say no more. And ShakespeareFan00: come up with a better excuse next time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: Please do not personalise the issue. Given the concerns raised it would be inappropriate to not open a discussion here about this text. Xover (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Author:Adolf Hitler? Author:Martin Luther? Author:Mao Zedong? Category:Eugenics? The Story of Little Black Sambo? We document history, we don't edit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Sure. But there's a difference between historical material and contemporary material. And this text was retracted ("unpublished") by the publisher, making the application of the previously published criterion… ambivalent. Had the article been "real" science censored for obviously illegitimate reasons I'd be all for keeping it no matter the research area, but having suffered through actually reading it it can be summed up as "this one guy jerked off to weird Japanese porn comics and wants everyone to know about it." I'm actually more offended by the crap science and the crap peer review at Qualitative Research (this should never have been published in the first place for that reason), than the subject matter.
What I'm saying is our usual "no censorship!" knee-jerk is not the best approach to this. There appear to be some legitimate issues to explore that, no matter the outcome for this text, may help us deal with other controversial or sensitive texts in the future. Because as Brewster Kahle and Elon Musk are discovering, not taking an ethical stance is in itself an ethical stance when there exist actors who play by different rules. Xover (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was published; there's no question of that. It was also widely read. It has some marginal cultural value in that it was what was loudly retracted and argued about. I hate reading some blog or similar website and finding some vehement discussion about some article that no longer exists. It's also a historian's complaint; we know of many of the historical orthodoxy (or future orthodoxy) opponents only by reports of how they are wrong, not what they said. I'm not a huge fan of anticipating problems before they start, instead of tailoring the solutions to the problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said neither Wikisource nor Commons is generally Censored, some of the specific issues here being:-
  • Wikisource should be applying the same high standards as the original Journal, in re-evaluating the work, given that ethical concerns HAD been expressed, leading to the work's retraction.
  • It was the original journal that retracted the work (not a random third party or external agency), hence it would be entirely professional and respectful of that Journal's editors, to consider if retaining it at Wiksource was appropriate, given that continued republication here might have the perception of being prejudicial to the very clear good faith, and clearly ethical intentions, the editors of the Journal had in retracting a "controversial" work
  • That by continued republication without a careful review, Wikisource could be subjected to external restrictions, or face a critically negative reception from potential participants, partners or external sources of opinion.

If deemed appropriate, has an admin sought an opinion from the appropriate WMF contacts ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Xover: I’m not “personalising” the issue; I was responding to the nominator. The only reason this discussion is possible is because the work was released digitally. If “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” was released under a free license, I would have proofread it, notwithstanding the fact that the paper was later retracted. I also don’t think that hiding the existence of this paper is an ethical command, especially when it was the journal itself than censored it; I’m sure the journal wants all traces of this article gone, so they can brush under the rug the problems with their work which caused the paper to be retraced in the first place. You and ShakespeareFan00 give too much credit to the editors of the paper and their “good faith” in getting this paper retracted: whatever their stated intentions, it looks a lot better for the journal to not have this paper on their Web-site. And more specifically in response to your comments, Wikisource should not be applying any standards to works; otherwise, the clear biases of the abovementioned will have writings they philosophically disagree with (Nazi papers, Communist literature, or whatever) removed after any “personalised” “high standard” of review. I don’t think, especially given that the paper was only retracted after public outcry, that it is “entirely professional” to defer to the journal’s conclusion. As for your final comment, that’s not something we’re in a position to discuss. If WMF wants to censor us, that’s their concern, if not prerogative; we should not debate the merits of such a decision. I find it rather disheartening that I have to defend free speech, not just against the WMF, but also against other editors here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am of course quite prepared to defer to consensus once it's been established what it is.
    I'm greatly encouraged that you are willing to defend your position vigorously, and in your expanded response you've presented some exceptionally clear responses to some of the issues I stated were in play
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If copyright allows, perhaps a suitable compromise would be to transclude the retraction notice (and if it does not; a summary of it) at the head of the transclusion of the actual work, and on the same page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. The retraction notice doesn't contain anything objectionable of itself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Andy Mabbett, ShakespeareFan00, Prosfilaes: I don’t believe that the retraction notice is freely licensed. The CC licenses all require attribution, of course, and the attribution in this case would likely be to the editors of the journal. However, the DOI for the note still lists Andersson as the author, even though he is not the author of the retraction notice. Thus, I believe that the license given applies only to the original note, and not to either the removal note or the retraction notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the uploader, and not familiar with Wikisource policy. But I want to leave a brief comment here. I opposed deletion at Commons (and not just because it was in use) and I am inclined to oppose deletion here too. This paper (which does not contain any problematic personal information or anything like that) should be retained (with a clear indication of retraction) so that future researchers can learn what sort of issues cause a paper to be retracted and how those issues might be missed. Also, we have one user here who thinks this is not legitimate science; others may not agree.

After writing this, I noticed that Prosfilaes made similar comments above, and I endorse those comments. I also give special mention to TE(æ)A,ea.. Brianjd (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TE(æ)A,ea. was identifying themselves as uploader (at Scriptorium), not me; I misread that. Brianjd (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, I think. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of having an ethical standard for the deletion of works; I can perhaps imagine something ethically repugnant (but not illegal) that might be a reasonable candidate for deletion. However, I don't know if this paper is the test case for that standard. The journal's rationale for retraction was, it seems to me, that to continue hosting it as a serious piece of research would legitimize unethical and harmful behavior; that a journal has a responsibility to publish ethically responsible research. Journals have editorial standards, so anything published in a journal gains greater legitimacy almost by default; it's probably judicious for them to be very careful with ethics. Wikisource, however, does not have any such editorial policy beyond some loose criteria (WS:WWI) and some legal obligations. As such, a work hosted on Wikisource does not necessarily gain any legitimacy. It's not endorsed in any way by the editors. Under this theory, hosting the paper here would not legitimize unethical behavior, but merely document it. If Nature were to publish an article supporting w:intelligent design, doing so would legitimize pseudoscience—but Wikisource could host the same article without that concern.[1]
    This paper can be unethical in at least two ways: it may have been created unethically, or it may advocate for (lend support to?) unethical behavior. If the former, it would be unethical for the journal to publish it because doing so would implicitly endorse unethical research practices; if the latter, because to publish it would legitimize advocacy for unethical behavior. I don't think either case holds for Wikisource. I think we can publish such a work without endorsing either the way it was created or the message it delivers.
    TL;DR: Scientific publication implicitly legitimizes and endorses a work, but Wikisource publication does not. We can host it as long as we display it without endorsement. Shells-shells (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I believe in following Wikisource's non-censorship policy, and we can't just hide stuff like this under the rug and forget about it, it needs to be preserved so people can find it, see that something like it was published and that it somehow passed peer review, we can't let something like that be forgotten due to a redaction. Reboot01 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Under this model, any editorial policy we adopt would cause all the works allowed on the site to gain the legitimacy of meeting the Wikisource ethical standard. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a sense: An ethical editorial standard exists because it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior; it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior because doing so would lend them legitimacy; doing so would lend them legitimacy because an ethical editorial standard exists.
  • I'm leaning Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for the various reasons outlined by Xover and ShakespeareFan00. I think it's fine to keep on Commons, but I can't imagine a retracted paper can still be considered "published" under any normal sense of the term. I understand where the folks on the other side of this are coming from, but I just don't fully agree. –MJLTalk 00:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You can't "unpublish" a work in any real sense; you have to stop it from being distributed in the first place. This has clearly had "copies offered to the general public"; they can retract it, not unpublish it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments by Prosfilaes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Galactic Central, it was first published in 1945 in Argosy which had its copyright renewed [5]. Also the transcluded pages: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and redirect: Uncommon Castaway. There are no other stories in that issue that have not been renewed unless the one already redacted. --Nonexyst d 10:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nonexyst: I'm having trouble parsing your meaning in the last sentence. Was it supposed to be There are no other stories in that issue that have not been renewed unless except the one already redacted.? That is, you are saying that only this one story ("Uncommon Castaway") needs to be redacted?
Provided I have that right we have a second problem in that the relevant pages also have to be removed from the PDF at Commons and placeholder pages inserted in their place. I don't have sane tools to manipulate PDF files so I can't do it (in a pinch I could maybe convert the whole thing to DjVu and manipulate it in that format).
Btw, just for future reference, copyright issues go to WS:CV rather than WS:PD. Not a big deal but that's where the copyright wonks hang out, and those are the archives that will be searched in the future when an issue crops up about this. Xover (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Yes, I mean that Uncommon Castaway is the only story that has to be redacted. I think I will be able to handle the PDF myself with pdftk or something like this.--Nonexyst d 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(With Page: and File:) This is the headline of a newspaper article, which is an unacceptable extract. The source given in the file points to a different article, and this article cannot be found on that page. As there is no source, and it is an incomplete extract, it should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:BDA:Army Officers[edit]

I do not use this I made it by mistake. Chiraq Bears (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chiraq Bears You can speedy this as WS:CSD G7. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly a duplicate or early draft transclusion of U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report and the user has not been active on Wikisource for over a Decade. The flagged LintErrors are minor.

Do we retain userspace drafts indefinitely on English Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly abandoned Userspace draft transcription, Original transcriber hasn't been active on English Wikisource for over a decade. If retained, is there a scanned copy of the edition to do a Match and Split against?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly abandoned Transcription, user was last active over a decade ago. If retained should be scan-backed somehow... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced version of a poem we have three other scan-backed versions of. Xover (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Sure is. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The first page of the source is the image on the page (File:Houghton MS Eng 258.2 - Shelley, To a Skylark 1.jpg); pages 2-6 are on Commons. This is the manuscript so, may be different to printed versions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that this version's text differs significantly from the manuscript, especially in punctuation and capitalization. Even the first line differs significantly; compare "Hail to thee, blithe spirit--" with "Hail to thee blithe Spirit!" Moreover, the stanza beginning "Higher still and higher" does not appear in the same location in the two versions. There are plenty of other visible differences between our text and the manuscript text; these are just two of the most obvious. It would be nice to have a transcription from the manuscript, but this isn't it. Shells-shells (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User space transcription, last edited 2015 for corrections, but not otherwise substantially edited for at least a decade. Seems to be a duplicate or draft of The World as Will and Representation/Third Book which ideally should be migrated to the volumes of the relevant work we have as Index:The World as Will and Idea - Schopenhauer, tr. Haldane and Kemp - Volume 3.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These seems to be a draft/duplicate transcription of Circular No. 3591 that hasn't been substantially edited since 2013. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userspace draft, not substantially edited since 2016. If retained the subscript errors should be solved , and the work moved to the Translation namespace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: While I personally think we should delete old userspace drafts and sandboxes that cause the slightest bit of problem (provided they appear long-abandoned, of course, and with a "speedy" undelete if the user returns and asks for it), I don't expect the community to support that absent significant problems caused by the individual userspace page. Especially since we have less intrusive options such as blanking the page without deleting it. I could be wrong but that has been the general tenor in previous instances.
But on the other hand we certainly shouldn't start moving stuff out of userspace that we don't know the provenance of since there's probably a reason why it is in userspace and not in a content namespace. Xover (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one is however sourced, and I am thinking it's a user translation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Also: User:RJGray/Sandbox ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft transcription (non scan backed) of a European Treaty, Not substantially edited in over a Decade. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blue-Haired Lawyer: Do you still need your (ca. 2010) user sandbox here? If you want to keep it, would you mind if we blanked the page so it doesn't show up in maintenance backlogs? Incidentally, if it's deleted now and you later want to get back to it, you should be able to just grab any admin and ask for undeletion with reference to this discussion (a permanent link to which should typically be provided in the deletion log for the page so you don't have to keep track of it). Xover (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User space transcription, sourced, but seemingly un-edited in over a decade.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Contains very little actual transcribed content (mostly just a whole lot of copy/pasted "censored" boxes) out of a very girthy report. The user has exercised their right to vanish, meaning they are both exceedingly unlikely to return on their own and would in any case be prevented from continuing work on a draft in their vanished account userspace. The old draft is triggering lint errors and maintenance backlogs, and contains a link to a domain-squatter (well, the ACLU is redirecting to it, but we're linking to; *sigh*).
    For any active or established but currently inactive user we should leave a lot of leeway for userspace drafts. But for a vanished user, any draft that comes up here is most likely a good delete candidate (unless someone wants to grab whatever it is to work on immediately). --Xover (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Xover: This transcription appears to be (almost?) entirely complete. The file is available here; could you make an index of it? I’m happy to proofread the rest. Then it can be formally transcluded and the userspace page redirected. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non- scan backed, userspace transcription of a Blake Poem, Not substantially edited in over a decade.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping User:Ham II, for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think Andy's attempted ping worked, so… @Ham II: Do you still need User:Ham II/Sandpit here on enWS for anything or can we just nuke it? Alternately, I suspect it got nominated because it contains a lint error somewhere so just blanking it would keep it from showing up in LintErrors and maint. cats. Xover (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Gosh, I've got no recollection of the ping; if I did read this nomination, I must have had quite the New Year's Day hangover! Thank you for chasing this up. I'm not active on Wikisource these days, but am on Wikipedia, Wikidata and Commons. This sandpit had an unfinished transcription of Blake's Europe a Prophecy plus another one of this single-page polemic by him. Both texts are now on Wikisource, I see – the latter as Life of William Blake (1880), Volume 2/Prose writings/Sibylline Leaves – so I've blanked the page and it can be deleted. Ham II (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

userspace draft or transcription of an unsourced speech. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back). Not that I think this particular draft is likely to be of any use to them, but I think it's a little rude anyway to go in and delete it without their permission. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull: Note that this particular user has made all of four edits to any WMF project, each edit creating a page in mainspace that was subsequently moved to userspace due to lacking any kind of quality, source, license, etc.: Special:PrefixIndex/Sam joe quick/.
There was no response to Billinghurst's message on their talk page at that time, so I hold it exceedingly unlikely that this user will ever return to the project. If they do they can easily request undeletion.
What I'm saying is that, yes, userspace drafts should get wide latitude for active or somewhat established users; drive-by copydumps temporarily moved to userspace to get them out of mainspace do not qualify. (this, btw, is why I do not think moving things to userspace is a good idea: it ends up as a dumping ground for all the junk, essentially kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with). --Xover (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appears to be the same as [6], by Mao Tse-tung. Ping User:Sam joe quick for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete These are unsourced and unformatted drive-by copydumps by a user that has made no other edits and never will. --Xover (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The work, whose addition to Wikisource bears many signs of selfpromotion, cannot be found anywhere, and so it most probably is not within our scope. Its author tried to promote his work in English Wikipedia too, but it finished with an indefblock for gross incompetence, which (among others) included adding fake references. The self-promotion attempts continued from IP addresses or from sock-puppet accounts after the block too. As a result I do not trust his contributions here very much either. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless someone can follow up with a good paper source for this text (something we could at least buy, or better yet read directly online as a scan), then I would say Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. If it was really from 1985, some kind of non-online source should be provideable. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had forgotten about this self-publishing author. I had several discussions with him back in 2011 to 2013. He was supposed to do OTRS releases for anything he wanted to put on here (see the December 2012 archives of the copyright violations page). If such can't be found, then I'm more than happy for this to be consigned to the wastebin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do really want to buy it.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the contributor's history, I would prefer some accessible source to be checked. Even if the paper were really published in the linked publication, we cannot be sure that text presented here is exactly the same as the one there (the false references mentioned above are a clear warning). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh sure, and if we wanted translations of Ram Prasad Bismil's poetry, whether someone wants to do a clean translation into Translation: rather than deal with the copyright mess of the conference proceedings. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After some search I found the following information: Manmath Nath Gupta was also present as an Indian delegate in the International Symposium on India and World Literature (IWL) at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi on 27 February 1985 (...) He was much pleased when a paper on his leader titled as Pt. Ram Prasad 'Bismil': A Warrior of Pen & Pistol was placed before the delegates. That sounds like some paper with the same title as our text was really published at the conference, but its author was somebody else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that that text was added to the WP article by the author of this paper. Gupta was just present at the conference and Verma was the author and presenter of the paper. The conference proceedings are still in copyright—thus my request to him to provide OTRS releases. I neglected to follow that up as it was happening during the time I was have major health issues in RL. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep absent some evidence against its being legitimate (other than aspersions directed against the author). The poorly-worded Wikipedia article appears to be merely a glancing reference to the paper; I do not believe that it is meant that Mr. Gupta wrote it. In any case, I am looking into India and World Literature at the moment, so I request that the file not be deleted for the time being. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This transcription, which dates back to 2005, was seemingly arbitrarily compiled from various New Jersey edicts to fit a single historical narrative (the renumbering of various state highways in New Jersey in a particular year). I am finding little evidence that this ("1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering") is in and of itself a work, and in fact the title was just taken from the Wikipedia article 1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering. The link given as a source is a dead link, and I'm not finding any archives of it.

It would be good if the edicts referenced were properly transcribed in full (and were scan-backed). But I don't think it's appropriate to compile them in the way that this has been, by modern Wikisource standards. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is an old (1927) version of this law. The 1953 renumbering mentioned in the “see also” section was erroneously deleted (apparently without discussion), and should be restored. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not removed. It was moved to the header template. And it also was not erroneous. "See also" sections should never be in the mainspace. These "See also" and "External links" sections are modeled after Wikipedia article structure when they are erroneously added, but they're just not appropriate for Wikisource. The Wikisource mainspace is for transcribed content only. "See also: 1953 New Jersey state highway renumbering" was not part of any law so it shouldn't be in there. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as a arbitrary compilation / annotation. As the notes field on the text says, it contains a few parts of that original 1927 bill (16 out of ~100+) but mostly consists of a user-compilation of other data (e.g. some of it is dated 1929). The 1953 text was deleted without specific reasoning so it's hard to tell what the grounds were (it was in a copyright discussion, but no specific argument was provided why this particular text was not eligible for EdictGov). Looking at the deleted revisions it looks suspiciously like a user-generated list of changes to highway numbering rather than an actual bill (there's no preamble, its notes indicates changes marked with an asterisk "were not signed", suggesting individual bills rather than one mammoth bill, etc.). For either of these texts we'd need to find a scan of the actual original text that it purports to be a transcription of in order to properly check both copyright status and whether it has been previously published. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-old-X templates[edit]

These templates are deprecated and not transcluded anywhere. In my opinion it would be tidier to delete them (although I am of course open to hearing reasons why not). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 19:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Maybe it would be better to have the template produce an error and a note mentioned appropriate copyright tags (for imports and such), deprecation aside. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea., imports are a good point, thank you. Possibly these templates should add works to Category:PD-old-possible-copyright-violations? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Anything that's executable code tends to create unforeseen (and often foreseen and eminently foreseeable) problems down the line, and adds to the maintenance burden (which is already not sustainable). Any imports should be checked and have a proper license added in any case, so the utility of keeping these zombie templates around is likely to be zero. --Xover (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

similar speedy nominated[edit]

billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've speedied these as they were more technical components used by other templates rather than directly usable themselves, and all now unused. Xover (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

abandoned work, not scan-backed, only 2 chapters of plenty. Work itself, is not out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long abandoned work, started in 2008, and only a few chapters of a multi-volume work. Not scan-backed, and contributor no longer around. Notes say that the files are available for download in PDF, and the site noted does host downloadable files. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abandoned (and actually never really started) almost 4 years ago. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From IP address, on Template talk:PD-India-CWMG: "Why is there a special template for Gandhi's works? / Is there a special copyright exemption for works of Gandhi? If not, why is this template not more general?" PseudoSkull (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FTR there is no special copyright exemption for Gandhi's works. Anything tagged with {{PD-India-CWMG}} could just as well be tagged {{PD-US|1948}} (although not {{PD-India}}, which only applies to works which were PD in India in 1996). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 04:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gandhi's works became PD in India on January 1st, 2009. Yann (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Incomplete second-hand transcription from Gutenberg
  2. More or less abandoned (although User:Egm4313.s12 has added Prologue recently)
  3. Gutenberg does not seem to be too faithful to the original, see Talk:The Travels of Marco Polo#THE TITLE IS WRONG.
  4. Our version does not seem to be too faithful to the Gutenberg either, omiting images, various front matter texts etc.

As a result it looks much better to start a new (scanbacked) transcription from scratch. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. The work is almost entirely complete; there is no marker that it is incomplete, and the main text is completed, so people would not likely be inclined to complete work. The PG title is taken from a reprint, where this it the title. Your fourth objection is also to completeness. A scan would be nice, but is not necessary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A scan would be nice, but is not necessary." Where do you get that idea from? A scan is something that needs to be found at some time and then the text gradually replaced with the proofread transcluded text. Hosting the scans for all our works that are not digitally native is something that is a long-term requirement—not some mere lofty aspiration. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Beeswaxcandle: It’s “not some mere lofty aspiration”? What are you talking about!? By here, I see some 200,000 texts needing scan-backing—a number which has remained almost unchanged since 2012. A scan is not a requirement, for any text, in any circumstance; and this is especially true where, as here, text may be taken easily from PG to complete the work. In any case, a scan-backing here would just be a match-and-split from the text already here, as it is of sufficient quality. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using match-and-split on a copy-pasted PG text is against long established policy (see Help:Match and split#When not to use this tool), so that would not be an option. I'm well aware that we have over 200,000 mainspace pages that need scan-backing (not "texts" as this total includes subpages). The majority were placed here before side-by-side proofreading was implemented, and a large portion of it was botted in with minimal wikification. Some of the other WS language domains do require that new additions are scan-backed and our French counterparts have done excellent work in getting to 99% scan-backed. This was achieved through a collective effort and a change in policy to not accept new scan-free texts. Each time a similar change in policy here has been raised, it has been knocked back. The result is that as soon as we get some older texts scan-backed, another set of scan-free turn up. It is acknowledged that it is more "exciting" to work on new texts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “Each time a similar change in policy here has been raised, it has been knocked back.” So it’s not “a long-term requirement”—you just want it to be, correct? The only times I’ve seen this “policy” “enforced” recently is to harass newcomers, so I object to those actions as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is not a long-term requirement that all newly added works have to be scanbacked, although it seems high time to start requiring it compulsorily, and some of the many reasons for that were given above. However, it is a long-term requirement that copypastes from Gutenberg are not accepted any more, which makes completion of this work impossible. I also agree that adding new works is much more attractive to contributors than repairing bad quality work of others. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think it's way harder to untangle a mess than start from scratch. I also don't support keeping texts that are clearly inaccurate. Languageseeker (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]