Wikisource:Proposed deletions

WS:PD redirects here. For help with public domain materials, see Help:Public domain.

Contracts Awarded by the CPA

Out of scope per WS:WWI as it's a mere listing of data devoid of any published context. Xover (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep if scan-backed to this PDF document. Since the PDF document is from 2004, a time when the WWW existed but wasn't nearly as universal to society as today, I find the thought that this wasn't printed and distributed absurdly unlikely. And the copyright license would be PD-text, since none of the text is complex enough for copyright, being a list of general facts. Also, this document is historically significant, since it involves the relationships between two federal governments during a quite turbulent war in that region. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(And it should be renamed to "CPA-CA Register of Awards" to accurately reflect the document.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's still just a list of data devoid of any context that might justify its inclusion (like if it were, e.g., the appendix to a report on something or other). Xover (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should write a user essay on this, since this is something I've had to justify in other discussions, so I can just link to that in the future.

I don't take the policy to mean we don't want compilations of data on principle, or else we'd be deleting works like the US copyright catalogs (which despite containing introductions, etc., the body is fundamentally just a list of data). The policy says the justification on the very page. What we're trying to avoid is, rather, "user-compiled and unverified" data, like Wikisource editors (not external publications) listing resources for a certain project. And if you personally disagree, that's fine, but that's how I read the sentiment of the policy. I think that whether something was published, or at least printed or collected by a reputable-enough source, should be considered fair game. I'm more interested in weeding out research that was compiled on the fly by individual newbie editors, than federal government official compilations.

But to be fair, even in my line of logic, this is sort of an iffy case, since the version of the document I gave gives absolutely no context besides "CPA-CA REGISTER OF AWARDS (1 JAN 04- 10 APRIL 04)" so it is difficult to verify the actual validity of the document's publication in 2004, but I would lean to keep this just because I think the likelihood is in the favor of the document being valid, and the data is on a notable subject. And if evidence comes to light that proves its validity beyond a shadow of a doubt, then certainly. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of validity: The search metadata gives a date of April 11, 2004, and the parent URL is clearly an early 2000s web page just by the looks of it. My keep vote is sustained. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Kamoliddin Tohirjonovich Kacimbekov's statement

No source, no license, no indication of being in the public domain —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Found the source: [1] — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The text of the source does not match what we have. I am having trouble finding our opening passages in the link you posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(At least, a sentence matched). @EncycloPetey: Found it, the content that corresponds to our page starts in the middle in the page 44 of that pdf, though the delimiting of paragraphs seems to be made up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That means we have an extract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, it appears that the PDF is a compilation of several different, thematically related documents. His statement (English’d) is one such separate document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  In which case we do not yet have a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • No, that is the source; it’s just that the PDF contains multiple separate documents, like I said. It’s like the “Family Jewel” papers or the “Den of Espionage” documents. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I meant to say that we do not have a source for it as an independently hosted work. To use the provided source, it would need to be moved into the containing work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Well these document collections are bit messy, they were originally independent documents / works but they are collected together for release, e.g. because someone filed a FOIA request for all documents related to person X. I don't think it is unreasonable if someone were to extract out the document. I wouldn't object if someone was like I went to an archive and grabbed document X out of Folder Y in Box Z but if someone requested a digital version of the file from the same archive they might just get the whole box from the archive scanned as a single file. Something like the "Family Jewels" is at least editorial collected, has a cover letter, etc., this is more like years 1870-1885 of this magazine are on microfiche roll XXV, we need to organize by microfiche roll. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    @EncycloPetey since this PDF is published on the DOD/WHS website, doesn't that make this particular collection of documents a publication of DOD/WHS? (Genuine question, I can imagine there are cases -- and maybe this is one -- where it's not useful to be so literal about what constitutes a publication or to go off a different definition. But I'm interested in your thinking.) -Pete (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Why would a particular website warrant a different consideration in terms of what we consider a publication? How and why do you think it should be treated differently? According to what criteria and standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    Your reply seems to assume I have a strong opinion on this. I don't. My question is not for the purpose of advocating a position, but for the purpose of understanding your position. (As I said, it's a genuine question. Meaning, not a rhetorical or a didactic one.) If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative of course.

    I'll note that Wikisource:Extracts#Project scope states, "The creation of extracts and abridgements of original works involves an element of creativity on the part of the user and falls under the restriction on original writing." (Emphasis is mine.) This extract is clearly not the work of a Wikisource user, so the statement does not apply to it. It's an extract created by (or at least published) by the United States Department of Defense, an entity whose publishing has been used to justify the inclusion of numerous works on Wikisource.

    But, I have no strong opinion on this decision. I'm merely seeking to understand the firmly held opinions of experienced Wikisource users. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    You misunderstand. The page we currently have on our site is, based on what we have so far, an extract from a longer document. And that extract was made by a user on Wikisource. There is no evidence that the page we currently have was never published independently, so the extract issue applies here. We can host it as part of the larger work, however, just as we host poems and short stories published in a magazine. We always want the work to be included in the context in which it was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    OK. I did understand that to be TEaeA,ea's position, but it appeared to me that you were disagreeing and I did not understand the reasons. Sounds like there's greater agreement than I was perceiving though. Pete (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

    I am unclear what you are referring to as a "longer document." Are you referring to the need to transcribe the Russian portion? That there are unreleased pages beyond the piece we have here?. Or are you saying the "longer document" is all 53 sets of releases almost 4000 pages listed here (https://www.esd.whs.mil/FOIA/Reading-Room/Reading-Room-List_2/Detainee_Related/)? I hope you are not advocating for merging all ~4000 pages into a single continuous page here, some some subdivision I assume is envisioned.

    Re the policy statement: I am not sure that is definitive: if someone writes me a letter or a poem and I paste that into a scrapbook, is the "work" the letter, the scrapbook or both? Does it matter if it is a binder or a folder instead of a scrapbook? If a reporter copies down a speech in a notebook, is the work the speech or the whole notebook. etc. I am pretty sure we haven't defined with enough precision to point to policy to say one interpretation of "work" is clearly wrong, which is why we have the discussion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    The basic unit in WS:WWI is the published unit; we deal in works that have been published. We would not host a poem you wrote and pasted into a scrapbook, because it has not been published. For us to consider hosting something that has not been published usually requires some sort of extraordinary circumstances. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    From WWSI: "Most written work ... created but never published prior to 1929 may be included", Documentary sources include; "personal correspondence and diaries." The point isn't the published works, that is clear. If someone takes the poem edits it and publishes in a collection its clear. It's the unpublished works sitting in archives, documentary sources, etc. Is the work the unpublished form it went into the archive (e.g separate letters) or the unpublished form currently in the archives (e.g. bound together) or is it if I request pages 73-78 from the archives those 5 pages in the scan are the work and if you request pages 67-75 those are a separate work? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    I will just add that in every other context we refer to a work as the physical thing and not a mere scanned facsimile. We don't consider Eighteenth Century Collections Online scanning a particular printed editions and putting up a scan as the "published unit" as distinct from the British Library putting up their scan as opposed to the LOC putting up their scan or finding a version on microfilm. Of course, someone taking documents and doing things (like the Pentagon Papers, or the Family Jewels) might create a new work, but AFAICT in this context it is just mere reproduction. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    In the issue at hand, I am unaware of any second or third releases / publications. As far as I know, there is only the one release / publication. When a collection or selection is released / published from an archive collection, that release is a publication. And we do not have access to the archive. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    We have access, via filing a FOIA request. That is literally how those documents appeared there, they are hosted under: "5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(2)(D) Records - Records released to the public, under the FOIA," which are by law where records are hosted that have been requested three times. And in general, every archive has policies around access. And I can't just walk into Harvard or Oxford libraries and handle their books either.

    My point isn't that can't be the interpretation we could adopt or have stricter policies around archival material. Just that I don't believe we can point to a statement saying "work" or "published unit" and having that "obviously" means that a request for pages 1-5 of a ten report is obviously hostable if someone requests just those five pages via FOIA as a "complete work" while someone cutting out just the whole report now needs to be deleted because that was released as part of a 1000 page large document release and hence is now an "extract" of that 1000 page release. That requires discussion, consensus, point to precedent etc. And if people here agree with that interpretation go ahead. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    For example, I extracted Index:Alexandra Kollontai - The Workers Opposition in Russia (1921).djvu out of [2]. My understanding of your position is that according to policy the "work" is actually all 5 scans from the Newberry Library archives joined together (or, maybe only if there are work that was previously unpublished?), and that therefore it is an "extract" in violation of policy. But if I uploaded this [3] instead, that is okay? Or maybe it depends on the access policies of Newberry vs. the National Archives? Or it depends on publication status (so I can extract only published pamphlets from the scans but not something like a meeting minutes, so even though they might be in the same scan the "work" is different?) MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    If the scan joined multiple published items, that were published separately, I would see no need to force them to be part of the same scan, provided the scan preserves the original publication in toto. I say that because there are Classical texts where all we have is the set of smushed together documents, and they are now considered a "work". This isn't a problem limited to modern scans, archives, and the like. The problem is centuries old. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

    So if in those thousands of pages there is a meeting minute or letter between people ("unpublished") then I can't? MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has gone way beyond my ability to follow it. However, I do want to point out that we do have precedent for considering documents like those contained in this file adequate sources for inclusion in enWS. I mention this because if the above discussion established a change in precedent, there will be a large number of other works that can be deleted under similar argument (including ones which I have previously unsuccessfully proposed for deletion). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

for example, see the vast majority of works at Portal:Guantanamo —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(@EncycloPetey, @MarkLSteadman) So, to be clear, the idea would be to say that works which were published once and only once, and as part of a collection of works, but that were created on Wikisource on their own, to be treated of extracts and deleted per WS:WWI#Extracts?

If this is the case, it ought to be discussed at WS:S because as BT said a lot of other works would qualify for this that are currently kept because of that precedent, including most of our non-scan-backed poetry and most works that appeared in periodicals. This is a very significant chunk of our content. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, that would classify encyclopedia articles as extracts, which would finally decide the question of whether it is appropriate to list them on disambiguation pages (i.e., it would not be appropriate, because they are extracts) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extracts are only good for deletion if created separately from the main work. As far as I understood this, if someone does for example a whole collection of documents, they did the whole work, so it's fine, it's only if it's created separately (like this is the case here) that they would be eligible for deletion. Editing comment accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We would not host an article from an encyclopedia as a work in its own right; it would need to be part of its containing work, such as a subpage of the work, and not a stand-alone article. I believe the same principle applies here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of our non-scan backed poetry looks like this A Picture Song which is already non-policy compliant (no source). For those listing a source such as an anthology, policy would generally indicate the should end up being listed as subworks of the anthology they were listed in. I don't think I have seen an example of a poetry anthology scan being split up into a hundred different separate poems transcribed as individual works rather than as a hundred subworks of the anthology work.

Periodicals are their own mess, especially with works published serially. Whatever we say here also doesn't affect definitely answer the question of redirects, links, disambiguation as we already have policies and precedent allowing linking to sub-works (e.g. we allow linking to laws or treaties contained in statute books, collections, appendices, etc.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

They are non-policy compliant, but this consensus appears to have been that though adding sourceless works is not allowed, we do not delete the old ones, which this, if done, would do. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

La Comédie humaine

This is a list of links to various works by Balzac. I think this is supposed to be an anthology, but the links in it do not appear to be from an edition of the anthology, so this should be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if it's not an anthology, but rather a list of related works, it should be moved to Portal space instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a Schrödinger's contents: All of the listed items were published together in a collection by this title, however the copies we have do not necessarily come from that collection, and meny of the items were published elsewhere first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

None of the copies we have come from that collection, which is why I nominated it for deletion. The closest is Author's Introduction to The Human Comedy which is from The Human Comedy: Introductions and Appendix. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There are also a LOT of links to this page, and there is Index:Repertory of the Comedie Humaine.djvu, which is a reference work tied to the work by Balzac. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of the incoming links are through section redirects, so we could just make a portal and change the redirect targets to lead to the portal sections.

As for Index:Repertory of the Comedie Humaine.djvu, it goes with Repertory of the Comedie Humaine, which is mentioned at La Comédie humaine as a more specific, detailed and distinct work. — Alien  3
3 3 19:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a distinct work, but it is a reference work about La Comédie humaine, containing links throughout to all the same works, because those works were published in La Comédie humaine, which is the subject of the reference book. This means that it contains the same links to various works issue that the nominated work has. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We could make the unusual step of creating a Translations page despite having no editions of this anthology. This would handle all the incoming links, and list various scanned editions that could be added in future. It's not unprecedented. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

These novel series are a bit over the place, things like The Forsyte Chronicles and Organon get entries, while typically The X Trilogy does not. My sense it that current practice is to group them on Authors / Portals so that is my inclination for the series. Separately, if someone does want to start proofreading one of the published sets under the name, e.g. the Wormeley edition in 30 (1896) or 40 (1906) volumes. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes there is no clear distinction between a "series of works" and a "single multi-volume work", which leaves a grey area. However, when the distinction is clear, a "series of works" does not belong in mainspace. To your examples: The Forsyte Chronicles is clearly in the wrong namespace and needs to be moved; but Organon is a Translations page rather than a series, and Organon (Owen) is unambiguously a single two-volume work, so it is where it belongs (though the "Taken Separately" section needs to be split into separate Translations pages). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I support changing the page into a translations page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Which translations would be listed? So far, I am aware of just one English translation we could host. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The translation page can contain a section listing the translation(s) that we host or could host and a section listing those parts of the work which were translated individually. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. I know what a translation page does. But if there is only a single hostable translation, then we do not create a Translations page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Although there might not be multiple hostable translations of the whole work, there are various hostable translations of some (or all?) individual parts of the work, which is imo enough to create a translation page for the work. Something like the above discussed Organon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Organon is a collected work limited in scope to just six of Aristotle's works on a unifying theme. La Comédie humaine is more akin to The Collected Works of H. G. Wells, where we would not list all of his individual works, because that's what an Author page is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this work also has some unifying theme (expressed in the title La Comédie humaine) and so it is not just an exhausting collection of all the author's works. Unlike The Collected Works of H. G. Wells it follows some author's plan (see w:La Comédie humaine#Structure of La Comédie humaine). So I also perceive it as a consistent work and can imagine that it has its own translation page, despite the large number of its constituents. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A theme hunted for can always be found. By your reasoning, should we have a Yale Shakespeare page in the Mainspace that lists all volumes of the first edition and a linked list of all of Shakespeare's works contained in the set? After all, the Yale Shakespeare is not an exhaustive collection. I would say "no", and say the same for La Comédie humaine. The fact that a collection is not exhaustive is a weak argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You pick one little detail from my reasoning which you twist, this twisted argument you try to disprove and then consider all my reasoning disproved. However, I did not say that the reason is that it is not exhaustive. I said that it is not just an exhausting collection but that it is more than that, that it resembles more a consistent work with a unifying theme. The theme is not hunted, it was set by the author. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Then what is your reason for wanting to list all of the component works on a versions / translations page? "It has a theme" is not a strong argument; nor is "it was assembled by the author". Please note that the assemblage, as noted by the Wikipedia article, was never completed, so there is no publication anywhere of the complete assemblage envisioned by the author. This feels more like a shared universe, like the Cthulhu Mythos or Marvel Cinematic Universe, than a published work. I am trying to determine which part of your comments are the actual justification being used for listing all of the component works of a set or series on the Mainspace page, and so far I do not see such a justification. But I do see many reasons not to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have written my arguments and they are not weak as I see them. Having spent with this more time than I had intended and having said all I wanted, I cannot say more. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why it is different from the Cthulu Mythos or Marvel Cinematic Universe. E.g.

1. It is a fixed set, both of those examples are open-ended, with new works being added. Even the authors are not defined.

2. It was defined and published as such by the original author. Those are creations of, often, multiple editors meaning that the contents are not necessarily agreed upon.

3. It was envisioned as a concept from the original author, not a tying together of works later by others.

etc.

The argument, "it wasn't completed" is also not a particularly compelling one. Lots of works are unfinished, I have never heard the argument, we can't host play X as "Play X" because only 4/5 acts were written before the playwright died, or we can't host an unfinished novel as X because it is unfinished. And I doubt that is really a key distinction in your mind anyways, I can't imagine given the comparisons you are making that you would be comfortable hosting it if Balzac lived to 71, completed the original planned 46 novels but not if he lived to 70 and completed 45.5 out of the 46.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: "It was defined and published as such by the original author". Do you mean the list was published, or that the work was published? What is the "it" here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"It" is the concept, so both. You could go into a book store in 1855 and buy books labeled La Comedie Humaine, Volume 1, just like you can buy books today labeled A Song of Ice and Fire, First Book.

But that is my general point, having a discussion grounded in the publication history of the concept can at least go somewhere. Dismissing out of hand, "it was never finished" gets debating points, not engagement. I may have had interest in researching the history over Balzac's life, but at this point that seems futile.

In general, to close out my thoughts, for the reasons I highlighted (fixed set, author intent, enough realization and publication as such, existence as a work on fr Wiki source / WP as a novel series) it seems enough to be beyond a mere list, and a translation page seems a reasonable solution here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This should be moved to a subpage of Author:Honoré de Balzac. It's already transcluded within that page and used as a part of his list of works/bibliography.--~2025-26662-34 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Middle English)

This work has no source text, and I suspect it is an inaccurate transcription of an old print edition, because it frequently substitutes "z" where "ȝ" exists in other source texts. It was added to the site, fully-formed, in 2007, by an IP editor, so I don't think we'll be able to get much context for it. I think it should be blanked and replaced with a transcription project should the source be identified, and if not, deleted. See further details on identifying its source on the talk page. EnronEvolved (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The ultimate source is, by unavoidable implication, the British Library MS Cotton Nero A X/2, digital copies of which exist (and may well have existed in 2007). It is possible that the manuscript may be the proximal source, too, though it may be Morris. The substitution of a standard character for an unusual one is common in amateur transcriptions but an old print edition would be unlikely to be that inconsistent. Could we upload a scan of the original source and verify the text we have matches (almost certainly better than an OCR would)? Then we can correct the characters and other errors. HLHJ (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• HLHJ: Does this work? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good. Should we choose that, or Morris, as the "source"? I think the IP could be taken to have implied the MS, but if Morris is closer that would be fine too. I've now noticed that we do have another ME version, Index:Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - Tolkien and Gordon - 1925.djvu. HLHJ (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Both Morris and Madden have annotations (footnotes, marginal notes) not shown here. So perhaps taking it as a transcription of the MS makes more sense. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  We ought to bear in mind that Sir Gawain is only a small part of the larger Pearl manuscript. Would that make using the MS directly an extract? EnronEvolved (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Further points against using the MS: I'm not sure how many of Wikisource's users could transcribe it accurately given how heavily faded, archaic, and abbreviated it is. The lack of abbreviation in the Wikisource text is a point in favour of Morris, too: the IP knew how to expand the abbreviations, but kept confusing "ȝ" for "z"? That sounds implausible to me. EnronEvolved (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  • EnronEvolved: I think that there wouldn’t be an issue with uploading the entire Pearl manuscript just for this, as there would probably be interest in the remaining works at some point. It may simply be an inaccurate transcription of an old photofacsimile of the manuscript, although in any case the original would be of much value. As for users, that is certainly an issue; even my experience with a borderline Middle/Modern English text wouldn’t help me, as I would still need a lot of practice parsing the light hand. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re being an extract, there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other, as has come up in other contexts. For example, if it is published in 5 separate parts by the holding library (or even separate libraries), is putting them the five separate scans back together again a prohibited user created compilation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would be interested in proofreading this text, mostly because I thought that "The Green Knight" was a great movie. —FPTI (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the Versions page includes a link to our on-going transcription of the edition co-edited by Tolkien, which edition includes the Middle English, copious notes, and a vocabulary list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire

Looks like transcription of some screenshots of web pages. Not in our scope per WS:WWI#Reference material: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text" ... "Some examples of these include... Tables of data or results".

Besides, the PDF file contains two pages with two tables from two separate database entries, so it is a user-created compilation, which is again not possible per WS:WWI.

(Besides all this, I still believe that our task is not transcribing the whole web, as this creates unnecessary maintenance burden for our small community. But it is not the main reason, though it is important, the main ones are above.)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep – These reports are published specifically by the United States government at least 3 months after a natural disaster that serve as the finalized reports. There is an entire page specifically about these sources. The PDF is Wikipedian-made but the tables are not. The U.S. government divides every report by county and by month. The fire was in a single county, but occurred in April & May 2024, therefore, NOAA published an April 2024 and a May 2024 report separately. The PDF was the combination of the two sources. To note, this is an official publication of the U.S. government as described in that page linked above: "Storm Data is an official publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which documents the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and/or disruption to commerce." Per WS:WWI, this is a documentary source, which qualifies under Wikisource's scope per "They are official documents of the body producing them". There is way in hell you can argue a collection of official U.S. government documents does not qualify for Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The definition of the documentary source in WS:WWI says that "documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries." Pure tables without any context are refused by the rule a bit below, see my quotation above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is how the National Weather Service, a branch of the United States government publishes finalized results...Like every single fucking natural disaster in the United States is published in that format. File:Storm Data Document for the 1970 Lubbock, Texas Tornado.jpg is a 1970 publication (pre-Internet) and this is a physical paper that was physcally scanned in. That to is in a chart and table. If charts and tables produced by the US government are not allowed, then y'all need to create something saying no U.S. government natural disaster report is allowed because tables is how the U.S. government fucking publishes the information. Yeah, good bye Wikisource. There is literally no use to be here. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That is absolutely OK that they publish tables, but our rule does not accept such screenshot-based material. Being rude or shouting with bold or red letters won't help. Although you have achieved that opposing arguments are less visible, it will not have any impact on the final result. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If/when this is deleted, please make a note somewhere that Storm Data is not covered under Wikisource's scope, since both the 2024 wildfire and 1970 tornado document above are from Storm Data and they would not be under the scope. There needs to be some note about that somewhere that the U.S. document series Storm Data is not under Wikisource's scope. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not, it is not a matter of publisher. Besides, our rules are worded generally, we never make them publisher-specific. Speaking about Storm Data, they publish a monthly periodical, see an example which would definitely be in our scope. Unlike screenshots of their web. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So Storm Data is allowed, but screenshots of Storm Data is not allowed? Is that correct? WeatherWriter (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

More or less. We don't accept extracts or user-created compilations, but if you have a government work as a whole, we'll generally take it. Screenshots of works aren't specifically in violation, but it's a horrible way to get a whole work. You can use podman on the HTML, or print it directly from your browser, and that will let the text be copyable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested author-requested speedy deletion on it. No use to try to argue or debate. I know you are an administrator who clearly knows it isn't in scope and needs to be deleted. I don't want to argue or debate it anymore and just want to be done with Wikisource transcribing. I do indeed lack the competence to know what is or is not allowed for Wikisource, despite being a veteran editor. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, I would lean towards  Keep for reports by federal governments on official events. I know that we keep for example Civil Aeronautics Board / NTSB reports. Presumably, the NTSB dockets could also be added if so inclined. This seems to be the NOAA equivalent where the differences seem to be some level of "lack of narrative / description" and the proper formatting of the sourcing from the DB for structured data. I don't really think the first is particularly compelling to merit deletion, and the second is really about form not content. E.g. it might make sense to download the DB as a csv and then make each line a sub page to be more "official" but this seems fine to me (might make sense to upload the 1 line CSV anyways for posterity). MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• On this topic, I want to throw 2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report into the mix. This is a nearly identical format Wikisource collection (and Wikisource validated collection) for the NOAA finalized report on the 2024 Greenfield tornado. I am wanting to throw this into the mix for others to see a better-example of NOAA's finalized report. Also noting the Wikisource document is listed on the EN-Wikipedia article for the tornado (see the top of w:2024 Greenfield tornado#Tornado summary). WeatherWriter (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not the NOAA finalized report; it's a stitched together collection of NOAA reports. It's not entirely transparent which reports were stitched together. It's clearly not Storm Data.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Every URL is cited on the talk page. See Talk:2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report in the "Information about this edition". To also note, the "Notes" section actually says, "This tornado crossed through four counties, so the finalized report consists of four separate reports, which have been combined together." I do not know how that is not transparent enough to say which reports are in the collection. The reports "Event Narrative" also make it clear for the continuations: For example, one ends with "The tornado exited the county into Adair County between Quince Avenue and Redwood Avenue." and the next starts with "This large and violent tornado entered into south central Adair County from Adams County." NOAA is very transparent when it is a continuation like that. If you have any suggestions how to make it more transparent, I am all ears! WeatherWriter (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also quick P.S., this is in fact Storm Data. You can read the Storm Data FAQ page. Everything regarding what is an "Episode" vs "Event" (as seen in the charts aforementioned above) is entirely explained there. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I missed those URLs because they're not listed on the PDF page. Someone should archive completely that Storm Data database, but that's not really Wikisource's job. We store publications, not user-created collections of material from a database. There is no "2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report" from NOAA; there are four separate reports.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator misreads the relevant policy. The fact that a document is in tabular form does not mean that it needs must be excluded; this is a good example of that fact. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  ...and besides that it is a user created compilation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Upon my request, the two reports compiled in our pdf have been archived by archive.org, see here and here. Archive.org is the service which should be used for web archiving, not Wikisource, where the two screenshot-based tables are now redundant and without any added value. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It might make sense to add these to field to wikidata for storm events, assuming the event itself is noticeable, given that it is built for handling structured data. But that is a question for the wikidata commmunity. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the claim that the page is a compilation was not disproved, and so I suggest closing the discussion and deleting the page per Wikisource:WWI#Compilations. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• You’re out!voted 2–1—in fact, no one even !voted delete. -- —unsigned comment by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2025.

Well, I am giving an argument that it is a compilation which is explicitely prohibited here. None of the two who voted for keeping disproved this argument. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

FWIW,  Delete on Jan's premises. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Cicaden, Gespensterbuch, Wunderbuch

These pages are neither translations nor versions pages, but are lists of things that were published in particular publications in German. But none of the linked translations or versions pages have copies that are actually from either of these sources. = There is no scan-backed copy on de.WS, and no content here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The same applies to Aus der Geisterwelt, no ? According to w:Gespensterbuch only some of the stories have been translated. Could these go as sub-pages of the author pages ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Author pages are for listing works we have, or could have. These are listings of German editions published in German language books. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case, there is nothing that can be done.  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo after the discussion below, was wondering if you'd be willing to suspend your vote until there's been a wider discussion on the best way to handle non-English anthologies that have had stories translated into English, as many anthologies link to individual stories, and there are currently no rules or guidelines which prevent this. Would be good to see what the overall community consensus is on this (i.e. whether to support the existing precedent of anthologies linking to individual stories, or to adopt a new hardline approach that prevents this) before deleting! Would appreciate your thoughts either way! --Yodin^T 12:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Beardo. There wasn't a clear precedent when I created these, so I don't think they're covered (or prohibited as far as I know) by any existing policies, but please could we discuss this at the Scriptorium to decide a precedent one way or the other before deletion, as I think there's a strong case for having translations pages for anthologies from other languages (such as, for example Grimm's Household Tales), that show links to individual short stories that have been translated, especially in instances where there have been no complete translations of the entire anthology. Many of these anthologies are notable (such as Gespensterbuch), and having a single link from Wikipedia for readers to easily view all English translations of short stories from them would be very helpful (especially in cases such as Fantasmagoriana, which has several authors and so no straightforward way to link to here without a separate page like this). If it's decided to put these purely in author pages, then it would be good to decide what is the best way to do this in practice (e.g. some authors have many short stories – so should these short stories be sorted alphabetically by title [if so, most widely used English translation, or original language? – either way would make it difficult for readers to find all stories in a given anthology at a glance], or by year of first publication? Should these short story bullet points list the anthology that it was first published in [in which case, some authors like E.T.A. Hoffmann tended to publish the stories individually in annuals first, and only later collect them in his best known anthology Die Serapionsbrüder – so it would be difficult for readers, as at present, to find all translations of the Serapionsbrüder translations from the author page], or all anthologies, or perhaps just notable ones [if so, how do you define this]?) I guess my point is that the situation is quite complex, and I think there's a strong benefit to readers in having these, and very little to lose by having them, as long as we define clearly situations where they are unnecessary (e.g. perhaps in cases where only one story has been translated into English). Sorry for the wall of text – this might not be a big deal to most editors, but to me it is! --Yodin^T 11:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Except that these are not translations pages; they're lists of things published in a language other than English from a collection that also is not in English. English Wikisource has never hosted pages for works that are not in English and which have not been translated. The corresponding Author pages have also been made unnecessarily complex as well by listing each German publication for each story as to where it's been published, making it harder to see the story titles. The removal of all the extraneous information would make it easier for people to see the story titles, instead of a wall of publication information that isn't relevant. --13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC) EncycloPetey (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey if you click on any of the links on these pages, they will take you to the English translations of these stories. For Gespensterbuch, about half of the stories have been translated, for Wunderbuch, currently three stories (Cicaden does seem excessive to me, as it only has one translated story, so would not pass the condition I suggested above). Another example I gave, Grimm's Household Tales, also has about half the stories with links – do you agree that there is still value in having this page as it is, or would you prefer to delete the Individual Tales section? As a result, I think they should be counted as translations pages, and that any non-English anthologies that have had more than one story translated into English should be given translations pages like this (I would prefer them to have complete lists of contents, rather than only including the tales that have been translated, as it helps readers to see which stories have been translated, and which ones haven't, but again I'm aware that there has been no discussion on this yet and opinions may differ). You could argue that these should be portals, but I think there are several reasons translations pages would be best – either way I think would be good to get a broader community consensus on this. I'm not sure how much transcribing of short story translations into English you've done, but this has been the main area I've been working on – so have thought about the pros/cons of different approaches to this stuff quite a bit – but again, it would be good to have wider community feedback and reach a consensus on best practices for non-English anthologies that have had several stories translated into English. --Yodin^T 20:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

But they are not translations from those publications. The translations are published elsewhere. A portal combining these items might be possible, but again, there is a lot of listed information about a German-language publication, for which we have no content, and which we will not have because (as you note) the books have not been translated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think more people might participate, you can point people to here from the Scriptorium, but feletion discussions happen on this page, not in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask what you mean by they are not translations from those publications and The translations are published elsewhere? As I see it, each translations pages is entirely about a non-English work, and links to all English translations of that work (including parts of that work), regardless of where it was published. I think you're saying that as you see it, translations pages should only contain links to complete translations of the entire work? In which case, all of the entries on Grimm's Household Tales should be deleted as none of them are complete, as well as the list of individual stories, which are also not publications. There are very likely to be many, many other examples like this. Excluding translations that are published as part of larger works would also exclude a huge number of novels (for example, many of the transcriptions of Goethe's novels are published in larger collected works). Again, having worked on transcribing translations over the past few years, I think this is a much more complex area than you might be assuming, and I think this type of translations page for anthologies has real value to readers – with no downsides.

In terms of this deletion discussion – I might be mistaken (please correct me if I am!) but I think the question of how to handle translations pages for anthologies, and whether they are allowed to link to the individual stories is not a settled issue? There's certainly precedent for individual story translations pages being linked to on anthology translations pages, as I've illustrated above, and there do not seem to have been any discussions on how to handle these cases, nor are they in breach of any rules, policies, or guidelines as far as I can tell? I'd argue that as they're not in contravention of any rules, and there's a precedent for doing this, they should not be deleted until there's been a wider discussion to settle this point first, or a very clear consensus that they should go. If the latter, I would ask that we settle the scope of what can and cannot be included on the translations pages of anthologies, as this will affect many other pages, and it seems extremely unfair to delete without setting up clear guidelines – otherwise how am I, or other editors, to know whether my (or their) past, current, or future work will be deleted later down the line? --Yodin^T 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

You are confusing Translations pages with Versions pages that use a translation header template. Our Translations pages are user-created translations from a scan that has been transcribed at the original language Wikisource. Our versions pages list editions that we host or can host. The pages under discussion are neither English translations, nor are they versions pages listing English translations. They are lists of German language items in a German language publication. Such things belong at the German Wikisource, not here on the English one. They violate our most basic principle of WS:WWI in that they are not English publications or English translations. Your comparison with Grimm's Household Tales misses the fact that the page lists five published translations of the tales, then the versions pages for the individual tales from those five published translations. The pages being considered currently are not versions pages for any published translations of those books; they are list articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

By translations page, I was using the term as defined at Wikisource:Style guide#Disambiguation, versions and translations pages: A translations page is a special case of a versions page, listing English language translations of a foreign work., which use the template {{translations}}. To be clear, when I used the term "translations page" above, I wasn't claiming that the pages that we were discussing were complete user-translated texts. Wikisource:Versions does not set out what is to be included on a translations page, neither does it prohibit linking of the individual stories within an anthology – nor does anywhere else in the guidelines – and as I've pointed out above, there is a clear precedent for many years of this happening – you have not said whether you would delete all of these without any community wide discussion first? To delete these pages many years later, when there is clear precedent for individual stories being linked to on translations pages, and there being no clear rules or guidelines that even suggest this is not allowed seems extraordinary. The fact that Wikisource:What Wikisource includes does not specifically permit this also seems misleading, as it does not permit versions pages (including translations pages) at all – would you suggest we delete them all? The translations pages I've created all exist to provide links to translations of stories that are permitted by Wikisource:What Wikisource includes – as I've mentioned above, being able to have one translations page for an anthology is extremely helpful for readers who are interested in the anthology as a whole. Is the main issue for you that they contain the entire contents of the anthology, including stories that we do not know have any translations yet (I've given the reasons I think that's more helpful above, but again am very much open to discussing this and reaching a consensus on best practice)? --Yodin^T 23:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

And on the point about Grimm – please reread what I wrote :) all of the entries on Grimm's Household Tales should be deleted as none of them are complete, as well as the list of individual stories, which are also not publications (emphasis added) – none of the five translations linked to are complete, and most of them have many fewer than half the tales – the individual stories list also contains many stories that do not have links – precisely like the pages you've nominated for deletion – and the stories they link to are not just taken from the five translations – they also include many stories that were translated in periodicals, other anthologies and the like – which adds to their value. Again, not to press the point too much, but you seem to have reached a strong conclusion despite this seeming like an area you don't edit in a lot? --Yodin^T 23:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Your statement about the Grimm listings is incorrect. Grimm's Household Tales (Edwardes) is complete, scan-backed, and validated. The copy proofread from Index:Grimm-Rackham.djvu is also complete. So the premise for your argument is not true. These are all English editions of the Grimm collection. Correct, many of them omit stories found in the original, but that is true of many English translations. It is even true of English language editions of English language publications. The US edition of A Clockwork Orange was published without the final chapter from the original UK edition. Incompleteness of an edition or translation does not make it any less an edition. But all that is tangential to the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

By "complete" I meant "contains all the stories in the anthology". Edwardes is the only one that is close to this, but still misses several stories (see de-ws for a complete list), and also adds in stories by Büsching, Otmar, and Tieck – the other four contain many fewer of the Grimm stories, and so none of these are full translations of the original work, which is what you seemed to be arguing for. The fact that that's true for many English translations is exactly my point – this area is much more complex than you seem to be suggesting. If you consider these partial translations, which contain stories by other authors not found in the original text, to be "versions" of Grimm, where do you draw the line? And why is this line you're drawing not documented in any rules or guidelines? If you consider Taylor and Jardine's German Popular Stories to be an edition of Grimm, then why not consider Tales of the Dead to be an edition of Gespensterbuch (half of the stories are Gespensterbuch stories)? --Yodin^T 11:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, this is again the same thing we have hit again and again with partial translations, "compound works," and our "no excerpt policy." I really don't see the harm of a. listing non complete editions of One Thousand and One Nights here and being dogmatic that only complete translations of the whole work are allowed to be listed and b. listing things like individual Fables here Fables (Aesop), individual sonnets by Shakespeare here Shakespeare's Sonnets, individual books of the Bible, etc.  Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I really would find it annoying if we have to start keeping parallel lists of translations. Oh this translation of the Acts was published in The New Testament so look there, this other translation is published in The Bible look there and this other translation was published in individual volumes so look under the individual book. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

What does Cicaden have that isn't better presented at Author:Johann August Apel? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Gespensterbuch seems perfectly reasonable as it is split across multiple authors and multiple translations, exactly why it makes sense to have a listing. Why would I expect to find a listing of works by Laun on Apel's page or Apel on Laun's page? What is the problem about wikilinking to Gepensterbuch from another work talking about it? Presumably you don't want a cross-namespace redirect Gespesnterbuch --> Author:Apel? What's wrong about having WP link to this page? I am confused about what exact problem we are solving besides separating out complete from partial translations... MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

And I am confused about what is the point of scan-backing this at DE WS. How does that help in any way? This isn't claiming to be a WS user-provided translation. Where is there anything about to host any published translation that you need to have a scan-backed version first? That to host The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 I first need to transcribe the original documents in Latin and Spanish? MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It is claiming to be an English language translation of Cicaden, but it is not. It is a bibliographic article written and constructed by a User. It is original content provided by the user, and not published content. We do not put user-generated content in the Mainspace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

So the problem is exactly my point about partial translations. Having Bible link to a translation of only the Torah misrepresents because it is a partial and not a complete translation, having Bible link to a translation of only the Gospels misrepresents because it isn't a complete translation, having The Tale of Genji link to The Sacred Tree is a misrepresentation, etc. I frankly don't see the problem that The Tale of Genji list 6 sub-books on the translations page, Of course a translations page is bibliographic created by the user, just like every author page listing works is bibliographic. We can discuss the correct presentation to list the individual poems, stories, plays, volumes etc. in a published collection to make clearer the separation (e.g. whether we should have "Individual stories" section) and provide guidance around that. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Bible is different: it's blending a Versions page and a Disambiguation page. That's not happening with our current discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Or AEsop's Fables, One Thousand and One Nights, any of the large collections of poetry, etc. I haven't seen a convincing argument why listing the poems in a poetry collection is bad, listing the stories in a short story collection is bad, etc. My vote is cast.  Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

So, we can start creating pages that list contents of periodicals that were not published in English, and which have not been translated? As long as one story or poem from the periodical was translated into English somewhere? Would the listing of Loeb Classical Library be OK to list translations that were not actually published as part of the Loeb series, as long as the translation were for the same work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I am fine limiting it to parts that are translated if that is really the concern (just like we do for Author pages, where we also don't want Authors with loads of titles that weren't translated). And yes I don't see it obviously bad to have say Istra or Pravda and then link to a translation of Lenin's articles published in Istra, a link to a translation of Stalin's articles in Istra etc. I really don't follow the Loeb point. The first entry is "L001 (1912) Apollonius Rhodius: Argonautica Translation by Seaton." which links to Argonautica which lists all translations of that work. Like The Works of Aristotle and many other collective works list the constitute volumes and the texts they contain. I have my opinion that having the context for these work in their original publication is valuable on the merits, you are free to disagree, and I feel that there are common enough occurrences / enough uncertainty within policy statements that there isn't consensus. If more people chime in, I am happy to defer to community consensus. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My Loeb concern is a parallel to the current one. If we can host a page for Cicaden, listing a work that was translated, but for which the translation was not in Cicaden, nor part of a translation of Cicaden, then could the Loeb page link to just any translation of the same classical work, by any translator, published anywhere? And if not, then why can we do that for Cicaden? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

But Loeb Classical Library is not a translations page, it's a "base page" of a book series (along the lines of Wikisource:Multi-volume works), which links to all the works in the Loeb library. Loeb is a series of translations into English, so its page is about those specific translations into English, while translations pages are another thing altogether: they are about one non-English work, and list all translations of that work into English (I think we agree above, re Grimm, that these do not have to be full translations – partial translations into English are ok – and sometimes they contain translations not in the original text too – however you seem to be saying that translations must be published as separate works in their own right, though there are many cases where this is not the case, e.g. the Works of Goethe mentioned above). I'm confused when you say the translation was not in Cicaden, nor part of a translation of Cicaden, as translations of non-English works are never in the non-English work (by definition) and the translation linked to there is a translation of part of Cicaden (in a sense, the translation when considered alone is an incomplete edition of Cicaden, to paraphrase the term you gave above). --Yodin^T 09:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yodin: Your response dodges the question by stretching the analogy past its intended point of application.

@MarkLSteadman What do you think? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: you still haven't said which rules or guidelines prevent translations pages of anthologies, such as these, from linking to individual stories, yet seem to be implying that this is a settled question. If this does contravene Wikisource policy, why have you not deleted all of the many "individual stories" sections in the examples linked to above? And why are you reluctant for this to be discussed more widely, to see if there is a community consensus on this issue, and to allow guidelines to be written that cover this? --Yodin^T 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that I've added "Individual stories" sections to these articles, and removed all stories that have no known English translations, pending any future discussion. Would still like to know which rules the nominator is saying prevents these from being considered as translations pages, or if this is just based on personal interpretation of what translations pages are allowed to be. --Yodin^T 12:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I say that there is nothing that permits these to be counted as translations pages, since (as you note) there are no English translations of the works Cicaden, etc. With no English translations, the pages should not exist. If you feel that these are permitted, then there should be some evidence somewhere for that positive claim. Burden of proof lies in demonstrating positive evidence, not negative, since negative evidence by its very nature cannot exist. Under what criteria do you think they do fall within scope? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

There clearly are translations of parts of them, which are linked to – and you already said above that many English translations are not complete – where are you drawing the line of what's allowed to be considered a translations page, any why isn't it documented? You're saying that Wikisource effectively has a "whitelist" approach to what is allowed – that everything must specifically be permitted, rather than a "blacklist" approach, prohibiting things which go against consensus, or some middle ground? Again, please can you link to the policy which says that this is the case. And again, nothing is specifically permitted on translations pages – no guidelines that I'm aware of have been written, only precedent of what has existed for many years – which is why I'm asking that we settle the principle first with wider community consensus, if you decide that it's no longer allowed. It would make life much easier to have all of this clarified in policy, so that editors can work under the assumption that their work won't be deleted. I'd also say there is no reason that any of this has be an adversarial process – surely the whole point is to be able to work together collaboratively to improve the project, rather than just yelling at each other? --Yodin^T 19:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

See my question above concerning what this would mean for periodicals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Your question above shows that this not a settled question – you're admitting that there are no guidelines around this, and explaining rhetorically why you believe your position should be the correct one ad absurdum. Going into the details like this, admitting the complexity of this stuff, and working out where to draw the line is exactly what I'm saying we should do – and that a deletion discussion singling out only a few examples of this isn't the best place for this discussion (especially when the examples you've come up with that show why this approach is bad are purely hypothetical, and aren't anywhere in these articles you've nominated for deletion). Would be good to discuss at Scriptorium to set the rules first, then apply them here. --Yodin^T 08:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, you've repeated the same question that I've already answered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I asked you to link to the policy these articles are in breach of, you came up with some philosophical reasoning about this, which seems to show that it is purely your interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves, and I then asked you for the rules which support this. So to make sure we're all on the same page, you seem to be saying that Wikisource has a whitelist approach – that only things specifically permitted are allowed, rather than a blacklist approach, or some combination of the two – if so, where is the policy that supports this, or is this again just your interpretation (if you're saying that your answer above is also an answer to this, then you seem to be accepting that is just your interpretation, and there are no policies that support what you're saying)? --Yodin^T 08:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I have already replied. Please do not spin your own original ideas into my response. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to spin anything – just trying to understand the rules you're saying these pages are in violation of. (I think you seem to have a very clear idea about how you think these rules should be applied, but it does look a lot like personal interpretation, and not based on any written rules, policies, or guidelines – I'm asking that, regardless of which way the community consensus falls on this issue, this is resolved as a written policy – I'm not sure why you would be opposed to this). --Yodin^T 09:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I’m not convinced of the deletion rationale in the first place, but the nominator’s ill behaviour throughout the course of the discussion is very unbecoming. If another editor thinks these pages problematic, perhaps they can be nominated again in the future, but I don’t think that this discussion is very useful at this point. These lists are clearly valuable for people interested in approaching a specific bibliographical question; meanwhile, I don’t really see any negative in keeping them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Having only skimmed the TL;DR above, and looking at the pages for the first time just now, I wonder why these pages are not in the Portal: namespace. They would seem to me to be about linking to various pages within a wider project of translating the German originals. The pages don't sit comfortably in Mainspace: as they are not works themselves, nor are they any of our type of disambiguation page. Portal: namespace is much more suitable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Beeswaxcandle I wouldn't be against this – but I think allowing translations pages to link to individual stories/poems is a better option for a couple of reasons: in cases where there are both full translations and individual story translations (such as Grimm's Household Tales and Fables (Aesop)), it would be easier for readers to have both on the same page, rather than a See also section with a link to a Portal: page (as I think most readers would have no idea what a portal is, or why they would have to go there to see another list about the same work). In cases where an author has some anthologies that have been translated as complete works, and other anthologies where each story has been translated separately (such as E. T. A. Hoffmann, where Die Serapionsbrüder has been translated in one work, while Nachtstücke has had each story translated separately) it would be strange to link from the author page to a translations page for one, and a portal for the other – again I think this would confuse readers for no good reason. I would also not be surprised if overzealous Wikidatarers several years from now objected to some Wikidata items for anthologies linking to portal pages here while other anthologies linked to mainspace translations pages! But all that said, I'm glad to be able to discuss this and wouldn't be devastated if portals was what the community consensus agreed on – but as this affects many existing translations pages, not just the three nominated here, and because there's been precedent for many years of translations pages containing "Individual stories" sections, I hope it would be possible to have a Scriptorium discussion to settle the issue first, and ideally create a set of guidelines for the best way to handle this, which we could then apply to all of these pages. --Yodin^T 10:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08

Now redundant to Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu. Apparently this used to use single images as pages, but now that we have a full scan, this mapping is redundant. Courtesy ping to previous editors: @Library Guy, @Billinghurst, @Bob Burkhardt, @Einstein95, @Nosferattus. Duckmather (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

(Duckmather: IIRC pings don't work without a signature, so I think these people were not pinged in the end. Except if my adding a signature pings them *shrug*.) — Alien  3
3 3 17:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: I've tried resigning my own message in the hope it helps. Duckmather (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment All of these pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/Index:The_New_International_Encyclopædia_1st_ed._v._08 will need to be edited to fix transclusion. There are about 50 article pages whose transclusion was broken in a Jan 2022 bot edit. I am moving all of the .jpg transcribed pages into the new Index, but the articles will still have to be fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

All of the individual pre-existing content pages have now been migrated to the DjVu Index. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: All of those jpg pages were fake. Their transcriptions are not accurate and should probably not be copied over. The fake pages were created from a different edition that has different content (including both formatting and wording changes). I think it would be best to re-transcribe them from scratch (considering how cursory most of the proofreading on Wikisource is). Nosferattus (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

They were not "fake"; they were proofread against image pages sources from Google Books. A cursory examination showed that they contain the same content as the corresponding pages of the DjVu scan. If there are differences, then they can be proofread against the scan. As it was, they were hidden from view, without bringing the issue to anyone. If they should have been deleted for being from a different edition, then they should have been tagged and nominated here. Likewise for the pages that transclude them. All this should have been done before the pages were moved, not after. Could you please provide specific examples of the differences you mention? I do not see them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to slap me: was this the volume where we had an issue with photoshopped pages to merge editions, or am I confusing this with an EB1911-related thingy? — Alien  3
3 3 20:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Several of the pages were, in fact, faked with modifications made in Photoshop or a similar program. For example, File:NIE 1905 - p. 001.jpg (which was deleted from Commons), File:NIE 1905 - p. 810.jpg, and File:NIE 1905 - title page.jpg (which I replaced with a scan of the actual title page). I am sure that there are content differences (not just formatting differences) between the 1903 edition and the 1905 edition. I don't remember what the specific content differences are, but that was the reason I blanked the index and started the discussion on the Scriptorium. The differences were minor wording changes and I don't think they will be caught by proofreaders. These pages should not be used for the 1905 edition and they should be transcribed from scratch. I'm sorry I didn't nominate them for deletion at the time. I tried to bring this to everyone's attention on the Scriptorium, but I guess that wasn't adequate. Nosferattus (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

EncycloPetey: See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2025-03#The New International Encyclopædia transcription uses fake sources for an earlier discussion on this. — Alien  3
3 3 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have seen that thread. But the discussion was about images, and no deletion nomination was ever made for any of the pages, neither those in the Page: namespace nor the articles in the Mainspace that used those transcriptions.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The following pages should also be deleted per the discussion above, as they are based on the 1903 edition, not the 1905 edition:

• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/12
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/13
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/96
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/97
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/98
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/99
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/100
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/101
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/102
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/103
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/104
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/105
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/112
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/113
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/366
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/367
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/373
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/374
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/395
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/396
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/397
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/400
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/466
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/467
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/654
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/655
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/656
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/659
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/660
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/661
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/662
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/663
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/664
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/665
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/666
• Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 08.djvu/917

The pages between 205 and 215 seem to be based on the scan of the actual 1905 edition, however, and can be kept. Nosferattus (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused now. The scan of the 1905 edition is the first edition, but these are from an earlier 1903 edition? If all the pages are from a different edition, then the original reason for nomination of deletion (redundant) is not valid, because they are different editions. I also have yet to see any evidence presented that they are in fact different, we have only an assertion that there must be differences, without actually demonstrating any. So this presents two issues to be resolved: (1) How can the 1905 edition be the first edition, if there was a 1903 edition that is supposed to be so different? (2) Are there in fact any differences between the scans and the transcribed pages listed above? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Both the 1903 edition and the 1905 edition are the "First Edition", even though they are different in both layout and content. You can find textual differences in the very first entry: FONTANES. The 1903 edition says "Fontane's works" in the last sentence.[4] The 1905 edition says "Fontanes's works" in the last sentence.[5] The 1903 edition and the 1905 edition are significantly different. We cannot use the 1903 edition as sources for the 1905 edition and the pages that were transcribed from the faked 1905 images have to be retranscribed from scratch. If you want to create a 1903 edition transcription project and move the pages to that, feel free to do so, but it seems rather pointless to me. The 1903 edition is basically just a sloppy version of the 1905 edition with lots of typos and different volume organization. It has the same topic entries (as far as I can tell); they're just not as well edited. Nosferattus (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If the layout and content are in fact different, then they are not the same edition. When a work is altered through editing, it's a new edition. That's what an edition is; it's a particular result of editing. But the only difference I have so far been made aware of is the addition of a single letter s, which is not enough to claim they are "significantly different". --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"... then they are not the same edition." That's what I've been trying to tell you. The 1903 edition and the 1905 edition are two different editions even though they are both called "First Edition". Even Bob Burkhardt, the user who created the fake pages, admitted that they didn't always correspond.[6] I'm not going to re-find all the differences for you. You can either believe me and delete them or you can use the bogus transcriptions. Using transcriptions from a different edition, however, seems to defeat the whole purpose of having them scan-backed. If you want it to be an accurate transcription of the work as published, those pages should be retranscribed, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So, if they're not the same edition, then labeling them both as "first edition" is likely the source of conflation, and we should change that to a date. But if they're not the same edition, then the reason for deletion given at the outset of this discussion is incorrect, because if they are different, then one is not redundant to the other. We do host multiple editions of works when the editions are different. But again, no evidence has been provided that they are in fact different aside from a single letter. Such minor differences are not worth worrying about. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that minor differences are not worth worrying about. That's the entire reason that we proofread and verify works against scans. If you want to find more differences between the two editions, just look, they aren't hard to find. I'm not involved in this transcription project at all, so I have no interest in wasting more time on it. I'm sorry I opened this can of worms to begin with. I leave it in the hands of whoever wants to work on the transcription. The only thing I ask is that if the pages are kept there is some notice that they were transcribed from a different edition. Nosferattus (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And I disagree, because we have been given no evidence of any difference, other than the one letter, which is easily corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC).

The Exeter Book (Jebson)

This is an incomplete copypaste from an electronic transcription of the work. I am not sure whether it should be considered a second-hand transcription or a transcription of an electronic edition, but in any case the original electronical source does not exist anymore and now only its archived version in web.archive survives. In theory somebody could finish the transcription from the archive (though it is not likely), but I believe that our task is not web-archive mirroring and that copypasting the text from there is not the way we should follow.

Besides, all the transcribed sections contain the note "Edited by Tony Jebson..., all rights reserved". Although there does not seem to be anything really copyrightable on the first sight and so we probably do not have to take the note into account, it at least indicates that the editor did not really wish his transcription to be freely copied. I would ignore the note under other circumstances, but here it is just another small argument added to all the major ones mentioned before.

Therefore I suggest deleting the incomplete transcription, thus creating space for a better one. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't we normally proofread a scanned edition first, and then delete the substandard one afterwards? We don't have any other hosted editions of most of the works in this collection. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: there appears to be a decent edition here: (external scan) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that is the usual attitude towards full but unsourced editions, not towards incomplete copypastes whose sources are not unknown, but have been removed from the internet. Here the problems are piling up too much, without much hope of this work being completed in this state of affairs. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Since this is an anthology, we can't treat it only as an incomplete copypaste of The Exeter Book, but also as a complete copypaste of "Crist", a complete copypaste of "Guthlac A" and "Guthlac B", and so forth. If we can get better copies of each of these works, I will happily support the deletion of this edition. Note that we do already have editions of some of these poems, e.g. "The Phoenix" and "The Wanderer" which are included in Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete This is not exactly an "anthology" but an Old English manuscript volume, and the Jebson "edition" is a 1995 digital-born edition that is incompatible with our licensing. We have scans for one published edition, and should be using published editions rather than user-created digital born copies, as they are effectively self-published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

A different line of reasoning, but it's an untranslated book in a foreign language. (Despite its name, Old English in completely unreadable to modern English speakers.) Even if it were backed by a great scan, shouldn't it be on the Old English Wikisource, not here? Eievie (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Old English Wikisource closed in 2007 and consensus was that Old English/Anglo-Saxon works would be hosted in English Wikisource. —Tcr25 (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

One other issue is that it likely counts as a self-published edition... MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely a self-published edition. But generally we have tended to wait until a published edition is added to replace it, before deleting the self-published editions (unless of course no published editions exist, in which case it fails WS:WWI). —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced court cases

Added by Taiwan prepares~enwikisource in 2008. None state a source. For most of them, I could find the full text of these cases nowhere online:

• Haimes v. Temple University Hospital
• Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode
• Religious Technology Center v. Scott (1989)
• Church of Scientology International v. Superior Court

For three of them, some versions of these texts exist:

• Church of Scientology v. Armstrong: [7], [8], [9]
• Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology: [10], [11]
• Religious Technology Center v. Scott (1996): [12]

However, these possible sources all have different formatting from what we have, and often also different content (for example a [14] being present in a source but not in the work). Either these are not the sources of these works, and they are thus still unsourced, or the fidelity is below our standards. — Alien  3
3 3 07:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Those whose sources cannot be tracked and which are not to be found anywhere should definitely be deleted as unverifiable. I agree also with deleting the following three pages per nom., i.e. as being bellow our standards. We cannot keep texts which more or less correspond to sources, our standards require texts fully faithful to sources. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep for now; I’ve done a lot of work sourcing court cases and should be able to obtain copies of these. Alien: Our copy is correct in removing the “[14]”, as that number refers to the (copyrighted) syllabus authored by West (the publisher of the reporter in which the case was printed); our copy presumably is sourced originally to the court copy (which does not have the later-added syllabus). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Chandler-Lake Wilson Minnesota F5 Tornado of June 16, 1992: Revisited on the 10th Anniversary/Chandler1

This page consists of nothing but a caption for a photo that has been deleted from Commons as non-free media belonging to a third party. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The page Author:Gary Baker is for the photographer, whose photo is not licensable in a manner that would permit us to host it. With no hostable content, the Author page should also be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep — Subpage of Chandler-Lake Wilson Minnesota F5 Tornado of June 16, 1992: Revisited on the 10th Anniversary, which is the full text of the National Weather Service’s assessment on the 1992 Chandler–Lake Wilson tornado. Proposal by @EncycloPetey is to essentially delete ‘Page 1’, when the the introduction/main page and Page 2) are not up for deletion. So, a very strong keep at that, since a page (not text) consisting of a picture and caption does not mean that page should not exist. If that would be the case, then any book with a page consisting of only a photo/caption should have that page automatically deleted. It should be taken into consideration the nominator themselves indicated this was a “page”, not a full “text”. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Except that this is a separate web page, connected only by a link within the text of the other page, saying "(see picture)", and that picture is not here. This is connected solely via parenthetical linked text, and is therefore not equivalent to the page of a text, which would be displayed consecutively with preceding or subsequent pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The Administration of Justice Act 1964 (Transitional, etc.) Order 1964

Please delete this redirect and move Statutory Instruments/1964/1973 to this page in order to be consistent with the other Statutory Instruments. ToxicPea (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - I had set this up specfically to allow for systemic access as the entire volumes get dealt with eventually. and to allow the creation of a Template to cross reference SI's using a 'systemic' link template that takes a year and number. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

See {{Uksi_link}} ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Why exactly is this template necessary? It's not in use anywhere. ToxicPea (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: @Penguin1737: Pinging for comment. ToxicPea (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support My thought is that the primary page name should be the actual title of the piece of legislation. We should have a systemic link redirect to this page.

I see the value in having an systemic way to link SI’s, however I don’t think the naming setup with 1964 (Statutory Instruments/yyyy/####) is the best for long term. First, at least 6 nations use statutory instruments (UK, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, and Australia), but likely more Westminster systems do too. Thus the system shouldn’t begin with just “Statutory Instruments”.

I think the systemic system should be the legal citation that way if users come along and “S.I. 1964/1973” appears in a law, that can be easily hyperlinked without need for a template. And then “S.I. 1964” alone can link to the transclusion of the volume as a whole. Convenient that a / is built into the legal citation already.

I think this is should make it easier all around for dealing with SIs. Penguin1737 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I checked to confirm that the UK's legal citation for Statutory Instruments is unique, and surprisingly enough I believe it is. Of former British colonies, I found two nations which use the name Statutory Instruments and use "SI" in the legal citation, but neither conflict. Ireland uses "S.I. No. ### of yyyy" or "S.I. No. ###/yyyy" and Zimbabwe uses "SI yyyy-###". Canada does call their secondary legislation Statutory Rules and Orders, but use the abbreviation "SRO". Spot checking some UK Volumes in the SRO time frame, they seem to either use "St. R. & O." or "S.R. & O.", never omitting the periods.

@ToxicPea and @廣九直通車 I'd be happy to hear your thoughts, as you often flesh out the headers with commencement and repeal links, which tend to be things like "See S.I 2000/123". Obviously we can wikilink that to the full name page as we've been doing, but I think doing S.I. 2000/123 and knowing that will redirect would be easier. Penguin1737 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Other Statutory Instruments

In addition to the instrument discussed above, Statutory Instruments/1964/1970 should be moved to The British Guiana (Constitution) (No. 2) Order 1964 if the above delete request is approved.

You've convinced me:). The template isn't in use yet, but can be tweaked to whatever 'systemic' format is decided on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Author:Rafael Grossi

An Italian with only two publications I can find, both in Italian. If there is nothing authored by him in English, nor translated into English, then precedent is to delete the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep He is head of a UN agency and hence has a long record of statements in English or as part of the UN freely translated into English: e.g. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/director-general-grossis-statement-to-unsc-on-situation-in-iran-13-june-2025, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-266-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine, etc. Exactly what reports to the UN are {{PD-UN}} vs. not is a separate topic but some certainly are. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The pages with the two above linked texts do not contain any information on whether the original text was in English too or whether it was translated. Generally, the pages have been marked as "All rights reserved" by IAEA, so if it is their translation, PD-UN does not apply. Besides, the {{PD-UN}} template reads: "This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations." I understand it that it should be applied to works that we get from official UN documents, not to secondary transcriptions of UN documents by third parties, where the copyright might be dubious as we never know there, how much edited the original text was.

Besides, it imo does not make much sense to create empty author pages for contemporary government officials, diplomats, international organization employees etc. etc. who may have some PD texts somewhere in the internet, without intention to ad such texts to Wikisource and label them with a proper license. Such empty pages are next to useless. I am not happy with such empty pages in general, although I have learnt to tolerate them in case of old authors of printed works, but allowing the same for contemporary authors of internet content may lead to flooding WS with such author pages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It links to the video where it can be seen to that the report given by Grossi to the UNSC is given in English because Italian is not an official working language of the UN. (https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164401). The relationship between the UN and the IAEA is complicated as well as what things on their own (e.g. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf, also original language English) have PD status in the US because {{PD-EdictGov}} etc.

Re empty author pages, my only two comments are: 1. Author pages are often the start because identifying names and death dates can take time, a link that "Mrs. John Doe" died is actually Rachel Roe died 1954 as opposed to 1956 can mean I know where to upload her work. 2. If we do adopt delete often empty pages then we should be clear when deletion about go ahead, recreate it when you are willing to add it as opposed to this reflects copyright / policy violations. E.g. statement "deleted because no public domain works in English" may seem to be neutral (none added yet, recreate after you add one), but also potentially authoritative (we did an extensive search and discussion and decided that no works exist that meet our inclusion guidelines, don't recreate). E.g. we may want to expand our deletion page text beyond "Occasionally, Author pages have to be deleted. This usually happens because they infringe copyright, or violate our inclusion guidelines." which makes it seem that recreating should be an unlikely event. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Re empty author pages: we could add an additional Speedy deletion that concisely explains the rationale and links to the criteria for fuller explanation that the work was deleted without prejudice because there were no works listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with such speedy deletion explanation. Ad: identifying death dates etc.: that is not the purpose of Wikisource, whose aim is gathering free works, but this information can (and should) be kept in Wikidata. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We need to start somewhere... I can't upload the scan without author information, I can't create the wikidata because of notability https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability without an Author WS page, I can't create the author page until I have a transcription, I can't create the transcription without a scan, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a nuance between "no works listed" and "no transcriptions completed". If I'm understanding correctly, the criteria at hand would only apply to pages with not a list item in scope, at all. Pages containing just a redlink, as commonly used when starting transcriptions, would not be a problem. — Alien  3
3 3 15:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The speedy criterion would be phrased so as not to apply to any page with listed works that are clearly in English, and not under copyright in the US, even if a good scan hasn't been found yet. What we're talking about for speedy deletion are those Author pages with no listed works. If there are works listed, but they are not in English, there may still be cause for deletion, but at this point, I think such lists of non-English works may be beyond the speedy deletion point of discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, finding that is the nuance. There is consensus that having a scan-backed transcription of a properly-licensed work merits inclusion. But is a list of title sufficient? A list of title with scan links? Commons links? Index? Partial transcription listed as "incomplete" etc. I tend to see somewhere around title list with links as my threshold, e.g. if someone wanted wanted to add several reports by Grossi that would be fine for me. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

See EP's comment above. I agree that "no listed works" would be about the limit for deletion without discussion. — Alien  3
3 3 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, support the speedy deletion exception for works not listed, with proposed deletions for cases of abandoned authors, without scans etc. (at least for now). MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Also agree. We could name it "G9: Author page with no indicated works in scope". (See also Wikisource:Scriptorium#Deleting author pages with populate.) — Alien  3
3 3 14:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, maybe we need a new "please help transcribe works by this author that are listed" template. Something we can use for Author pages that list works, but where we lack any local copies. Part of the problem of {{populate}} is that it applies equally whether or not anything is listed. Having a template that categorizes Author pages with no transcribed works (but which have works listed) is useful separate from pages that have nothing listed. EncycloPetey (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Undelete NYT funeral notices

• Two issues brought up here, 1) Associated Press news articles published in the New York Times as well as up to 100 other newspapers that were deleted and 2) A funeral notice that was deleted. --RAN (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Funeral notices in the United States are considered ineligible for copyright since they contain publicly available information, and are devoid of commentary that would meet the threshold of originality. The_New_York_Times/1934/05/15/Ensko with text: "Ensko. On May 23, 1934, Robert Ensko, husband of Mary Elizabeth Bleakeley, father of Robert, Mrs. M. E. Horn, LaMont, Stephen G. C., and Mrs. George Christie. Funeral private. Interment Greenwood Cemetery". It was a funeral notice published in the New York Times. These have been ruled at Commons as not eligible for copyright, they contain no creative elements, and the form has existed for over 150 years: "husband of … father of … ". Any two people filling in the form would get the same results, just like a death certificate. The only variation in over 100 years is: "beloved husband of … beloved father of … ". --RAN (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• The_New_York_Times/1934/05/15/Ensko

The Associated Press would not be covered by the New York Times renewal. Read the opinion of User:Clindberg here: " … in a case like AP it's pretty clear there was no exclusive license, so there was no copyright ownership at all that rested with the New York Times or any other user, thus I don't think their renewal could cover AP's stuff. AP should have renewed their copyright explicitly." which mirrors the Library of Congress's opinion for images produced by the AP. "In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." Read their opinion here. The Library Of Congress has the legal opinion that the Associated Press is responsible for the renewal of copyrights for their material, we should follow their opinion, not reverse it. --RAN (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• See also: Commons:Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press for more information on the Library of Congress and their rational that AP material has not been renewed, and has fallen into the public domain. --RAN (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
• The New York Times/1934/05/15/Ensko
• The New York Times/1930/08/24/Schneider Reaches Ohio
• The New York Times/1930/08/16/Schneider Gains St. Louis
• The New York Times/1930/08/22/Schneider Pushes Plane
• The New York Times/1930/08/19/Schneider Reaches Goal
• The New York Times/1930/08/16/Schneider Flies to Wichita
• The New York Times/1930/08/15/Schneider Halted by Fog
• The New York Times/1930/08/11/Seeks Title on Coast Hop

--RAN (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The full discussion regarding the copyright status (and subsequent deletion) of these pages can be found at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#The New York Times. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Undelete Facts cannot be copyrighted in the United States. Compilations of facts can be in principle, but two sentences saying "Person was born in place/time and died in place/time. Person is succeeded by family." is not copyrightable. E.g. see 313.3(C) and discussion of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. II A. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think that here we are walking a fine line between what meets the threshold of originality and what does not. While it is obviously true that facts cannot be copyrighted, phrasing used with presenting the facts can, and so we have to judge whether the wording of the notices is already behind the threshold or not. The above linked discussion of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. does not help very much, because they are discussing there a telephone directory, which is really just a list of facts not worded in sentences. Because so far we do not have at hand any ruling that would resemble our case more, I am really hesitant to agree that two simple sentences are not copyrightable, as it might open the gates to many many other claims that this or that short text is not copyright elligible. So, my opinion is we should stay on the safe side, and consider everything that is not just a list of facts not phrased in sentences copyrightable.

  As for AP being responsible for renewals: although it makes some sense, the reason why I am (quite weakly) against is that I am lacking some specific evidence, all these arguments seem to be based just on some presumptions and speculations without anything solid in our hands—but I am open to hear other opinions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, words and short phrases are also not copyrightable. The USPTO does not have a definition of precisely how many words is a phrase, but two sentences of purely factual information would certainly count. For that matter, there certainly is something more than just the facts of a telephone book: arrangement in alphabetical order versus numerical order or styling or including an index, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, no one here is a lawyer (I know that I'm not), but based on plain reading of "facts are not copyrightable" and "short phrases are not copyrightable" and that what is copyrightable requires something creative or transformative, a good faith reading is that these obits are public domain. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A reminder on terminology, these are "funeral notices", not obituaries. Funeral notices are paid advertisements by the funeral home. If you ever arranged a funeral, they appear on your itemized bill. I agree that some very short obituaries that resemble a funeral notice, would also not be copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

• The Library of Congress (LOC) is not just another editor expressing their opinion. @Clindberg: has also shown deep knowledge on international copyright law, citing relevant case law. Your other argument is that "husband of … father of … " is copyrightable, if so that copyright expired. Since it has been in use prior to 1964 without copyright registration or renewal, and that it was published as an advertisement without following copyright formalities. --RAN (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the linked discussion with User:Clindberg is relevant to me, but, with all respect to the really well-worded and thought-out opinion, this opinion also seems to be based on presumtions and speculations without any specific evidence. In fact what I am most afraid of is that without a clear line given by some court decision we might be experiencing very exhausting discussions about originality threshold too often once we open the gate.

  As for renewals, they have been recently discussed in several places, and it seems that the prevailing opinion is that when a collective work has been renewed, it has been renewed including all the included individual works, unless there is a specific evidence in a specific case (such as details of contract between the author and editor/publisher) proving otherwise. Here we know nothing about the contract(s) between AP and NY Times. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

  The law specifies who can renew -- see this circular. In general, only the proprietor (i.e. owner) of the copyright can renew it. If someone has an exclusive license, that is effectively owning at least a part of the copyright, and would qualify. And in some cases, the original author can renew and claw back the copyright for the renewal term, if they had sold it originally. Certainly, the New York Times can renew the collective work itself. If it is the proprietor of any of individual works collected within, then yes I would assume the renewal would also cover those. Anything it does not own the copyright to, it cannot renew, but presumably would continue to have the same license on it as it always has. When it comes to a copyright notice, yes, a notice on the collective work can prevent all contained works from losing copyright (though a work printed in many other places without a notice may not be saved by that, if it's just a relative few copies that had a notice). But, it's quite different for a renewal. For a company like AP, it would make absolutely no sense to give anyone an exclusive license. While we don't know the details, I think we can assume that the New York Times is not the owner of any of those works -- the AP wants the right to sell them to other newspapers too. Thus, it was up to the AP to renew their works. If they did not file any, then those articles should have lapsed into the public domain (and of course the New York Times can continue to print them, but they don't gain ownership of the copyright). Reprinting several articles as arranged in the original newspaper may also copy some of the selection and arrangement (the collective work copyright). But copying just an individual article which has expired should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

  Are we certain that the text as published by NYT was solely the text as provided by AP. Although they credited AP, could they have edited the text in a way that gave them a copyright interest ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  An editor of a text does not share the copyright, otherwise every known writer would have to share their copyright credit and royalties with an editor. Leaving out a few sentences is not creation. Every musician would have to share credit and royalties with their studio engineer. --RAN (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  But you don't know how the original AP text read ? So you are just guessing that NYT did not make any changes that gave them a copyright interest ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

• Not guessing, removing text to fit a column size does not constitute creation, otherwise every editor of a Steven King novel would be sharing the credit and royalties. --RAN (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• It is based on the opinion of the Library of Congress when it comes to images produced by the Associated Press, that they are in the public domain because there was limited copyright registration and no renewal of the images by the AP, and that is why they host them. It seems that the deletion was based on this passage in our guideline: "it is likely that the contract signed between the author and the publisher gave the publisher the right to the work." (my emphasis). "Likely" should not be used to contradict the LOC's opinion on works by the AP. If this were so, the AP would have long ago sent a takedown notice to the LOC. The images have been hosted by the LOC for over 20 years now. --RAN (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
• support restoration. per above arguments, all are pd. ltbdl (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment most of the above are from 1930, so those can be undeleted in only a few months anyway. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate Files

@Penguin1737 and @DraftSaturn15 independently uploaded files File:Wikimedia v Secretary of State ((2025) EWHC 2086 (Admin)).pdf and File:Wikimedia Foundation v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025, EWHC).pdf at roughly the same time and created indexes for them. Now we two different indexes for what is essentially the same file. We don't need both files so which one should be deleted? ToxicPea (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The file I uploaded has the court crest on the first page redacted for OGL3 compliance for Commons, but that’s the only difference. So possibly move DraftSaturn’s work over to my file just because Commons? Penguin1737 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The PDF I added is uploaded locally to Wikisource so that one can be deleted.

Though there is a difference in the proofreading between mine and Penguin's. For the paragraph numbers, I have used Template:pn and Penguin has used Template:np2. Is there a preference as to which template should be used? Np2 is more in line with the original formatting of both modern English and Australian case law. The pn template is currently used on over 1000 pages of Australian case law. A bit off topic for Proposed Deletions but might as well kill two birds with one stone. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Since the work has been announced on New Texts, care needs to be taken with deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably Template:np2 for this considering it's more accurate to the original? It's also what ToxicPea and I have used in the explanatory notes of British legislation. For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025, UKSC) is the other recent British court case that's been transcribed, but I guess UKSC and EWHC format their judgements differently and Template:pn is more accurate there. I'd defer to to you for all the Australian case law, as you're the primary/sole contributor, and it would be tedious to change them all.

I think we'd just need to copy-paste the finished pages over to the commons file's index, change the paragraph formatting (if desired), and then change the mainspace work to transclude from the new file instead. Penguin1737 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure. If the pages are copied or moved over (maybe an admin can move all the pages?, which ever is the best option), the pn template can be changed to the np2 template at the same time to make it more accurate and because, as you said, np2 is used for the explanatory notes of British legislation. Wikimedia Foundation v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025, EWHC) can then be changed to transclude from Index:Wikimedia v Secretary of State ((2025) EWHC 2086 (Admin)).pdf so the main namespace link does not need to be changed.

I agree that pn can be used for UKSC cases. It would be definitely be too tedious to change them all. I'll stick with pn for Australian case law. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is important but the anchors that we use with {{np2}} are different than the anchors that {{pn}} generates. We put anchors of "x.0" inside the {{np2}} templates whereas {{pn}} generates an anchor of "parax". ToxicPea (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Penguin1737, @DraftSaturn15, @ToxicPea: I can (probably) mass move pages and run a bot over the pages to replace templates etc., but that will require you to 1) agree how it should be and 2) give me detailed instructions for the changes and moves needed. Xover (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I can do it manually unless its easier for you to run a script, don't want to cause extra work.

Per Saturn and I's discussions here I think pages 2 through 33 of Index:Wikimedia Foundation v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025, EWHC).pdf should be moved over to Index:Wikimedia v Secretary of State ((2025) EWHC 2086 (Admin)).pdf. Format wise, the text should be changed from

{{pn|#}}. Paragraph Text

to

{{np2|{{Anchor+|#.0|#.}}| Paragraph Text}}

We can add anchors to the subparagraphs after the fact. Penguin1737 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Penguin1737@DraftSaturn15 What do you think about doing something like

{{np2|{{pn|#}}.|Paragraph Text}} ToxicPea (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support I have no issues with that. I see equal justification for having the anchors be "#.0" format in line with existing UK legislation, or having them be "para#" format in line with existing Commonwealth case law. And using Template:pn is simpler, especially as noted, UKSC and other courts' judgements follow that formatting moreso than Template:np2. Penguin1737 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The explanatory notes also seem to follow that format. Do you think it would make sense to replace the anchors of explanatory notes with {{pn}}? ToxicPea (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Looks like UK and Welsh explanatory notes need the {{np2|{{pn|#}}.|}} format for spacing, while Scottish ones follow the {{pn|#}}. format. We only have a handful completed so shouldn't be too much work. Penguin1737 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support For EWHC/EWCA judgments. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions/Abbreviations of the Names of Authors

Not the page itself, which is perfectly fine, but many of the authors listed on the page have no known works in the English language. Despite this, many of those are not marked with {{populate}}, thus making it difficult to review them. I hope by bringing them here I can make discussion easier. I will add more authors here as I find them, but the templates will all just link to this discussion.

• Author:Michel Adanson
• Author:Carlo Allioni
• Author:Nils Johan Andersson
• Author:Antoni Lukianowicz Andrzejowski
• Author:Johan Ångström
• Author:Luigi Arduino
• Author:Paul Friedrich August Ascherson
• Author:Karl Otto Robert Peter Paul Graebner
• Author:Jean Baptiste Christophore Fusée Aublet
• Author:Henri Ernest Baillon
• Author:Friedrich Gottlieb Bartling
• Author:Friedrich von Berchtold
• Author:Johann Jakob Bernhardi
• Author:Wilibald Swibert Joseph Gottlieb von Besser
• Author:Friedrich August Marschall von Bieberstein
• Author:Gottlieb Wilhelm Bischoff
• Author:Antonio Bivona Bernardi
• Author:Johann Otto Boeckeler
• Author:Georg Rudolf Boehmer
• Author:Pierre Edmond Boissier
• Author:Moritz Balthasar Borkhausen
• Author:Adolphe-Théodore Brongniart
• Author:Franz Georg Philipp Buchenau
• Author:Friedrich August Ludwig von Burgsdorff
• Author:Élie-Abel Carrière
• Author:Henri Cassini
• Author:Antonio José Cavanilles
• Author:Ladislav Josef Čelakovský
• Author:Vicente Cervantes
• Author:Jacques Denis Choisy
• Author:Carl Frederik Albert Christensen
• Author:Joseph Philippe de Clairville
• Author:Alfred Cogniaux
• Author:René Louiche Desfontaines
• Author:Louis Auguste Joseph Desrousseaux
• Author:Nicaise Auguste Desvaux
• Author:David Nathaniel Friedrich Dietrich
• Author:Johann Jacob Dillenius
• Author:Salomon Thomas Nicolai Drejer
• Author:Jonas Carlsson Dryander (English titles translations?)
• Author:Pierre Dufresne
• Author:Barthélemy Charles Joseph Dumortier
• Author:Louis Isidore Duperrey
• Author:Antonio Durazzini
• Author:Carl Heinrich Ebermaier
• Author:Jakob Friedrich Ehrhart
• Author:Stephan Ladislaus Endlicher
• Author:Johann Friedrich von Eschscholtz
• Author:Philipp Conrad Fabricius
• Author:Friedrich Ernst Ludwig von Fischer
• Author:Carl Anton von Meyer
• Author:Auguste Denis Fougeroux de Bondaroy
• Author:Peter Forsskål
• Author:Jules Pierre Fourreau
• Author:Georg Fresenius
• Author:Josef Aloys Frölich
• Author:Joseph Gaertner
• Author:Carl Friedrich von Gaertner
• Author:Henri Guillaume Galeotti
• Author:Charles Gaudichaud-Beaupré
• Author:Frédéric Charles Jean Gingins de la Sarraz
• Author:Benjamin Peter Gloxin
• Author:Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin
• Author:Johann Friedrich Gmelin
• Author:Jean Charles Marie Grenier
• Author:Dominique Alexandre Godron
• Author:Jan Frederik Gronovius
• Author:Giovanni Gussone
• Author:Carl Johann Hartman
• Author:Justus Karl Haßkarl
• Author:Heinrich Carl Haussknecht
• Author:Aimé Jacques Alexandre Bonpland
• Author:Carl Sigismund Kunth
• Author:Christoph Friedrich Hegelmaier
• Author:Romanus Adolf Hedwig
• Author:Carl Niclas Hellenius
• Author:Christian Ferdinand Friedrich Hochstetter
• Author:Georg Franz Hoffmann
• Author:Johann Centurius Hoffmannsegg
• Author:Jens Wilken Hornemann
• Author:Johann Friedrich Thilo Irmisch
• Author:Nikolaus Joseph von Jacquin
• Author:Pál Kitaibel
• Author:Johann Friedrich Klotzsch
• Author:Hans Kühlwein
• Author:Carolus Linnaeus (1741-1783)
• Author:Charles Louis L'Héritier de Brutelle
• Author:Lars Levi Laestadius (English work listed is copyrighted)
• Author:Mariano Lagasca
• Author:Carl Friedrich von Ledebour
• Author:Johann Georg Christian Lehmann
• Author:Ivan Ivanovich Lepechin
• Author:Jean Martial Gustave Lespinasse
• Author:Antonin Victor Thévenau
• Author:Christian Friedrich Lessing
• Author:François Joseph Lestiboudois
• Author:Samuel Liljeblad
• Author:Joachim Conrad Loddiges (is the Botanical Garden a book, or just a collection of plates?)
• Author:Jean Louis Auguste Loiseleur-Deslongchamps
• Author:Theodor Friedrich Marsson
• Author:Martin Martens
• Author:Friedrich Kasimir Medikus
• Author:François Victor Mérat de Vaumartoise
• Author:Franz Karl Mertens
• Author:Wilhelm Daniel Joseph Koch
• Author:Ernst Heinrich Friedrich Meyer
• Author:Moïse Étienne Moricand
• Author:Johannes Müller Argoviensis
• Author:Otto von Muenchhausen
• Author:Johan Andreas Murray
• Author:Noel Martin Joseph de Necker
• Author:Chrétien Géofroy Nestler
• Author:Casimiro Gómez Ortega
• Author:Filippo Parlatore
• Author:Charles Plumier
• Author:Johann Adam Pollich
• Author:Pierre André Pourret
• Author:Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig Reichenbach
• Author:Anders Jahan Retzius
• Author:Augustus Quirinus Rivinus
• Author:Johann Jacob Roemer
• Author:Paul Usteri
• Author:Friedrich Wilhelm Gottlieb Theophil Rostkovius
• Author:Christen Friis Rottbøll
• Author:Heinrich Bernard Ruppius
• Author:Franz Josef Ruprecht
• Author:Augustin Saint-Hilaire
• Author:Gaetano Savi
• Author:Christian Schkuhr
• Author:Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal
• Author:Johann Christoph Schleicher
• Author:Heinrich Adolph Schrader
• Author:Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber
• Author:Josef August Schultes
• Author:Carl Heinrich 'Bipontinus' Schultz
• Author:Heinrich Christian Friedrich Schumacher
• Author:Giovanni Antonio Scopoli
• Author:Nicolas Charles Seringe
• Author:Moritz August Seubert
• Author:Robert James Shuttleworth—all of the cited books I can find are not English
• Author:John Sibthorp—again, all major works Latin
• Author:Ernst Gottlieb von Steudel (possible letter on BHL)
• Author:Christian von Steven
• Author:Jean Louis Thuillier
• Author:Leopold Trattinnick
• Author:Ernst Rudolf von Trautvetter
• Author:Carl Bernhard von Trinius
• Author:Nicolaus Stepanovitch Turczaninow
• Author:Sébastien Vaillant
• Author:José Mariano da Conceição Vellozo
• Author:Dominique Villars
• Author:Göran Wahlenberg
• Author:Peter Fredrik Wahlberg
• Author:Johan August Wahlberg
• Author:Franz de Paula Adam von Waldstein
• Author:Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wallroth
• Author:Wilhelm Gerhard Walpers
• Author:Thomas Walter—only listed (published?) work is in Latin
• Author:Friedrich Adam Julius von Wangenheim
• Author:Friedrich Weber
• Author:Johann Anton Weinmann
• Author:Georg Wilhelm Franz Wenderoth
• Author:Johann Christoph Wendland
• Author:Richard Wettstein—listed title is a translation of the German title
• Author:Friedrich Heinrich Wiggers
• Author:Christian Friedrich Heinrich Wimmer
• Author:Johann Friedrich Wolfgang
• Author:Morten Wormskjold
• Author:Franz Xaver von Wulfen
• Author:Georg Heinrich Weber

These are all writers whose native language was not the English language, and of whom no works in the English were listed on their respective Author: pages. Feel free to strike any of the above names after adding a work in the English language. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Author:Michel Adanson has translations into English. I have added one to his page --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Author:Carolus Linnaeus (1741-1783). English translation added to his page. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Searching The Online Books Page page finds a few others with English translations with scans. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I haven't checked all these, but based on TE(æ)A,ea. assertion that they contain no works and don't appear likely to in the near future, I would be comfortable mass-deleting all these (minus the struck out ones, obviously). Recreating an (empty) author page is usually not hard, and they can be easily undeleted if we, say, need vital years or similar from the old revisions.
  If someone feels the need to do additional checking or research I wouldn't object either (no hurry). --Xover (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Xover: I would definitely enjoy another set of eyes on these—I certainly wouldn’t want to have anything deleted which didn’t “deserve it.” I would also like this discussion to be left up for a while, just to let anyone who would want to search for these author’s works who wished to. This is in part a way for me to push through the review I mentioned in the Scriptorium discussion on {{populate}}. I mention this in part for the reason I want the time extended: once this discussion is closed, I’ll probably start another one with a new batch of authors (probably caliphs), and I don’t want to have multiple discussions running at the same time which will tax the same sorts of research skills. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, I see no particular hurry closing this. Whenever Te(æ)A,ea. feels they've checked all they can reasonably do I will be comfortable that this is closed and the remainder deleted. I unfortunately probably won't have the capacity to help with any research beyond the superficial spot checks I did prior to my initial !vote. Xover (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

    • Xover: By listing the authors above, I have done all the research that I intend to do with regards to them. I looked at what our Author: page had, what was listed on the English Wikipedia page (if it exists), and then checked the WorldCat Author ID under titles for any in the English language. This certainly has the potential to miss items, particularly translations published as articles in English-language journals not indexed on JSTOR, but it’s a fairly comprehensive approach which should be fairly accurate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ex Libris

This template runs afoul of Wikisource:Annotations, as it is designed to insert "additional text that is not part of the source work, whether within the body of the text or outside it".

The template would not be used on a page with "no contents", but on pages with a book plate, which is not part of the original text. And such pages are being proofread and validated, such as on Page:The Evolution of Modesty.djvu/2.

If this template is to be kept, is there a form in which the community would find it acceptable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup, no discussion, just jumps straight to "Delete This Because Muh Policies"; to be clear I searched the Scriptorium for discussion on Ex Librises before creating this and Hesperian said that some users prefer to leave the page blank, others like to upload the Ex Libris - no doubt often depending on how fancy they are, etc. I see no way this template harms the project. Admins here are incredibly frustrating. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion; nothing has been deleted at this point. Please limit any discussion to the issue, and refrain from mocking people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no policy concerning the addition of an ex libris book plate. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the template adds text:

An Ex Libris image is on this page; it is not included in the Wikisource copy of this work which is presented "as published", but may be uploaded to Commons.Wikimedia.org if appropriate

and this text is not present in the original scan, which means it is an annotation, and there is policy again inserting annotations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Are {{AuxTOC}} and {{text removed}}, {{Image removed}} etc. considered annotations and also against policy? I thought those were considered acceptable even though "Non-free text has been removed from this page." "Chapters (not listed in original)" is clearly not present in the original scan. I see this is as analogous to those, I don't know why saying "Non-free text has been removed from this page" is conceptually different from "An Ex Libris image is on this page; it is not included in the Wikisource copy of this work" . 06:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Or more precisely, {{image removed}} and {{Ex Libris}} could certainly fall under the "Scan-quality indicators" exception as they are related to the scan like the others. The point is, I don't think it is as blackletter policy as made out. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The templates you mention are annotations by that policy's definition, but they are necessities of the site like {{header}}. We must have some kind of navigation ({{header}}, {{AuxTOC}}) and if copyright forces us to remove parts of a text ({{text removed}}, {{image removed}}) we must make clear that it has happened to preserve the integrity of the text. That's a far cry from both the apparently intended and actual uses of {{Ex Libris}}. Xover (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

A relevant consideration when talking about transclusion is that the ex-libris is almost always on the inside cover or back cover, those pages are not typically transcluded just as the cover is not - the work's page typically goes "<pages = from=11 to=217" or similar. Where the ex libris is typically page 2, there's no concern about it accidentally appearing in our work and mistaken as part of the original author's intention. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• I don’t see why this needs to be deleted. As a matter of fact, the ex libris itself is a complete work, separate from the book to which it is attached, although of course it would be difficult to transcribe them as such. In any case, this template should be kept as I don’t see any issue with a template which marks the existence of this. Also, as usual, stop harassing people. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  The concern is explained above. This template does not add an ex libris bookplate to the page, which would be acceptable. Instead, it adds text that is not present in the scan, and adds a maintenance template. Further, pages with this additional text and maintenance template are then being marked as "proofread", which is supposed to indicate that the Page and scan both have matching content, but that will never be the case while this template is present because of the added text and maintenance template. Based on the usage of the template, it appears to be a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So long as the ex libris plate isn't transcluded, I don't see the transcription of an ex libris plate (or this template) as a major issue. The main concern would be potential copyright issues if the library plate was likely to be under copyright protection. That said, with this template in place, the page should either be marked as "problematic" because it needs an image added or (preferably) as "without text" because it should not be included in the transclusion. The issue is more how the template is being used than the intention of the template itself. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Since the template has no documentation about intended use, I have had to respond based on the three instances where I found it in use.

There are technical and procedural problems with marking a page as "no text", while adding a maintenance template to such a page. Pages with "no text" are intended to have no content at all on the English Wikisource. The only exception I can think of is the use of the inter-wiki text template for pages where the text is pulled from another language Wikisource because the text on the page is in another language. But in that situation, we don't have any content on the page; it's the other Wikisource that has the content. Pages with "no content" should not require checking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reworked the template to not add text and to add documentation. A new maintenance category is specified, but I wouldn't create it until this discussion is over. Not sure if this addresses all your concerns, @EncycloPetey, but hopefully it helps. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It may, but I would like to hear additional opinions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't understand the point of this. Once a work has been transcluded and validated, few people are going to be looking at the individual pages - especially one marked as without text. I wonder whether this might be something better handled by creating a category in Commons ?

That said, if it is felt that something should be done here in Wikisource, might that be better done by having a template placed on the page's related talk page ? That would then not be placing something on a page marked "without text". -- Beardo (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

There are cases where we use No text pages as convenient storage for an AuxTOC (so it can be transcluded both to mainspace and to the Index:). Xover (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per EncycloPetey's reasoning above. While we absolutely allow people to reproduce ex libris pages if they want to, such pages are marked as No text and should otherwise adhere to our basic policies (i.e., here, on annotations etc.). And that individual contributors are allowed to reproduce ex libris pages does in no way imply that such pages should be reproduced, which this template by its mere existence does. The leeway for reproducing ex libris pages also applies to the individual contributor's preference, but this kind of tagging inherently asks others to reproduce or upload it.
  That being said, there is some scope here to accomodate those who wish to track pages on enWS that can be used as the source for uploading and managing book plates on Commons. A template and associated tracking category for that purpose would have to be very clearly defined and very explicit about its purpose (narrowly scoped) to avoid creating the impression that ex libris pages should be recreated (or even tagged) on enWS. But with those caveats, and if there actually exists contributors working on book plates in that scope (which I have yet to see), I might support that kind of template. --Xover (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per discussion above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Author:Ian Courtenay Johnston

Are all works by this author self-published? In a discussion over a recent addition by him, I was directed to Richer Resources Publications, but this appears to be a self-publishing site with only works by this author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the website for Richer Resources, and I don't think this is a vanity/self-publishing site. Rather, it appears to be a small independent publishing house, who has commissioned Johnston to provide them with translations that they can publish. You can see other authors that they feature here.—Contrast with Prideaux Street Publications, which does appear to be a self-publishing operation. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That said, the Richer Resources editions have a copyright notice, unlike the self-hosted editions, even though they appear to be otherwise identical. So if we are to host them, we'd have to use the self-published editions. This is not unprecedented (see, for example, End Poem), but it is a somewhat grey area for sure. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Tricky situation. Richer seems to be just barely, if at all, better than a vanity press. Apart from the Johnston translations their output consists of an art book with art by the publisher's husband (a retired woodworker; Ira in the page you linked, Patty is the publisher), a few collections of quotations compiled by the publisher herself, an un-bylined set of learn-to-read textbooks based on what appears to be a self-invented system (almost certainly written by the publisher), and a grand total of two random translations by other translators. It's not quite textbook definition vanity press, but for all practical purposes it might as well be. When in addition we can't actually host scans of the translations published on that imprint and instead have to go to the unquestionably self-published versions on the translators personal web page, that's a bridge too far for me.

Completely irrelevant but I thought it quite cute when I found this on their website: If you would like to set up a link to our site, you may do so, providing that your site does not contain pornographic or violent displays, comments or incite to such, does not violate the laws of any land and is not disrespectful of the philosophic or religious beliefs of others. While we want to respect the beliefs others, Richer Resources Publications does retain the right to disallow any link not deemed appropriate to our site. So I'm afraid you'll have to remove that link to their website in your comment. :) Xover (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete On reflection I land on delete for this one. It's too far into the self-published end of the gray area, even if not decisively over the line. --Xover (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Keep for policy reasons unrelated to this edit. In any case, I think the policy against self-publication should be relaxed in the case of freely licensed or dedicated-into-public-domain translations of works which otherwise meet our inclusion criteria. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Would a proper way to handle this be to treat them similar to works in the Translation namespace? If the work exists with a scanned-back version in the original language WS, then it could be included. (I know, policy discussions != deletion discussions, but it seems possible difficulties with the policy come up during deletion discussions.) For example, Johnston's translation of A Hunger Artist is at DE WS, de:Ein Hungerkünstler (1924) based on an appropriate scan at de:Index:Ein Hungerkünstler. It's not a Wikisource Original translation, but it would appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in Translation namespace if the translation weren't tied to a named author. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  If it's in the public domain, one could use it as the basis of a user-original translation, definitely. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete. Some of the Johnston's works were added by me based on the discussion now archived at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2020-10#Self-published lectures. However, since that time I have changed my mind: Although I feel kind of pity for Johnston's interesting lectures, after I saw too many attempts to smuggle here various obscure selfpublished digital-born works, it is better not to make the line blurry but to make it clearer instead. Besides that I feel more and more convinced that digital-born material should be excluded from Wikisource generally (possibly with only few exceptions). As for the Johnston's translations: the idea raised above by Tcr25 sounds quite good to me, but it should be properly discussed and included into the policy first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the submission wasn't by Johnston but by me; I happened across his work because I was looking for a translation of Prometheus Bound, and all the ones I found here were relatively old and, particularly, in anachronistic English (I would say "Shakespearean"). After I found his website I surmised others might be interested in a contemporary translation as well, as those are now reasonably in fashion (e.g. Emily Wilson's translation of The Odyssey), and so I tried to add it.

Therefore, I also support the ideas above to make a translation page based on his work. One could, presumably, email him to ask if he could submit it or authorize a submission as WS translation?

I'm new to the site and don't know how you do things around here. But I presumed the idea is that this is some kind of repository for sources in the public domain, with some kind of implied social utility, and I think that contemporary translations are incredibly valuable in that sense. If we look at the big picture, I'd say that WS is more likely to endure online than Johnston's own website, and, in my view, it would be a shame if his translations got lost due to policy decisions. KiharaSofia (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

One problem is that it isn't actually clear the works are in the public domain. E.g. the Hunger Artist text has: "is in the public domain and may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged". This could mean:

1. "this work is in the public domain", i.e. something like CC0 with no restrictions

2. "may be used by anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged", this is where it becomes a train wreck from a license standpoint. 1. "Use" does not necessarily grant me the permission to create derivative works or distribute. 2. "without permission and without charge", are these grants to me or are they restriction on what I can do? If I include it in say an anthology, does that mean I have to make my anthology available to "anyone, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge"? 3. "provided the source is acknowledged" this a clear separate restriction, so it reads like this is at a minimum CC-BY which isn't the public domain.

With Prometheus Bound, looking at the source document: "This text was first published in 2012 on the internet and by Richer Resources Publications (Arlington, Virginia, USA), ISBN 978-1-935238-52-2; LCCN 2012916896). This document is in the public domain."

Looking at Richer Resources Publications : https://www.richerresourcespublications.com/Books/Classic_Books/Greek_plays/Aeschylus/PrometheusBound/PrometheusBound-FlipBook-preview.htm it says "Copyright Richer Resources Publications, All Rights Reserved" So who owns the copyright? Is it owned by the Richer Resources Publications? A particular form is owned, e.g. Richer Resources Publications has copyright over any printed book while Johnston has the copyright over the web?

This is the problem when people do things on their own, rather than say using Creative Commons licenses. In principle we could see about emailing to get clear releases (e.g. re-releasing under an appropriate CC license)MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• No? Why would a descriptive clause without limiting language limit a general clause? That’s entirely an unnatural way to read that passage. Creative Commons’ own licenses aren’t the only way to dedicate things into the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  "provided the source is acknowledged" is clearly limiting language. How does this apply to derivative works? E.g. if I record a performance of the play using the text and you clip it in a review commentary without providing a source acknowledgement, have you committed infringement? My point is that if you actually want a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (requiring the source is acknowledged) use that rather than "I dedicate this to the public domain provided that you do ..." which ends up being hard to interpret. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  re the middle clause, the problem is because you have the limiting clause afterwards and hence the ambiguity about which of the two it attaches to. If it said "It is in the public domain, you may use it without charge or permission" (fine, clear). If a software package said "You may use without charge, provided the source is acknowledged.", in e a standard non-free EULA that also might be clear. The problem is joining the two together makes it unclear whether everything after public domain is extra verbiage and should be ignored or a definition of what the author thinks the public domain / de facto license grant is and should be read as controlling. Including "provided ..." makes it seem like the Johnston wasn't making an unconditional grant. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Personally I'm inclined to interpret this as "I release this into the Public Domain even though I don't actually understand what that implies" ... but since this dubious license release is paired with dubious publication status, I think it's best to  Delete anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Index:Declaration de Ravachol original.djvu

Previous discussion was closed by the only delete !vote—want third opinion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The Index was for a duplicate translation of the same letter but from a manuscript instead of a published copy of the same work. Per Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations: "There should only be a single translation to English per original language work," the Index was deleted as a duplicate of Translation:Forbidden Defence speech. The discussion had been open since April with a single !vote to keep, by the person now asking for a third opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support After thorough comparison of the texts I must say they really are different. The deleted manuscript is very difficult to read generally, and it is even worse for me who cannot speak French. First it seemed to me that the texts differ only in paragraphing (the manuscript is not paragraphed), but then I found also some significant and some less significant differences in the texts.

• An example of significant difference: I managed to identify the sentence "Cela démontre clairement que la cause de tous les crimes est toujours la même et qu’il faut vraiment être insensé pour ne pas la voir." which seems present in both the last page of our printed version and the last page of the manuscript. However, the text following this sentence is really different.
• An example of less significant difference: A sentence in the printed version ends with the following words: de reconnaître si l’affection est vraiment sincère, while the manuscript misses the word vraiment.

For these reasons I support undeletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You support, even though it would mean violating Wikisource:Translations policy? That is, you would support user-created translations from each edition of a work, rather than the one per work that policy limits us to? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It is true that the policy speaks about works, but at the same time it does not explicitely exclude editions, so this is a grey area not really covered by the policy.

However, if we have two significantly different texts, how shall we decide which of them we should include? How shall we decide which information deserves to be translated and which information does not?

Here is a paragraph from the manuscript:

French text

Google translation

Je ne suis qu’un ouvrier sans instruction ; mais parce que j’ai vécu l’existence des miséreux, je sens mieux qu’un riche bourgeois l’iniquité de vos lois répressives. Où prenez-vous le droit de tuer ou d’enfermer un homme qui, mis sur terre avec la nécessité de vivre, s’est vu dans la nécessité de prendre ce dont il manquait pour se nourrir ? J’ai travaillé pour vivre et faire vivre les miens ; tant que ni moi ni les miens n’avons pas trop souffert, je suis resté ce que vous appelez honnête. Puis le travail a manqué, et avec le chômage est venue la faim. C’est alors que cette grande loi de la nature, cette voix impérieuse qui n’admet pas de réplique, l’instinct de la conservation, me poussa à commettre certains des crimes et délits que vous me reprochez et dont je reconnais être l’auteur.

I am only an uneducated worker; But because I have lived the life of the poor, I understand better than a rich bourgeois the iniquity of your repressive laws. Where do you get the right to kill or imprison a man who, put on earth with the necessity of living, found himself obliged to take what he lacked to feed himself? I worked to live and to support my family; as long as neither I nor mine suffered too much, I remained what you call honest. Then work failed, and with unemployment came hunger. It was then that this great law of nature, this imperious voice that admits of no reply, the instinct of self-preservation, drove me to commit some of the crimes and offenses you accuse me of and of which I acknowledge being the author.

This paragraph is not included in the printed version at all. But there are other paragraphs included there but not included in the manuscript. Both versions have their transcriptions at French Wikisource, as required by our policy. How do you want to decide, which of them can be translated and which cannot? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: "it does not explicitly exclude editions", it explicitly says "There should only be a single translation to English per original language work", and editions are editions of . . . what? the same work. If they were not then they would not be editions. If we permit translations from each edition with differences, then we could potentially have dozens of user-created translations from ancient and classical texts. There are editions of the Biblical book of Mark that contain Mark 16:9-20 and editions that lack that section. Do we want separate user-created translations of both versions? There are editions of the Bible in Greek and Latin that contain / omit whole chapters and books. Do we then have separate user-created translations of each Bible? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Having "dozens of user-created translations from ancient and classical texts" is highly improbable per provision that a scanbacked transcription must exist at the appropriate language wiki.

What you cite about a single translation per work, I have always understood that it means that the same text should not be translated several times. Somebody may also argue that if the changes are really significant, it may be finally considered a different work too.

Besides, although the policy speaks about works, in reality you do not translate a work as such, you always translate one of the editions of a work. In fact when the policy was being accepted, nobody seems to have realized this fact and so the policy does not deal about it at all. If there were a scanbacked transcription of some edition of a work at the appropriate language wikisource, and a user added here a translation of the work based on a significantly different edition, I would vote for not accepting it and for refusing the argument that the policy speaks about works and not editions. So I am coming back to my most important argument: if we have two significantly different texts, how shall we decide which of them deserves to be translated and which does not? Why should the paragraph in the table above not have the right to be hosted here? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

RE: "nobody seems to have realized this fact". I realized it. Billlinghurst realized it. Please don't claim that no one knew what the policy was saying when some of us fully did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: "How do you want to decide, which of them can be translated and which cannot?" There are three basic approaches translators adopt: (1) Select one source text, but annotate the translation throughout with notes and references to the variations in the sources. (2) Select one source text, but disregard it in favor of other copies for selected passages whenever the translator decides they prefer the other text. (3) Create a hybrid source text in the original language, annotated to show where the differences occur in the originals, then translate the hybrid. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Numbers 1 and 2 do not solve the problem which of the two should be selected. In our case two different translators selected different texts, you chose one and deleted the other. The only criterion of this decision I can see is that you chose the one that was added here earlier, which is not a good criterion at all. The third suggested solution is the worst as 1) creating hybrids (or we can also call them compilations) is explicitely forbidden by WS:WWI#Compilations and 2) such a hybrid would not be supported by a scanbacked transcription at the appropriate language wiki. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: "two different translators selected different texts", no, the same translator was translating both copies.

Re: "The only criterion of this decision I can see": True, the deleted one was started after the first was completed, but it also never got further than part of the first page. Hence, the one that was done first and was complete was the obvious choice to keep, since the second one had only a small portion of the first page translated. Do you think I should have instead deleted the complete one and kept the one that was less than 10% translated? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Ad two transtators: Ah, true, my apologies. However, we still have here the fact that the criterion of the earlier addition is not a good one.

Of course it did not get further as it was nominated for deletion 34 minutes after the work had started. So, @Aristoxène:, if the index were undeleted, would you still be interested in finishing the translation? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Should we nominate for deletion quickly, or wait? It's a Catch-22 situation. If we nominate early, it may halt translation. If we wait until it's done, we upset someone who has put in the work to make the translation. I prefer to catch situations quickly so that no one wastes their time only to have extensive work deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

True! I do not object against quick nominations, it is often better to stop the work which is likely to be deleted before the contributor spends too much time with it, so the way you did it was absolutely fine. I was just explaining why it did not get further. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek (Tr. AI) I apologize for the length of this message, but yes, if you give me the green light, I can take over again and even de-Google/AI the translation. Basically, I started the translation knowing only the first text, which I thought was the only version available (I knew the lawyer had modified/corrected/edited it), but I never thought I would find the original manuscript version (which I believe was stolen from the police archives). So I was very happy to find it online (for sale on a dishonest site, but at least it was possible to "save" it).

In editing the manuscript, there are three hands on the document, and I tried to keep only Ravachol's. I find his version to be unquestionably stronger than the one reworked by the lawyer, particularly in the phrasing, which reveals so much. You can see Ravachol's revolt and his thoughts solidifying on the page as he writes; you can see the words he chose to cross out. And, indeed, there are parts that vary considerably.

If you look at the last section, Ravachol uses an extended metaphor about the silk trades (a job he himself had when he was very young, and his mother, who raised him alone after being beaten and abandoned by Ravachol's father, also did this work). In this metaphor, Ravachol uses the example of the silk trade and what happens there to attack capitalism. In part, he highlights the uselessness of a whole series of processes designed to make a profit, which he argues would no longer be necessary in an anarchist system, thus saving people time and effort.

The lawyer removed this entire section, ending the work abruptly. I think it's a real shame that we're left with a modified version where important elements of the text—like his belonging to the lowest proletariat, expressed through very working-class language and examples—have disappeared.

Regarding the editions, I want to say that there are three states of the text. You have the original state, which is the manuscript. Then, a newspaper consulted this manuscript two or three days later and published an edition that reproduced the text in its entirety (and partly corrected the spelling mistakes, but remained very close to the original). Then, this publication provoked serious criticism from French anarchist circles of the period, who said that the newspaper was trying to "sully" Ravachol by presenting such a text. So his lawyer, in contact with Jean Grave of La Révolte, published a new (and very different) version about ten days later. I don't want to criticize the choice of Grave and Lagasse, which was also a strategic one to try and save his life and was made in the context of his trial; but it's a shame that this truly amended and different version is the one that has remained for posterity. I want to emphasize that this is one of the rare texts written directly by Ravachol himself. Even in the police archives I consult, there are very few texts directly from him. So, this is a privileged and central text for getting closer to him. His so-called Memoirs, for example, are just a compilation of police reports where officers report what Ravachol supposedly told them—a biased, second-hand account that clearly doesn't offer as much proximity to him as this text does. Aristoxène (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

PS : I want to say that I contacted Shawn P. Willbur some months ago. He is a translator of French to English for many anarchist initiatives and texts ; and he told me he was very interested in translating it, but since then, I have had 0 news. If I translate this, and they do it too, I will maybe see with them if it's possible to use their translations, as I think they wouldn't necessarily be against it and would provide a very good 'professional' translation which wouldn't be based on AI/Google translate. Aristoxène (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I see. Just be aware (not only in this case but generally) that you cannot enter anybody else's text, that each contributor needs to create their account and enter it by themselves. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about the issue more and going back through our discussion, I have to admit that I understand the point of view of EncycloPetey to a large extent, and that the opinion I expressed above should not be taken to generally. It would really not make sense if some work had two or more editions differing in wording of a few sentences or some other details, and because of these trivialities we hosted completely different translations (which might finally differ from each other more than the original editions did). In such a case it would really be better to point out such insignificant differences e. g. in a translator's note. Just in this particular case I feel the differences are too large and too many. Also, while the manuscript discussed here was written by one person, the later printed version seems significantly modified by (an)other author(s). Taken together, these factors push the texts closer to the borderline where it becomes unclear whether they are merely editions of the same work or entirely different works. Thus my vote applies only to this specific case. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue of multiple user translations from multiple editions of the same work is not one for the far future. My plan (for some time now) has been to add another set of published English translations of Greek dramas here in 2026 and to start adding Greek editions at el.WS as well. The scholars of 19th-century England, France, and Germany each produced their own editions of the Greek texts, and these editions not only have textual differences, but also have significant differences in how they assign the lines to the various characters, which makes a significant change even when the lines themselves are the same between editions. The original copies did not assign the lines to characters, but were the dramatic poetry alone. We have some indication of how ancient commentators assigned some of the lines, but there is still room for interpretations, and the 19th-century editors of the Greek texts made different choices about assigning lines. With different line assignments in different editions of the Greek text there will be significant differences on the order we've been discussing. It makes a difference whether a line is assigned to the protagonist, the antagonist, or the chorus. We are not far from having multiple Greek editions of some ancient Greek dramas, and there are significant differences between the editions. This has the potential for multiple user-created English translations of the Greek plays. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey (Tr. AI) You're right to point out the example of Greek tragedies; in fact, ancient literature (in general) often has a very complicated textual history to reconstruct. You only have to consider that the first complete manuscript of Euripides's Medea dates to the 11th century AD (I've pulled some passages for the iconography of 'Women in Euripides' on WP:EN if you want to check) and you can see the problem. I don't know the rule on WS:EN regarding translations and editions, but I think we've made huge strides in editing these texts since the 19th century. I myself studied an ancient Greek author whose first more or less canonical edition was post-2010, so clearly EN:WS will have to evolve with the field as it falls into public domain, I think.

That said, the translations by those scholars—on whom the discipline was built, it must be said—are also noteworthy elements, where one can perhaps often see the hand of the translator and their opinions. I think we still have a different situation in the case of a text whose edition is completely modified 10 days after its writing versus a work that receives various editions/translations after 2,500 years of the text's life, clearly. That's why, if we had to keep only one version, I think the original is better. And if the original isn't better and the manuscript doesn't work—we could then fall back on the version based on the original published by the non-anarchist press (but that's equivalent to agreeing to take the original while retaining the journalist's 2/3 mistakes, which seems like a 'moderate' measure not necessarily more pleasant than the original)—but at the same time, Lagasse's version is also an interesting historical document, which is part of his efforts to save Ravachol from the death penalty (which, by the way, didn't work).

In French, we actually have three versions on WS:FR: the original, Lagasse's version, and a 1936 version based on Lagasse's (which ignores the original, as if it didn't know it existed). Aristoxène (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Like French Wikisource, there is no limitation on English Wikisource on the number of published English translations that can be hosted. The issue being discussed is the number of translations created by users that have not been published. How many member-created translations of Medea would fr.WS host? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Index:Foerster-Vercelli Homilies II, VI, IX, XV, XXII.djvu

A German text, with no translation attempted and no work done with it on German Wikisource. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Although the text at the start is in German, the main body appears to be Anglo-Saxon - so that would be acceptable. (Though the footnotes are in German and Anglo-Saxon, which makes things complicated). -- Beardo (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Index:DaiNihonkokuKempo (1).pdf

This is an excerpt, despite being transcluded as a top-level work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely the constitution is a stand-alone work - that can be transcluded without the rest of the book ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• We already have two translations of the Imperial Constitution from works which are fully proofread, and a third translation from a partially proofread work. I don’t think that it’s useful to have this as a fourth translation when the index is incomplete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Index:Felicia Hemans in Forget Me Not 1828.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; redundant to Index:Forget Me Not (1828).djvu

All of the poems in this self-published collection have now been proofread against the original source scan at Index:Forget Me Not (1828).djvu Chrisguise (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Delete — also, it appears that this collection is not transcluded anywhere regardless —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Index:Translations from Camoens - Table of Contents.pdf

The contents list which makes up this self-published document has been migrated to the work it refers to (i.e. Translations from Camoens; and Other Poets, with Original Poetry) Chrisguise (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

As you say -  Delete -- Beardo (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The whole Felicia Dorothea Hemans page is a mess. I don't know why the person who's done it all was allowed to upload these non-documents. In my (limited) experience they aren't even what they claim to be. The one covering her contributions to the 1828 Forget Me Not contains the three poems by her in that publication, but they're not sourced from there, and the versions used contained differences from the actual publication version. Chrisguise (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Presumably this also covers the transcluded main page - Translations from Camoens, and Other Poets, With Original Poetry Table of Contents -- Beardo (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I missed that. I've added the template.Chrisguise (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It hadn't been linked from the Index and I noticed it in the list of orphaned pages. -- Beardo (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment most of the problematic compilation pages are linked from Author:Peter John Bolton. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Honk Kong annual reports

• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1951 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1953 (one chapter)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1954 (four chapters of 21)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1955 (four chapters of 27)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1956 (four chapters of 27)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1957 (four chapters of 27)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1958 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Annual Report, 1959 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1960 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1961 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1962 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1963 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1964 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1965 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1966 (no chapters)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1967 (four chapters of 22)
• Hong Kong Report for the Year 1968 (no chapters)

These have no or very little content. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The scans are available at the HK Public Library, e.g. for 1951 https://sls.hkpl.gov.hk/digital-collection/p.html?cta_id=3066025f9cb711ef9c2 in case anyone is motivated to set up a transcription project. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

that said, do we know if these have had their US copyright released as the crown copyright expired after the URAA date so doesn't meet {{PD-1996}} and {{PD-HKGov}} is silent on the matter. If they have, I can at least set up the index pages. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

According to section 182 of the Copyright Ordinance, "Government copyright in a work continues to subsist—

(a) until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made; or

(b) if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published."

Since these were published over 50 years ago, I would expect the Government of Hong Kong no longer claims copyright over them.

Pinging @廣九直通車 as he will certainly know more on this subject than me. ToxicPea (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

E.g. {{PD-UKGov}} says "This work is in the public domain worldwide" while {{PD-HKGov}} says "is in the public domain in Hong Kong" but makes no statement about the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

These type of things have always been complex. PD-UKGov is in the public domain worldwide because we've got a statement that says the British government considers them so. Canadian Crown copyright is not so clear, as we have no such assurance from them. We consider PD-USGov free despite the fact that the US government at least once considered trying to enforce copyright on its works outside the US; this was back in the 70s under the Universal Copyright Convention. In this case, I think the US would enforce the copyright in the US if Hong Kong pressed a claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, why I asked. Btw, {{PD-Canada-Crown}} on Commons has an equivalent email assurance now: " Canada has no intention of renewing expired Crown Copyright works in any country, and consequently the URAA does not apply. An email is on record at ticket:2013122310013986." Note Commons doesn't have the "This template must be accompanied by a tag indicating copyright status in the United States." text on {{PD-HKGov}} although existing usage tends to be for ordinances etc. tagged with {{PD-EdictGov}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

Judging by the note at the bottom, it looks like a compilation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't each of the amendments have its own seperate page ? Is it worth moving these ? Or start afresh ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest enabling contributors to start afresh. Such important documents deserve to be scanbacked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment There are a lot of pages that link to this. Is there a Portal that can be used as a replacement link? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The Ladies' Home Journal

Just red links and one external link to HathiTrust. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• There’s also The Ladies' Home Journal/The Cat and the King, which was moved under the current heading but is a complete work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good catch. So it should probably be moved to The Ladies' Home Journal/Volume 36/October 1919/The Cat and the King so that a volume page can be created and listed in the periodical's main page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

National Infrastructure Protection Center List of Individuals Wanted for Questioning in the Sept. 11 Attacks

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted due to concerns on sourcing

This text has been up for some time with no source at all. Surely, a text of this nature, naming wanted individuals, needs an authoritative source to be hosted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• It seems that the original source was this Web-site, which itself was a copy from a spreadsheet distributed to the VRWA, NJWA(?), and others, of persons of interest for questioning (not wanted for any crime). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that it was spreadsheet -> webpage, rather than having any evidence of a real document to pull from, and given the...bit of dangerousness of lists of names like this without proper sourcing,  Delete until scan-backed. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Narrative of a Journey Through the Upper Provinces of India: From Calcutta to Bombay, 1824-1825, (with Notes Upon Ceylon,) an Account of a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces, 1826, and Letters Written in India

Incomplete and abandoned. I suggest deleting only the mainspace pages, indexes can stay and wait for being proofread. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

 Keep I see no problem having chapters like Narrative of a Journey Through the Upper Provinces of India: From Calcutta to Bombay, 1824-1825, (with Notes Upon Ceylon,) an Account of a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces, 1826, and Letters Written in India/Volume I/Chapter 10 around even though the work is incomplete. I didn't realize.a work is "abandoned" if someone stops works for a few months: Page:Narrative_of_a_journey_through_the_upper_provinces_of_India_etc._(Volume_I.).djvu/392 was just added in July. I don't like the idea of deleting works because some stop works for a month and declaring them abandoned, MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting deleting the work done. The work can continue in the page namespace. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What is your definition of "abandoned"? This was worked on only a few months ago. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It does not seem a good idea to transclude the work into mainspace if only a few edits are made every few months. There is plenty of time to work on the transcription in the page namespace, but why should such fragments be transcluded? It is quite understandable in cases when the transcription progresses fast, but having such a torso in the mainspace for years is imo not desirable. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I will point out that ends up being a major source of frustration for periodicals. If I want to keep a single story like this: Everywoman's World/Volume 7/Issue 7/The Alpine Path (2) Do I need to transcribe the complete year's worth "Volume 7" to avoid getting, volume 7 is "incomplete and abandoned" and so all mainspace pages are deleted? I started the last month cleaning up and working on Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography by adding a bunch of entries I found interesting, but apparently unless I want to proofread the whole thing I should stop since it will just get deleted anyways? Why start any big projects? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. It's the nature of a wiki where we tend to encourage more individual efforts. If we want more centralization of effort to concentrate on fewer works to get them fully proofread, that's fine as a point of discussion but that shouldn't be done by selecting works in progress at whim and then deleting them as incomplete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it should be moved to Narrative of a Journey Through the Upper Provinces of India, as the current title is unwieldy. As for the level of completion, this is about as complete as many others I have seen; it only looks less complete because the front matter is poorly done or not done at all. Japan by the Japanese, for instance, was started in 2021 for one appendix (out of 14, plus 31 chapters and an index). The only thing complete when I started proofreading it was that index plus the introductory matter. I wouldn’t have considered that deletion-worthy. The real issue here (with the Narrative), in my view, is the transclusion of not proofread pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

   Keep - yes, it is not ideal as it is, but that does not mean it should be deleted. -- Beardo (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Laws of the Game (1888)

Compilation of some different version with this web page, see the info at Talk:Laws of the Game (1888). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. I suspect that there are other versions at Laws of the Game that should be deleted for similar reasons.

UPDATE: I don't have access to some of the source links at the moment, but based on the comments on the Talk Pages the following versions also are user-compiled based on sources that only list changes to the rules:

• Laws of the Game (1872)
• Laws of the Game (1873)
• Laws of the Game (1880)
• Laws of the Game (1887)
• Laws of the Game (1888)
• Laws of the Game (1889)
• Laws of the Game (1889)
• Laws of the Game (1892)
• Laws of the Game (1894)
• Laws of the Game (1901)
• Laws of the Game (1902)
• Laws of the Game (1904)
• Laws of the Game (1908)
• Laws of the Game (1909)
• Laws of the Game (1911)
• Laws of the Game (1913)
• Laws of the Game (1914)
• Laws of the Game (1920)
• Laws of the Game (1921)
• Laws of the Game (1924)
• Laws of the Game (1925)
• Laws of the Game (1927)

The following also contain augmentations by the uploader taken from other editions (definitions, illustrations, etc.). They can probably be salvaged by removing the additional material:

• Laws of the Game (1869)
• Laws of the Game (1878)
• Laws of the Game (1882)
• Laws of the Game (1895)
• Laws of the Game (1903)
• Laws of the Game (1905)
• Laws of the Game (1907)
• Laws of the Game (1912)
• Laws of the Game (1923)

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Deja vu! I believe this isn't the first time one of these has been deleted either, but I can't find the discussion right now. So I guess they should just all be deleted. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the likely source of the deja vu feeling is Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2024#Inter-Collegiate Football Rules (1876) :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A Poem of Felicia Hemans in The Forget Me Not, 1826

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; proofread in original source

The poem in this self-published collection has now been migrated to the original source scan and proofread at Index:Forget Me Not (1826).djvu

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Index:Felicia Hemans in Forget Me Not 1826.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; proofread in original source

Index associated with the transclusion above. Delete for same reason. Chrisguise (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Poems of Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.) in Forget Me Not, 1826

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; proofread in original source

The poems in this self-published collection have now been migrated to the original source scan and proofread at Index:Forget Me Not (1826).djvu Chrisguise (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Index:Forget Me Not 1826.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; proofread in original source

Index associated with the transclusion above. Delete for same reason. Chrisguise (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Letitia Landon's poems in the Forget Me Not, 1826

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; proofread in original source

The poems in this self-published collection have now been migrated to the original source scan and proofread at Index:Forget Me Not (1826).djvu Chrisguise (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Draft of the Constitution of the French State (1944)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; translation without scan-backed original

No scan-supported original. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Constitution of Angola (1975)

No scan-supported original. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

A ref in the header links to https://www.tribunalconstitucional.ao/media/t24pgcz1/lei-constitucional-de-1975.pdf, which looks like a scanned source. Omphalographer (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Great. So what we need now is scanbacking this text at the Portuguese Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Draft of the Constitution of the Italian Social Republic

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; translation without scan-backed original

No scan-supported original. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 16:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Her sovreign People

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as redundant to Daily Hampshire Gazette/1952/12/18/Art Exhibit At Smith College

This proposal is part of my Emily Dickinson cleanup project. Previous discussions regarding this project can be found here: User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Dickinson/Discussions

This unsourced edition of "Her sovreign People" has been superseded by the scan-backed edition in Daily Hampshire Gazette/1952/12/18/Art Exhibit At Smith College, and should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the scan-backed edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 09:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Malaysia

This is supposed to be the 1957 version of the Malaysian Constitution, but in fact some later amendments were compiled with it, while others were not, so now nobody knows which version it really is; see also Talk:Constitution of Malaysia. Besides, it also seems incomplete, see Constitution of Malaysia#Fifth Schedule: The Conference of Rulers [Article 38(1)]. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Basic Law of Israel

Created here in 2018, and still with no source. It is currently being expanded upon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey Thanks for being super efficient, I was still working on the page lol. Just added the official sources so grounds for deletion are gone. Also please check the sourceless gov't edicts list since there are many others like this still with no source listed but more than likely do. Thanks! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You've added links to reference websites, but that is hot the issue here. The issue is there is no source provided for the text. Where was this document published? and how was that text transferred to Wikisource? What is the source document you compared against when making changes, and where is the document? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If each of those sections is a separate law, should they be on separate pages (showing the relevant source) ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they should —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I see that the links provided are PDF documents from the Knesset website, which means they either are the sources, or they should be. However I also see that the linked sources are "unofficial translations" by Dr. Sheila Hattis Rolef, which raises the question what is the copyright status of Rolef's translations? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

(See also https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/About/Pages/Copyright.aspx ) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey @Beleg Tâl: Hi y'all, I'm back to annoy your lives some more haha. Since the copyright has been an issue, I think I found the actual original source that was used to make the original file back in 2018, but only for 2 of the basic laws (out of 12+). I'm pretty sure they are ok since they're from ILO (which is under UN) but I'm gonna check in with you just to make sure (Links: The Government (2001) - aka newest version and The Knesset (1958)). The wordings and arrangement of the pdfs fit exactly as the texts were before I added headings to them (which were a mess! that's why I had to add them, to make it legible). If these are ok, then we can separate these two laws out at least then deal with the rest, thanks! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ILO publications produced before 3 May 2023 were not published under a free licence, see https://www.ilo.org/rights-and-permissions . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Matthew Fontaine Maury

This seems to be an non-scanbacked duplicate of the already validated A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury. Nighfidelity (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I came across this recently and agree that it should be deleted. However, the supposedly scan-backed version isn't all it appears to be. Although it has been through the full process, it clearly hasn't been transcribed from the scan (my guess is that it's a copy and paste from the non-scan-backed version, but I haven't check this.) I've made a start improving it, but only a couple of pages at a time. Chrisguise (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Rimzei haMaasiyot

Translation not based on a scanbacked original. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. I began working on the scans. Sije (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  The scans need to be transcribed on Hebrew wikisource. -- Beardo (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I started working on that as well. Sije (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Three authors of recently deleted works

The works of the following authors have been deleted recently per copyright discussion and so they have no works in our scope listed.

• Author:James Merikangas
• Delana R. Eckels
• Author:Emina Planja

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Author:Delana R. Eckels, as you wrongfully deleted that work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  No. It was deleted because its public domain status was not proven in the discussion. You can request undeletion, of course, and this author can stay if the undeletion request is successful. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  In any event, Eckels "edited the Greencastle Indiana Patriot in 1842" (https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/formerfaculty/62/), which would justify his remaining, no, even if no other works emerge. (As chief justice of Utah territory, did he not issue anything ?) -- Beardo (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Great, I am withdrawing the nomination of this author. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek - by the way, is it no longer policy to include the {{delete}} template on the pages that you are proposing ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you know it, so it is probably meant as an ironic remark that I should not forget about it. I have supplied the templates now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Influential Books

An old portal from 2006, apparently written in conjunction with the goals of Wikisource:WikiProject Influential Books (now inactive). This project hasn't been worked on substantially for about 15 to 20 years.

As a portal, I think this portal inherently fails WS:NPOV, particularly this statement: "Introductory and other explanatory material should always be written with NPOV in mind." The title itself's use of the word "influential", as well as the leading section name, "Books that Changed the World", are inherently statements of opinion, not objective factual reporting. Notice how there's no Wikipedia article with the title of "List of most influential books", for example. If we had some objective way to measure what was "influential" or "changed the world", or if we at least had something like "So-and-so-philosopher's List of Most Important Works in the World" that we were citing from to show what in their list we have, those might justify a portal like this existing. But we don't have any of those.

Also, many of the descriptions of these works were abandoned long ago, and Portal:WikiProjects, which was linked to, never existed. SnowyCinema (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don’t think that it’s too far-fetched for a Wikipedia article; the closest thing I found is the fairly related List of books considered the best (along with List of top book lists). Similarly, I could imagine a List of books considered the most influential as well. I think that, although Wikipedia could create a list with sources, it would be inappropriate for us to have a portal with that content. We also shouldn’t have portals for lists which are copyrighted. I think this should be redirected to the WikiProject for archival purposes, although that’s just my preference for this sort of thing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. No objective criteria for inclusion are (or even can be) given. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Delete besides the above mentioned, the list is redundant with the better maintained lists on the subject portals. That said, it would actually make sense as a portal about the concept of the development of "the canon,"" i.e. listing lists of books considered as "influential" or "great books" such as at the Columbia Core list and its predecessors, e.g. The Best Hundred Books. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Author:Nachman Chazan

Editor of non-English works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: the non-English works in question include Translation:Likutei Halakhot —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

He is credited as editor of the first edition of that non-English work, yes, but the linked page at he.WS does not mention him. We don't know which edition is being translated, and we have no evidence he was associated in any way with the edition being translated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Fables and Parables

Per discussions at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Some_content_should_be_undeleted, User_talk:Xover#Regarding_User_talk:Nihil_novi#Fables_and_Parables amd User_talk:Nihil_novi. It is my understanding that this is a translation of public domain text that exists on pl wikisource (pl:Bajki i przypowieści). The translator, User:Nihil novi, has always been willing to release it under a compatible translation, but they seem to have gotten tired due to some technicalities and gave u up on getting this restored, so I'd like to finish rescuing this. Can this be undeleted? What, if any, steps need to be done first? Nihil novi is still active on Wikipedia, and I am sure they'd be willing to confirm here that they are still willing to use CC-BY-SA or such if requested. Piotrus (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Was it supposed to be the translation of the whole book pl:Bajki i przypowieści? If so, there were many stories missing. In case of undeletion, is anybody going to finish the translation? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek That's something Nihil novi can answer, but isn't even a partial translation better than nothing? (I should add that Nihil novi is a professional translator, not an amateur). Piotrus (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Professional translation is not a requirement; if this is a properly licensed user-created translation and the original is scan-backed at plWS then I don't see any issue with undeleting and scan-backing the stories in Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The original is scanbacked, so i support undeletion too. Just one thing: we should not host translation of the book of stories that would in fact include only selection of those stories. IMO, if not all the stories are going to be translated, then those translated should probably be hosted here separately, not gathered in one book. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. If the original is scan-backed as a collection, then it seems to me that we should host it as an incomplete collection, rather than as a number of separate extracts. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for considering undeletion of my English translations of 62 (52%) of Ignacy Krasicki's Fables and Parables. I am the translations' copyright owner and would be very pleased to see them once again made available to Wikisource readers, under CC-BY-SA license. Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011 and Index:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf

And:

• Page:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf/1
• Page:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf/2
• Page:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf/3
• Page:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf/4
• Page:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf/5
  

The file at Commons was deleted as containing non-free images, leaving all these pages blank or orphaned. The original uploaded has semi-retired from wikiprojects. -- Beardo (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. I think that the Commons issue is irrelevant—the less reliance on Commons, the better—but this document appears to have just been a print-out of a Web page, and should be deleted for that reason. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This is analogous to the proposed deletion for #Chandler-Lake Wilson Minnesota F5 Tornado of June 16, 1992: Revisited on the 10th Anniversary/Chandler1, which has been pending since June. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Translations of works by Author:Olavo Bilac

• Translation:Milky Way
• Translation:Abstraction
• Translation:To Youth
• Translation:Delirium

All of these are user translations without a scan-backed source at the Portuguese Wikisource. The first three have pages there but not scan-backed ones, but "Delirium" has no page at all on the Portuguese Wikisource.

I don't dabble in translations too much but my understanding is that, since these were created after the 2013 grandfather rule was established, these are candidates for deletion. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral, though I will note that these translations were first uploaded in 2003 (including the last one) before being split to their current location; so the grandfather rule should apply —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, well then I guess that means there's no rationale available for deletion. I don't love that stuff like this is here, but if there's no formal rationale to use that would work then I guess I can just withdraw the nomination. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Draft of the Constitution of the German Democratic Republic (1990)

No scanbacked original at the German Wikisource as required by WS:T. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as to this reason as German Wikisource is not conducive to scan-backing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Constitution of the German Democratic Republic (1974)

No scanbacked original at the German Wikisource as required by WS:T. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as to this reason as German Wikisource is not conducive to scan-backing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation:Regeringsform 1772

No scanbacked original at the Swedish Wikisource as required by WS:T. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)