Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2016-11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

Index:The golden bough; a study in magic and religion (1922).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

kept, 1922 appears to original edition

This is not a 1922 edition as the title would suggest, it's in fact a 1925 Abriged version, which means it's not necessarily PD-US-1923, The author died in 1941. (so it is PD-Old-70 outside the US). The internal Copyright note is 1922 (with a note about the 1925 reprint), so I am asking here for a second opinion. Going to pagelist check this in any event. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on whether the differences between the editions amount to the addition of copyrightable material. If the only changes are typo fixes or minor wording changes, the new work does not enter into a new copyright. BD2412 T 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In 1925, wouldn't the copyright have needed to be formally registered in order to be valid? If the 1925 edition lists only the 1922 copyright (see here), that suggests to me that the publisher didn't go to the trouble and expense to seek out a new copyright in 1925. So even if the amendments were copyrightable, could it be that they were never copyrighted, and thus in the public domain due to PD-1923? -Pete (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean no-notice? That is indeed plausible if the edits were minor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That a story is abridged by another person, who isn't the author, they are unlikely to be able to have copyright on another's work, only components that are their work. It is my understanding that the author could reissue an abridged version and have copyright on that version on substantial difference, though it would need to be covered by the legal requirements of the time of the publication, as mentioned above. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Stanford and UPenn linked searches from WS:CV don't show anything in their components. The original is 1922 UK published, the second is US abridged publication though says copyringht 1922, whether by the author or not is unclear, though presumably yes. So it is in that murky space.
We would be better (my preference) to see if the original unabridged version of the work is available, IMO which we know is fuller, and definitely pre 1923. If we are staying with this version, I would say  Keep though not very boldly, just balance of probability. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 Keep It looks like this is a 1925 reprint of a 1922 abridgment, not a 1925 abridgment of a 1922 expanded original. Note that the preface, in which Frazer describes that this is his own abridgmenet of his own work, is dated 1922. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Files recommended to be deleted

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn by proposing user —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Page:4test01.djvu/0
Page:4test01.djvu
Page:Test
Page:SECRETARIES OF WAR - NARA - 515364.tif file exists on the commons. — Ineuw talk 17:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Keep These are from the Page: namespace, not the File: namespace. 4test01.djvu is used to test various aspects of the PageProofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Disciplina Clericalis

The following discussion is closed:

kept; scan-backed — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This work is incomplete and only has one section added. The work is not supported by a page scan and it has no source. The only page was added in early 2015. At this point the work looks abandoned and without a source it is not able to be completed and it would seem that we should delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems worthy enough; I've uploaded File:Disciplina Clericalis (English translation) from the fifteenth century Worcester Cathedral Manuscript F. 172.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I wasn't querying its worthiness. If you believe that is suitable, maybe it should have {{migrate to djvu}} added. It is ugly to have main ns works with no progress or clear ability to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 Delete unless it is tagged as per above.— Mpaa (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Work is now sourced and scan-backed, though still incomplete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Deleted

Index:The West Australian, 1949-03-26.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio per URAA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is dated 1949 so IS PD-Australia.

The concern is that it's not necessarily PD-US. (1996-50) = 1946. This work is dated 1949. Possibly no notice, but would appreciate a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're correct on PD-Australia, as I don't know the precise rules about anonymity. The URAA is a cure-all for all things like no notice, so if it wasn't PD-Australia in 1996, then it's in copyright in the US now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Done deleted. You may also want to raise a deletion proposal on Commons for the source file. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be an exact duplicate of Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu, which has a slightly better source file and more image work completed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

They are both proofread, I hesitate a lot to delete, especially as both have different levels of proofread status on different pages. They do look to be the same edition, so there is no apparent reason to keep both. (What a shame). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu is now completely validated, so unless anyone opposes I will delete Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu in the near future. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Author:Diego Grez-Cañete

The following discussion is closed:

moot, page no longer exists —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a selfpromotion page, it is not a notable author, and he doesn't have created notable works to be here. --Warko (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He has a publication in a peer-reviewed work that has been uploaded to Commons and es.Wikisource. He translated it at It's a Beautiful Day (currently under discussion at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#Re.:_It.27s_a_Beautiful_Day). Our requirement is not notability; it's peer review, and as far as I can tell, "9° Interescolar de Cuentos en español (in Spanish). Santiago, Chile: Universidad Andrés Bello y la Sociedad Chilena de Escritores. p. 54–55. ISBN 978-956-7247-69-1." meets that requirement. If that work is undeleted, it's clear that he should have an author page here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Cyclopædia of American Biographies (1903)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, incomplete work with minor component done, uncertain sources — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have found this small set of biographies that are subpages of the subject line, however, it seems that the work is actually The twentieth century biographical dictionary of notable Americans by John Henry Brown, and it looks to be well 10 volumes to the set. From IA, I see this text ...Published in 1900-1903 under the title "Lamb's biographical dictionary of the United States," 7 v. and in 1897-1903 under the title "The cyclopædia of American biography," 7 v. both edited by John Howard Brown. I cannot find the CAB version, though I can find the Lamb's version.

As the work has not progressed in all these years, and it is not supported by a scan, I think that it should be culled. Not to say that if someone wishes to resurrect the work with scans then it can re-exist if they can pull together the set of volumes for whichever rendition they so choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Delete While I don't think it is necessary to delete all stalled incomplete works, this one is a tiny excerpt of a huge work and therefore I really don't see any benefit of keeping it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Index:Taverner Bible.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per consensus —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Very poor scan with no text layer. Outlier59 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fraktur/Gothic. Are you saying the scan is too poor to determine the forms?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can decipher a few words here and there, but nowhere near enough to proof a page. Also, see for example, Page:Taverner Bible.djvu/138, sidenotes cut off. Outlier59 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, two pages of the original printing are scanned as one page here. Outlier59 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that looks like the same scan as we have here, but in pdf format. It has 2 pages per page, and that site links to the archives.org file. Outlier59 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
A coloured scan of the 1551 edition, albeit double-page, available here. Can be downloaded by going for the print option page-by-page. Hrishikes (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:'.

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have severe doubts of the need to template a period and two non-breaking spaces. Surely we can undertake such actions manually. To me this sort of template becomes template bloat, especially when it gets used multiple times on a Page: and then transcluded into main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Presuming that the additional templates to which @Beeswaxcandle: mentions are:
if there are others, then please mention which. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
{{exclamation point}} and {{question mark}} have the same problem also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Civil and Commercial Code

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a translation that is incomplete and after seven years I doubt that it will ever be complete, with less than a sixth being present. There is also a full version from the root page, If the first promulgated version appeared, then we should be having it as a separated version anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I take that back, the whole work is incomplete. It is abandoned and we should delete it. If someone wants it we can undelete for them as required. If kept it needs to be moved the Translation: namespace, relative links introduced, and other tidying. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 Delete Outlier59 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Record of Oregon Sales Tax Increase from 0 to 25％: A Receipt

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted

This is a receipt, apparently added to demonstrate that the tax on cannabis in Oregon increased from 0 to 25% in 2016. I do not see how this falls in Wikisource's remit. (I asked the uploader/transcriber about this a few weeks back, and received no response.) -Pete (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Delete, could possibly be speedied as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation:De partibus animalium

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

An abandoned translation of a very small excerpt from On the Parts of Animals, hasn't been touched since 2006. It will be easier to delete it than to disambiguate the Ogle translation we have. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Template:Exclamation point and Template:Question mark

The following discussion is closed:

deleted per previous discussion about not (unnecessarily) overly complicating formatting for transcribers without a clear benefit — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For the same reasons as the recently-deleted Template:'.: templates that pad punctuation marks with spaces shouldn't be encouraged. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Cognitive psychology

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per discussion below.— Mpaa (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced work that looks like a scientific paper that was not previously published, nor peer reviewed. Author also doesn’t appear to be notable Marjoleinkl (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Delete. It doesn't matter whether the author is notable or not, but this paper (from here) has no indication of peer review nor publication status nor free license and therefore does not belong here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 Delete— Mpaa (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Done— --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


Translation:Catalogue of Women

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned translation with no source. Less than 1% would appear to have been undertaken. User is not active at enWS. Started in 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Delete— Mpaa (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 Delete Looks like a good work to have but I'd be surprised if this ever gets completed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Done - --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource:Poem of the Day

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing happening, nothing has happened for years, and at this point it seems worthwhile to delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Delete— Mpaa (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 Delete {{{1}}}„ —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 Delete Spangineer (háblame) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Done - --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Harald Hardrada in the Strategikon of Kekaumenos

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; partial extract of work that has been translated, and not otherwise hosted — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a small excerpt from the w:Strategikon of Kekaumenos and there doesn't appear to be any intention of translating the rest of it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Exsurge Domine

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; copyright violation for translation — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Translated by Benedict R. Avery and published in Readings in Church History (1960). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the work had been recreated after a previous deletion and discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Luton Baptismal Records - 1864

The following discussion is closed:

deleted along with Birth Register —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

We have a historical record (2 page spread of an English baptismal record) for which one transcription has been entered. I am not disputing the accuracy of the record or the probable source of the information, though I will dispute that it was in the handwriting of the father, these were traditionally done by the parish priest. The record and information while relevant, should be on the talk page of the author, however, as it is just an excerpt of a register, I don't think that it fits within WS:WWI — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Birth Register is similar. If we could have the whole works that these are excerpted from, they could stay (and be brilliant resources) I reckon. I guess that's less likely.

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Delete both as excerpts —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Done

User:Vishweshwaran1915/The Underwater World Part 1

The following discussion is closed:

deleted and note left on talk page —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The user's only edits on this wiki are to add this story. It does not seem to be published, and thus is out of scope, even in user space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Maybe blank the page, and leave them a message on their talk page. Seems to be education is needed. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton Memoirs and Hamilton Memoirs/X

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted per discussion below.— Mpaa (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Basically an old incomplete work that is unsupported by scans. It is never going to get complete and we should ditch the two pages that we have. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Other

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963) Malay Texts.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

migrated to mulWS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not English.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Migrate to the appropriate wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, see mul:Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963) Malay Texts.djvu —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Pensées

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced (1) with redirect, replaced (2) with nav, kept (3) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Pascal's Thoughts (a fine work!) from this scan are transcluded 3(!) times in the mainspace: 1) as Pensées, 2) in bulk as Blaise Pascal/Thoughts, generous 315 pages on one page, and 3) in sections as Blaise Pascal/Thoughts/Section 1 to Blaise Pascal/Thoughts/Section 14. Any thoughts (des pensées) on which pensées to dispense with? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

If I recall this project was in an awkward transition from inline text (the (1) case) to scan-backed transcription (cases (2) and (3)) and what you are looking at is the awkward result of the completion of the transition whilst still pending validation. As I was somewhat involved with the (2) & (3) cases I vote to delete both of them as having served their purposes (whatever that may have been?) and to keep case (1) 'Pensées' AuFCL (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder, however, whether it might be beneficial to keep a page at Blaise Pascal/Thoughts though, since Thoughts is a work per se. If I want to link to Pascal's Thoughts, right now I could link to the full collected works volume, or to the first section of the work. I'm not sure what the page would contain though, maybe another copy of the TOC for just this work? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd think it would be worthwhile to keep *Pensees* or *Thoughts* as a series of pages with {{versions}} on them. Spangineer (háblame) 17:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thoughts is already a disambig page, so Pensées would be the best place for a versions page for this work... except that there is only one copy of this work on WS so it will be a redirect instead. I just need to figure out where to redirect it to, since Blaise Pascal/Thoughts is deleted and there's not much to put on it if it's recreated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. Maybe a repeat of just that section of the TOC? Spangineer (háblame) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


United Reformed Church Lion Walk Colchester Act 1980

The following discussion is closed:

resurrected in Page: namespace and transcluded —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This work was added from a poor OCR, and has not been edited in over four years. It is in poor condition, and there is little value in its retention in its current state. There is no specific set of legislation that we are pulling apart with a deletion. If there is a decent scan then it can be resurrected in Page: namespace and transcluded when ready. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done: scan added and transcluded —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:In progress

The following discussion is closed:

merged "template:in use" as that seems to be preferred — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

We do not need another pointless template that has no realistic hope of being used, especially when we don't use the existing templates already for a similar purpose. Experienced editors should be able to identify when a work is currently under the early throes of construction. Experienced editors should also be able to hold off their editing or otherwise enquire with the contributing editor about the situation. There is situational awareness that can be used here without a next-to-useless template. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying this is a duplicate for an existing template, then Delete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there are 3 quite similar templates Template:In progress, Template:Inuse, and Template:Under construction. Inuse looks like it would be useful when a lot of editors are busy here. In progress looks good for discouraging other editors from jumping in on a work without coordinating with another active editor of the work. I once recommended Under construction to an editor because I didn't know about In progress. If I'd known about that, I would've suggested that.
Is there anywhere we explicitly ask editors to check the Index talk page (or edit history, or Portal talk page, or whatever applies) for an active editor before making changes? Outlier59 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, as others have pointed out above, contributors are expected to not be mindless automotans that need tags to exercise what should be common sense courtesy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: "In progress" was newly created, hence why I wished to circumvent further forking. We have less need for "under construction" and "in use" with transcluded pages where the work is done prior to works appearing in main namespace, and where we have incomplete works, we have {{incomplete}}. If you want to see who may be editing a work, look at the Related Changes link (Special:RecentChangesLinked)from the index, it will show editors from the Recent Changes history. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You can keep or delete this, but I wanted to say that I find this useful, am using it, and will make a version for myself in userspace if this is deleted. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It is basically a duplicate. I would delete it. If you like the phrase so much, we could find a suitable compromise between {{In progress}} and {{Inuse}}.— Mpaa (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"In use" template was not used with options and seems to be permanent application, so I am happy to keep in progress if it is the wording and options that are preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2016-11&oldid=6590356"