Wikisource

Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2007-10

< Wikisource:Proposed deletions‎ | Archives
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

Category:Romantic poetry and rename similar

Category:Romantic poetry is being used as an era category, and does not fit into the scheme established in Category:Works by era. It should thus be deleted, and the works categorized in it should be moved to the appropriate category (Early modern, it seems).

All of the other categories (Category:Ancient poetry, Category:Early modern poetry, Category:Medieval poetry, Category:Modern poetry, and Category:Renaissance poetry) should be renamed to match the category titles of works by era and poems—that is, change Category:Ancient poetry to Category:Ancient poems. All works should then be recategorized, preferably by a bot. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spangineer makes a very valid point. Delete this Category and move its contents to Category:Early modern poetry (I volunteer to do it myself). Also in favor of renaming the other Categories; recategorization can be easily done via AWB as well. Phaedriel - 12:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in accord with this. Is it possible to sort things by 2 categories, eg. poetry and medieval works? If so, then I think poems should undergo categorisation by era in the same fashion as other pages ("Medieval works"), but have the additional "Poetry" category. If not, the "Medieval Poetry" category would have a definite use. --Ebenezer.Elijah 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a little late, but I think we should keep this category. It might not fit in nicely with our time period-specific categories (like "Early modern" and "Modern"), but the Romantic era had such an important impact on philosophy, theology, and literature in both Europe and America, that gathering all the poetry written during this non-concrete time period would be an important asset for Wikisource. I know I at least go looking for Romantic poetry to read, as its my favorite type to read, and I imagine there are other people who would, too.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Zhaladshar, I understand your reasoning, which makes a very valid point. However, the mere existence of this category as it stands now is redundant, and in open contradiction with our time period categories. Yet, as I said, you have a good point, so I suggest moving it and making this a subcategory of Category:Early modern poetry; it'd make perfect sense in terms of periods, while allowing us to keep this category as a quick resource for persual of its associated works.
I wish to denote the fact that Spangineer's proposal also includes the renaming of the basic time period categories for poetry. While I belive this to be correct, and I don't see this as controversial either, a little more input before putting it into place would be welcome. Best regards, Phaedriel - 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If it means anything I'd say Keep. Romantic poetry isn't just an era category, but also an aesthetic one, of a world view that emphasize the senses, emotions, and sensuality over reason and rationality. If the wikisource project is to be more than the playground of account holders, it has to be easily used by casual users and those looking for a specific text or line of text. It may not fit Wikisources neat dileneated categories, but Romantic poetry is a recognised movement and a casual user may know that the poem he or she wants is a "Romantic poem" but not know that said poem is categorised by Wikisource as early-modern. If it wasn't for the possibility of confusion and further possible misuse, I'd suggest that it could be recategorised as a genre of poetry.KTo288 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Romantic poetry kept; category names to be modified. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Unenforceable copyright

The following discussion is closed:

withdrawn


These templates are not valid copyright releases. They are only applicable so long as Iran and Afghanistan are not party to international copyright treaties, members of an international organization, and not the subjects of a US presidential decree. The moment any of those criteria changes, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act comes into effect and retroactively restores the copyright in the United States of all materials that would have been copyright under US copyright law for foreign works.

Wikisource seeks to collect free-content works, not those that it is legally acceptable to use in the United States for an indefinite temporary period of time. Even if we watch Iran and Afghanistan closely and immediately take down any works the moment they become copyrighted, our many redistributors will not know to do so, and we will have knowingly violated our promise to them under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Jayvdb pointed out on IRC that some of these works might be permanently acceptable in the United States as property of the Alien Property Custodian; if so, we can keep them under a better license, but these are not acceptable. I'll also propose a change to the Copyright policy once this discussion is closed to address unenforceable copyright that can be restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Template:PD-Iraq (which used the same criteria) was deleted last year; see "States without copyright relations with the United States" (Scriptorium, December 2006). —{admin} Pathoschild 14:37:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More relevant discussion can be found at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Iraq. John Vandenberg 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: due to the URAA, 17 USC 104A(a)(2) says "EXCEPTION.-Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work."
The "or instrumentality thereof" clause will require some research to determine its scope. John Vandenberg 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, see w:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Retroactive_changes_in_copyright_legislation, any text can retroactively be made copyrighted again, let's look at the Russian clusterf*ck going on in Scriptorium right now. The fact that nothing is ever 1000% guaranateed should not castrate our project, we list what is free content, not what we can promise will always be free - because ultimately, there's no assurances that next year congress won't enact a "Everything is copyrighted back to 1912" bill. We should base our notion of copyright on the law, not our personal theorising about hypothetical situations. Yes, anything on this site *could* one day be copyrighted, but that's irrelevant. It is not, and that is what matters.

    In addition, {{PD-Iraq}} was deleted based on only two votes, one "Delete" from the same person who created it and says "I created it with the express purpose of having it deleted." (newmanbe, I'll let that speak for itself), and one "Abstain" from myself. Hardly a precedent-setting "Community consensus", and definitely shouldn't be used to say "We deleted that, we should totally delete this!".

    And finally, "respecting other countries' copyright" is irrelevant int he case of PD-Afghan since these works are all PD in Afghanistan itself - so it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that they are copyrighted in the United States (a country that wouldn't recognise Afghanistan's copyright on the works, even if it did exist, which it doesn't). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    Sherurcij, the problematic portion of Template:PD-Afghan is the part that states that all Afghan copyright be ignored. If that is removed, it is of course acceptable since my above rationale no longer applies to it.

    Works that are in the public domain in the United States according to the normal criteria are extremely unlikely to have their copyright restored. The sole way this can be done in the United States is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and that was only implemented after heavy international pressure. Even so it is only concerned with the copyright status of works as of 1996 (when it was implemented); if another country (like Russia) retroactively restores copyright after 1996, there is no effect on the copyright status in the United States.

    Therefore, the only realistic way a public domain work on Wikisource can become copyrighted is if it is hosted under the no-copyright-relations-with-the-United-States criteria used by these templates. It is even likely that this will happen, since it would be unrealistic to say that these countries will never ratify international treaties until the end of human civilization (or the end of copyright law, if you're optimistic). —{admin} Pathoschild 17:34:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    A stub on w:Afghanistan and copyright issues has been created. John Vandenberg 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    I've removed Template:PD-Afghan from the nomination, since it is a separate issue. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:55:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, there is no looming doom here, as the works are, at present, in the PD in the US. We have a lot to gain by keeping these important documents, and we have even more to to gain by finding better licenses for these works. In a similar situation, the commons folk "reevaluated" the cases that were using the license, and I expect we will need to do the same. For starters, there are no PD-Afghan templates on commons or WP, so we will need time to develop one to a legally satisfactory state. Also the commons:Template:PD-Iran only talks about images and movies, so it may not be of any use to us here. Another angle we should look at for the bin Laden works specifically is that he is formally a terrorist, so I doubt the U.S. govt. or WMF has any reason to respect his copyright even if the home countries were to become party to a copyright treaty with the US. If this was a simple case of Wikisource using the US copyright to host literature and deny legitimate foreign copyright holders of their just rewards, deleting the works would be the simple remedy; but, from what I have seen of the texts we have under these two licenses, they are mostly documentary sources of public and research interest. If no better licenses can be found within a reasonable time, I would like us to consider keeping these templates revised to only be permissible for "documentary sources", and clearly stating on the template that these works may be deleted when a copyright treaty is in place with these nations. John Vandenberg 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I haven't researched all the details, but what is the real issue here. Are these protected by copyright according to US law? Isn't consensus here to only determine inclusion by US law while explaining non-US copyright claims clearly? If the former is being challenged please explain the why more clearly, because I am not understanding. If the latter is being challenged, this should be Scriptorium discussion.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    BTW I just want to say I am not endorsing the consensus I described above because I do not. But that is what I think it is. IMHO we really need to be clear about these things and not have these discussions piecemeal. Remember Reference Data (well some of you anyway)? My opinion bout piecemeal deletions to challenge consensus is still the same as then.--BirgitteSB 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    The works are not in the public domain in the United States; their copyrights are simply not recognized. The problem here is that the copyrights will become recognized the moment Iran joins the Berne Convention or World Trade Organization, or forms trade relations with the United States. That means that if we allow copyrighted Iranian works for two years, and then Iran joins the international trade community, suddenly Wikisource is hosting thousands of copyright violations. It would probably be the single largest violation of copyright law in Wikimedia history.

    The problem extends further. If we allow {{PD-Iran}}, then naturally we should allow works from every country with no copyright or trade relations with the United States. The result would be that Wikisource, and the thousands of sites that use our content, will suddenly be guilty of massive copyright violation if any country in the world joins the Berne Convention or World Trade Organization, or forms trade relations with the United States. That's not a very hypothetical future, unless you sincerely believe that no other country will ever form international relations again until the end of human civilization. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

    And if, in the future, a country adopts new copyright laws, we can deal with it then. But the fact a random country "might", twenty years from now, state that Osama's writings are copyrighted in their borders - is as likely as the fact they'll announce that all Islamic scriptures have eternal copyright to the Ulema. Technically the Quran was written in Saudi Arabia, should we delete it just in case a fundamentalist leader announces it is under perpetual copyright? The problem is, refusing to host works because it is "possible" that "at some point in the future" "something will change" is simply counter-productive to our efforts to spread information. Do you think it's guaranteed that from now till eternity, no country will ever announce it is scrapping intellectual property law entirely and everything is a free-for-all? It's bound to happen sooner or later, but we shouldn't base our current decisions off of such fantastical hypotheticals. As it stands, these works are free to distribute, and we should therefore be distributing them. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    That is completely irrelevant, as I've explained above. Iran could declare all works in the universe copyrighted in perpetuity, and it would not affect us. It is US copyright law we care about, and US copyright law cares about their status before 1996. That is, if they were copyrighted before 1996 in that country, we should treat them as we would any work copyrighted before 1996 in a country with trade relations, because every country without trade relations will almost certainly have them eventually. Further, the copyright term in the United States is limited to US copyright term lengths, so no copyright would be perpetual in the US even if a work was copyrighted perpetually in its home country. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:58:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    In regards to this template setting up the possibility of "the single largest violation of copyright law in Wikimedia history", I dont think this is so different to any other future changes to copyright law that might retroactively bring our texts into non-compliance. If Wikisource was in existence when the Uruguay Round was being discussed, we would have had many works then that needed to be deleted. These changes rarely happen overnight without any forewarning, so there will likely be plenty of time to discuss the proposed legal changes before they occur. When Iran's copyright status changes, appropriate action can be taken at that time. In order to quickly respond in the unlikely event that there is no time to discuss, I suggest that we create a template {{PD-no-treaty}} and a redirect named {{PD-Iran-no-treaty}} so that we can also create a "PD-Iran" that is similar to the one on commons to covers texts that are PD even in Iran. That way, we can summarily delete anything that includes {{PD-Iran-no-treaty}} at a moments notice. In the meantime, our participation in collating, preserving and highlighting the documentary sources of these countries is worth the risk that one day in the near future copyright laws may tie our hands, and we will then need to hand over that responsibility to people who have saved a personal copy at that time. It worth noting that this is not simply taking advantage of US copyright nuances; most countries do not have formal copyright ties with Iran, so texts that meet this "no treaty" provision of US law are also PD in many other nations. John Vandenberg 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't really understand why we should delete these templates. I agree that we should care about copyright status of a work now, not in a hypothetic future. Yann 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I still think that current consensus is to determine inclusion by whether the text qualifies as "free content"* by the laws of the United States. I would definitely support a change to determine inclusion by whether the text qualifies as "free content"* by the laws of the United States AND the laws of the author's native country. HOWEVER I do not support addressing this issue (or any other) by piecemeal deletion debates. Piecemeal deletions destroy editors' confidence in their knowledge of the rules and lead to turmoil in the community.

    (*)Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except for simple attribution and transmission of freedoms). I do believe texts from countries without copyright relations with the US have these freedoms according to US law.--BirgitteSB 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'm obviously outvoted. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:37:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Delete

Portal:Early Christian Writings

The following discussion is closed:

deleted --Spangineer 03:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Portal:Early Christian Writings is a largely empty portal, whose (existing) works are already covered in Wikisource:Saints and Wikisource:Christianity. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Henry Ford 01:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Russkaya Pravda

The following discussion is closed:

deleted--Jusjih 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


This unlinked work has been tagged translator? for over 3 months. No translator has been identified. Tarmstro99 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia "Russkaya Pravda" of December 4, 2005 the translator is w:User:24.164.154.130. John Vandenberg 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is correct, then the user's translation is GFDL'ed and is OK to host here. (At least, it's not a copyvio, although I think the language of the template says that “works without identified translators” will likely be deleted, and the question would be whether an IP address is enough of an identification.) It also would be nice to have a little more assurance, apart from an anonymous user's own say-so, that the translation wasn't actually taken from elsewhere. Tarmstro99 16:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote for delete for this work. I do not think an IP address is enough to identify that the person who accesses with that IP is the actual translator. Something more solid should be had.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The style of the Wikipedia diff does indicate it being an original translation, but I can understand the reluctance to use it. I hope that it can be replaced with a PD edition. However, one modern translation that I can find is still copyright: G. Vernadsky Medieval Russian Laws, New York, 1947 OCLC:23305136all editions (Renewal: R602477); the other [1] doesnt claim copyright, and is widely reused[2][3], but would need further investigation. John Vandenberg 22:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not only is the translation copyright questionable, this is clearly in violations as it is and editorial excerpt. We cannot allow excerpts for fear of introducing bias into the presentation. If anyone really wants this document I suggest they offer User:Dmitrismirnov a trade in proofreading services for his translation.--BirgitteSB 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New images

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


UkraineToday (talk • contribs) has uploaded a few images today in order to create some userboxes. Im not sure what discussion has been had in the past re userboxen so I wont go near those, but I am keen to see the images removed per our image policy. CSD doesnt appear to have a criteria that handles this, so here they are[4]:

John Vandenberg 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 appears to be an encyclopedic page; the user is also active on the w:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 page so I am not sure why they are posting it here. John Vandenberg 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


These userboxes created by UkraineToday serve no useful purpose. They should be substituted onto their user page and deleted from the template namespace. (See the last discussion and deletion.)

—{admin} Pathoschild 01:37:13, 02 September 2007 (UTC)

template:cite web

The following discussion is closed:

all deleted


These templates were only used on a reference data page created by UkraineToday, which was speedily deleted as violating the inclusion policy. They're not useful on Wikisource, since we don't have any original material that requires web citation.

—{admin} Pathoschild 01:48:36, 02 September 2007 (UTC)

  Done there being no objection after over a month, deleted. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource:Global documents

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Similar to "Historical documents", this is an overly vague page, noted as "This page lists works having a global historical significance hosted on Wikisource." I've moved the majority of works to their proper WS listings (WS:United Nations, WS:Religious texts, WS:Military texts pretty much took care of them all) - so once somebody can recategorise the few remaining texts, it's time to get rid of this abomination. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete when empty, as it seems too vague to be useful even as parent page. FloNight 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
moved the last two works to WIkisource:Letters and Wikisource:Vatican, now empty Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Ali 'Rajneesh'

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Doesn't seem to fit WS:WWI. Might also be a copyright violation. Yann 11:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Environmental activists

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Redundant category, since there is already a "Category:Environmentalists." Wild Wolf 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done This category did not have any members, so nothing to move, and it was deleted, there being no opposition after the better part of a month. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Playwrights

The following discussion is closed:

deleted


Probably redudant, since there is already a "Category:Dramatists and playwrights." Wild Wolf 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer to keep Category:Playwrights since "ease of memory" is important in getting people to add categories to new texts/authorSpaces. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case, do you think that Category:Dramatists and playwrights should be deleted? There seems to me little differance for inclusion in either category, so only one category should be kept. Wild Wolf 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Shorter is better unless it does not sufficiently distinguish. In this case Dramatists and Playwrights is actually a bit confusing... aren't all playwrights already Dramatists? ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. Yup, I agree with deleting one of the two, I'm just with Lar, saying that I am more likely to tag Category:Playwrights onto a new authorspace, than take the time to look up the exact name of the other :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Christopher Marlowe 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done All authors in Category:Dramatists and playwrights moved to Category:Playwrights and Category:Dramatists and playwrights deleted. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

International Rosaceae Whitepaper

The following discussion is closed:

done


This is a contemporary work (apparently dating from 2004) with no copyright license information provided. It has been tagged {{no license}} since April 2007. Tarmstro99 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Looking at the web site, I see a copyright notice so the content is most likely not freely available to copy and eligible for a WS friendly license. FloNight 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done Given the age of the copyvio tag and lack of objection, I deleted it. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007-10&oldid=13996727"