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

This page is for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works. Please add {{delete}} to pages you have nominated for deletion. What Wikisource includes is the policy used to determine whether or not particular works are acceptable on Wikisource. Articles remaining on this page should be deleted if there is no significant opposition after at least a week.

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

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

Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu edit

This specific index is one of many such indexes; I nominate it as an example, but should the rationale be found sound, I will endeavor to make a list of all such indexes.

This index (and many others) were created by now-absent User:Languageseeker. My main concern is that the pages of these indexes have been added via match-and-split from some source, likely Project Gutenberg, which does not have a defined original copy. Because of this absence of real source, and the similarity of the text to the actual text of any given scanned copy, proofreading efforts would likely have to either not check the text against the original source or scrap the existing text entirely to ensure accuracy to the original on Wikisource. In light of this, I think the easiest approach is to delete the indexes and all pages thereunder; if there is organic desire to scan them at some point in the future, the indexes may be re-created, but I do not see a reason to keep the indexes as they stand. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Comment Hmm. I don't see the Index: pages as problematic. But the "Not Proofread" Page: pages that were, as you say, created by Match & Split from a secondary transcription (mostly Gutenberg, but also other sources), I do consider problematic. We don't permit secondary transcriptions added directly to mainspace, so to permit them in Page: makes no sense. And in addition to the problems these create for Proofreading that TE(æ)A,ea. outlines, it is also an issue that many contributors are reluctant to work on Index:es with a lot of extant-but-not-Proofread (i.e. "Red") pages.
    We have around a million (IIRC; it may be half a mill.) of these that were bot-created with essentially raw OCR (the contributor vehemently denies they are "raw OCR", so I assume some fixes were applied, but the quality is very definitely not Proofread). Languageseeker's imports are of much higher quality, but are still problematic. I think we should get rid of both these classes of Page: pages. In fact, I think we should prohibit Not Proofread pages from being transcluded to mainspace (except as a temporary measure, and possibly some other common sense exceptions). --Xover (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Xover: Assuming the status of the works to be equal, I would actually consider Languageseeker’s page creations to be worse, because, while it would look better as transcluded, it reduces the overall quality of the transcription. My main problem with the other user’s not-proofread page creations was that he focused a lot on indexes of very technical works, but provided no proofread baseline on which other editors could continue work—that was my main objection at the time, as it is easier to come on and off of work where there is an established style (for a complicated work) as opposed to starting a project and creating those standards yourself. As to the Page:/Index: issue, I ask for index deletion as well because these indexes were created only as a basis for the faulty text import, and I don’t want that to overlook any future transcription of those works. Again, I have no problem to work (or re-creation), I just think that these indexes (which are clearly abandoned, and were faulty ab origine) should be deleted. As for transclusion of not-proofread pages, I don’t think that the practice is so widespread that a policy needs to implemented (from my experience, at least); the issue is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, or rather an user-by-user basis (as users can have different ways of turning raw OCR into not-proofread text, then following transclusion and finally proofread status). But of course, that (and the other user’s works, the indexes for which I think should probably be deleted) are a discussion for another time. (I will probably have more spare time starting soon, so I might start a discussion about the other user’s works after this discussion concludes.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'm not understanding what fault there is in the Index page. If the Page: pages had not been created, what problem would exist in the Index: page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • EncycloPetey: This isn’t a case where the index page’s existence is inherently bad; but the pages poison the index, in terms of future (potential) proofreading efforts and in terms of abandonment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @TE(æ)A,ea.: Just to be clear, if the outcome here is to delete all the "Not Proofread" Page: pages, would you still consider the Index: pages bad (should be deleted)? So far that seems to be the most controversial part of this discussion, and the part that is a clear departure from established practice. Xover (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Xover: Yes, I think those are also bad. They were created en masse for the purpose of adding this poor match-and-split text, and there is no additional value in keeping around hundreds of unused indexes whose only purpose was to facilitate a project consensus (here) clearly indicates in unwise. The main objection on that ground is that indexes are difficult to make; but that is not really true, and in any case is not a real issue, as a new editor who wishes to edit (but not create an index) can simply ask for one to be created. Another problem with these indexes is that they are not connected with other information (like the Author:-pages) that would help new editors find them. Insofar as they exist like this, the only real connection these indexes have to the project at large is through Languageseeker, who is now no longer editing. I don’t think that every abandoned index is a nuisance, but I do believe that this (substantial) group of mass-created indexes is a problem. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support deleting the individual pages of the index. As for the Index page itself, I am OK with both deleting it as abandoned or keeping it to wait for somebody to start the work anew. I also support getting rid of other similar secondary transcriptions. If a discussion on prohibiting transclusion of not-proofread pages into main NS is started somewhere, I will probably support it too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment I've always felt uncomfortable with the tendency of some users to want to bulk-add a bunch of Index pages which have the pages correctly labelled, but are left indefinitely with no pages proofread in them. I feel like a "transcription project" (as Index pages are labelled in templates) implies an ongoing, or at least somewhat complete, ordeal, and adding index pages without proofreading anything is really just duplicating data from other places into Wikisource. Not to say there's absolutely no value in adding lots of index pages this way, but the value seems minimal. The fact that index pages mostly rely on duplicate data as it is is already an annoying redundancy on the site, and I think most of what happens on Index pages should just be dealt with in Wikidata, so I think the best place to bulk-add data about works is there, not by mass-creating empty Index pages. I know my comment here is kind of unrelated to the specific issue of the discussion (being, indexes with pages matched and splitted or something), but the same user (Languageseeker) has tended to do that as well. I am struggling to come up with any specific arguments or policies to support my position against those empty index pages... but it just seems unnecessary, seems like it will cause problems in the future, and on a positive note I do applaud Languageseeker's massive effort—it shows something great about their character as an editor—but unfortunately I think their effort should have been more focused on areas other than the creation of as many Index pages as possible. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bulk-adding anything is probably a bad idea on Wikisource, because so much of what we do here requires a human touch. That being said, so far as I know the Index: pages Languageseeker created were perfectly fine in themselves, including having correct pagelists etc. This step is often complicated for new contributors, so creating the Index: without Proofreading anything is not without merit. It's pointing at an already set up transcription project onsite vs. just (ext)linking to a scan at IA for some users. The latter is an insurmountable effort for quite a lot of contributors. We also have historically permitted things to sit indefinitely in our non-content namespaces if they are merely incomplete rather than actually wrong in some way.
That's not to say that all these Index: pages are necessarily golden, but imo those that are problematic (if any) should be dealt with individually. Xover (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, also, what we host on Wikidata vs. what's hosted locally in our Index: pages is a huge and complicated discussion (hmu if you want the outline). For the purposes of this discussion it, imo, makes the most sense to just view that as an entirely orthogonal issue. If and when (and how and why and...) we push some or all our Index: page contents somewhere other than our current solution, it'll deal with these Index:es as well as every other. Xover (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment I do not support creating them, but since they exist, I try to make good use of them. I usually proofread offline for convenience and when I add the text I check the diff. If anything differs, it is an extra check for me as I could be the one who made mistakes. So I would keep them.
BTW, nobody forbids to press the OCR button and restart. Mpaa (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that is true, my experience is that the kinds of errors introduced by a mystery text layer is insidious, and most editors are unaware of the issue, or fail to notice small problems such as UK/US spelling differences, changes to punctuation, minor word changed, etc. So, while a person could reset the text, what would alert them to the fact that they should, rather than working from the existing unproofed page?
H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon is a prime example. A well-meaning editor matched-and-split the text into the scan. Two experienced editors crawled through making multiple corrections to validate the work, yet as recently as this past week we have had editors continue to find small mistakes throughout. Experience shows that match-and-split text is actually worse for Wikisource proofreading than the raw OCR because of these persistent text errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my workflow, I start from OCR, then compare what I did with what is available. It is an independent reference which I use for quality check. The probability that I did the same error is low (and the error would be anyhow there). It is almost as if someone is validating my text (or vice-versa). For me it is definitely a help. I follow the same process when validating text. I do not look at what is there and then compare. Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. You do that, and I work similarly. But experience shows that the vast majority of contributors don't do that; they either don't touch the text due to the red pages, or they try to proofread off the extant text and leave behind subtle errors as EncycloPetey outlines. Xover (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could argue forever. I do not know what evidence you have to say that works started from match-and-split are worse than others. I doubt anyone has real numbers to say that. IMHO it all depends on the attitude of contributors. I have seen works reaching a Validated stage and being crappy all the same. If you want to be consistent, you should delete all pages in a NotProofread state and currently not worked on because I doubt a non-experienced user will look where the text is coming from when editing, from a match-and-split or whatever.
Also, then we should shutdown the match-and-split tool or letting only admins to run it, after being 100% sure that the version to split is the same as the version to scan.
I am not advocating it as a process, I am only saying that what is there is there and it could be useful to some. If the community will decide otherwise, fine, I can cope with that. Mpaa (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know what evidence you have to say that works started from match-and-split are worse than others. Anecdotal evidence only, certainly. But EncycloPetey gave a concrete example (H. G. Wells' First Men in the Moon), and both of us are asserting that we have seen this time and again: when the starting point is Match & Split text, the odds are high that the result will contain subtle errors in punctuation, US/UK spelling differences, words changed between editions, and so forth. All the things that do not jump out at you as "misspelled". Your experience may, obviously, differ, and it's certainly a valid point that we can end up with poor quality results for other reasons too.
Your argumentum ad absurdum arguments are also well taken, but nobody's arguing we go hog-wild and delete everything. Languageseeker, specifically, went on an import-spree from Gutenberg (and managed to piss off the Distributed Proofreaders in the process), snarfing in a whole bunch of texts in a short period of time. All of these are secondary transcriptions, and Languageseeker was never going to proofread these themselves (their idea was almost certainly to either transclude them as is, or to run them in the Monthly Challenge).
For these sorts of bulk actions that create an unmanageable workload to handle, I think deletion (return to the status quo ante) is a reasonable option. The same would go for the other user that bulk-imported something like 500k/1 mill. (I've got to go check that number) Page: pages of effectively uncorrected OCR. For anything else I'd be more hesitant, and certainly wouldn't want to take a position in aggregate. Those would be case-by-case stuff, but that really isn't an option for these bulk actions. Xover (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment I am agianst deleting the Index. Indexes are one of the most tedious work to do when starting a transcription. Having index pages prepared and checked against the scan will save a lot of work. Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep the Index, but   Delete the pages. None of the bot-created pages have the header, which is a pain to add after-the-fact unless you can run a bot. The fact that they were created by match-and-split, instead of proofreading the text layer is poor practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are many recently added "new texts" with no headers. Mpaa (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What percent of editors want headers; and what percent do not care? Do you have data? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No, I am only stating is not a good argument for deletion in my opinion, unless it is considered mandatory. Mpaa (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is a good argument if most potential editors want to include the headers, and are put off working on proofreading by the fact that pages were created without the headers in place. There are works I've chosen not to work on for this reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I agree that on its own the lack of headers is not a good argument for deletion. But I read it here to be intended as one additional factor on the scales that added together favour deletion. Which I do think is a valid argument (one can disagree, of course). Xover (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Mpaa: That is the result of the efforts of one user, who has declared headers superfluous. I was going to start another discussion on that topic after this one (only one big discussion at a time for me, please). I think that, for all editors who want headers (most of them), not having them (because of the match-and-split seen here) is bad. Also, in response to your other comments above about proofreading over existing text, I usually do that as well, but I prefer proofreading on my own, without needing to check against a base—that’s why I focus on proofreading, not validation. For that same reason, I avoid all-not-proofread indexes like those at issue here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I was thinking the same about headers, it would be good to have a consistent approach about works, in all their parts/namespaces. Mpaa (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment in the future, if anyone feels blocked for the lack of headers, or wants to add headers, please make a bot request.Mpaa (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment I am proofreading this specific text. This discussion can be as reference for the other indexes, as TE(æ)A,ea. mentioned at the beginning of the discussion. BTW, a list would be useful, so I can fetch before a (possible) deletion. Mpaa (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Picture in the House (unknown) edit

Duplicative of Weird Tales/Volume 3/Issue 1/The Picture in the House, starting discussion to decide whether to remove or migrate the librivox recording. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gah. Tough call.
The two texts are not the same. Both Weird Tales in 1924 and the 1937 reprint use … the antique and repellent wooden building which blinked with bleared windows from between two huge leafless oaks near the foot of a rocky hill, but the unsourced text uses elms. LibriVox for once actually gives a source, and in the case of File:LibriVox - picture in the house lovecraft sz.ogg that source is The Picture in the House (unknown) (modulo a page move after the fact here), and the audio narration does match (uses "elms"). The change to "elms" seems to be a later innovation, possibly applied by an editor as late as 1982 (Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and the Macabre, the earliest use of "elms" there I could find right now), and the likely ultimate source of our text. The texts differ in other ways too, but up to this point the difference could be explained by transcription errors, lack of scan-backing and validation, etc.).
So… I don't think we can move the LibriVox file over to our new text (different edition). And because the nominated text is from an indeterminate edition and we have a scan-backed version of this work, we should   Delete The Picture in the House (unknown) too.
But it's really annoying that when LibriVox for once both gives the source text they have used for their reading and actually links back to us, we have to delete the page. I wish they'd coordinate more with us on issues like this so we could get the maximum benefit out of our respective volunteer efforts. Xover (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess that the LibreVox versions dates to when this was the only version available. Can we put the LibreVox link on The Picture in the House ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, no, I don't think so. We can't start amassing random multimedia versions of texts at the dab pages. Eventually we want spoken-word versions of our texts automatically linked from data on Wikidata, and that requires control over which specific edition the spoken-word version is from. Xover (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Interwiki-info edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as unneeded after all calls to the template had been removed.

This template is used in 700+ pages, but it seems it has stopped doing what it was originally supposed to do. I asked about it at WS:Scriptorium#Template:Interwiki-info without any reaction, so I guess nobody is going to miss it. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some unsourced editions of stories from Grimm's Household Tales edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as redundant and unsourced.

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introductions by Kirsopp Lake without the works they are introductions to edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as redundant extracts.

These introductions are excerpts from translations by Lake; the rest of the work is not here.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference, the original containing work is the Loeb edition of The Apostolic Fathers. 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cabinet Manual edit

Badly formatted copydump. Could be recreated by proofreading from this "scan". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment That scan is posted at, which makes it a digital publication of the UK government. This feels like a potential candidate for the MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(what is the MC?) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice this is marked with a Crown Copyright, which may not be compatible with our licensing. I know Commons would not host the scan, but is it hostable here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is released under the Open Government Licence which is both available here and Commons as {{OGL}}. Is there a particular reason why this work isn't acceptable while the others are? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you looking at the last page of the scan, with the Crown Copyright, or the local license tag that the contributor placed on the work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the last page: "You may re-use this information free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government license". MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supposedly published in Sofia, Bulgaria, in a publication with a Bulgarian title, yet entirely in English. An internet search for the publication turns up nothing, so I do not have access to the claimed source to check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment It looks like a unsourced user-provided translation (several different works by this author were contributed by this IP from a variety of Bulgarian sources). I don't know how we want to apply the grandfathering exceptions for such a translation if so. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete. We may think this is the Wikisource user's translation, but at the same time we cannot with certainty rule out other possibilities like copying somebody else's work, unless the user states it is their own work and adds a proper licence to it. Without such a statement we should treat it as we treat other licence-lacking texts with dubious sourcing. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don’t delete (at least for now) because of the user-translation business. This is, as far as I can tell, a user translation of a few excerpts relating to Delchev. The source definitely exists, however—it is OCLC 831298036. I will try to get ahold of the relevant pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. The work is in Latin, with some maps titled in English, some English end notes mixed with Latin text, and a six page introduction that is mostly ramblings by the author. The majority of work done on Wikisource involved blank pages, problematic pages, and unproofread pages of Latin text, which would not be hosted here anyway. The work belongs at la.WS or mul.WS

"Commentaries on the Gallic War (in Latin)" - as stated, the book is mainly in Latin. The partially transcribed document has been deleted as beyond scope. The Index and the pages that have been created should also go. -- Beardo (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep as per TE(æ)A,ea. It is true the six-page "Introduction" is in English and the main eight-book body (scan pages 19–254) is in Latin, however that is far from 400 pages as the 137-page "Notes" (scan pages 255–392) and the four-page "Index" (scan pages 393–397) appear to also be in English. There is also a sixteen-page set of Claredon Press advertisements (scan pages 399–414) that appear to be in English. So out of 418 scan pages only about 235 of them (substantially less than half) are actually fully in Latin. —Uzume (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Main page moved to better title, and scan Index page set up. While the work is in scope, the copy-paste contents were incomplete, with sidenotes and other components stripped, and the subpages named at odds with convention. As a result, this work will benefit more from a fresh start than from trying to salvage the work previously done.

Incomplete and abandoned. Quite surprisingly, the text survived a deletion discussion in the beginning of 2022, when it was pointed out that non-scanbacked is not a reason for deletion. However, two years later it is still as incomplete and abandoned as before and so I am renominating it to be deleted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Keep We have a backlog of these to work through which means that there will be multiple of these that sit around until someone, eventually, proofs them. Note that the current rate is quite slow (the backlog went from 535 --> 515 in that time). We have other major backlogs to burn down as well, especially IMO more problematic works, I personally would prefer to focus on works that fail criteria such as problematic sourcing / licensing / minimum proofing and formatting first, rather than reopening the incomplete backlog around effort and especially getting into which are "important" to keep and which aren't, where these discussions tend to end up.MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have pointed out that this text is unsourced as well, so it also falls under the criteria suggested above to focus on (i.e. problematic sourcing). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is something wrong with the scan linked from the page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scan is fine, but it is not the source of the added text. The link goes to a scan in, where it was uploaded in 2020, while our text is from 2007. The source from which the anon user took the text remains unknown. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a scan uploaded in 2007. Will that work for you? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added that link because the previous link was to a DLI version on archive that was deleted. If you prefer we can revert back to keep the link to the original deleted version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The previous link to the scan that was deleted from IA was also added later than the text so we cannot be sure if it was the real source and if it really corresponded. BTW, we have already seen here a few scans from the Digital Library of India uploaded to IA which were copyrighted editions falsified to seem older, and I would not wonder if something similar were the reason of deletion of this file from IA too. So returning the previous link would not solve anything, and neither would simple adding of any other link. The work can be considered sourced by a scan only when our text was actually extracted from that scan, or at least thoroughly checked against it. So now I checked at least the first chapter, and what striked me was the difference between the illustration of some Roman coins in the linked scan, and the illustration at the end of our chapter, which shows a clearly different specimen of the first coin (and none of the others). The same can be noticed about the really different image of young Octavius, clearly taken from some different book. So this chapter seems to be a compilation of a different source for the text and different source(s) for the images.
Look also at the chapter Later Life and Family Troubles, containing just one paragraph of the whole long text (and no illustrations). Our text is just a torso of the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete Works that are incomplete and unsourced at the same time are worse for our incoming traffic than just having no page there at all. (And I'd like for it to be located at Augustus (Shuckburgh), but we urgently need that period out of the title in any case because it's not grammatically correct.) SnowyCinema (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:numbered div edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept. With no replacement available, deletion would be premature.

This template is an overly complex mess. It should be deprecated and replaced with something that actually works properly with modern web standards. In the previous discussion it was also criticised for being poor in respect of acessibility approaches. I spent a good 2 hours trying to come up with a list that formatted like this template does, and could generate an appropriate replacement however. I'm fed up with playing "hunt the quirk" around this template, and thus template needs to go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete If we go forward by asking to reproduce complicated behavior and much stricter standards than it is very hard to make progress. The claim is that the current one doesn't work and is not fit for purpose, I don't think we should have "not have any negative effects" as the standard. Templates that do 80% and work are better than templates do not work, absent a specific argument that the functionality is critical. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is not whether we should have one or the other. Btw it is not true that numbered div template does not work: when I needed it, it worked well. Of course we should have the one that does 80% of the work satisfactorily, nobody wants to dismiss it. But for those who are not satisfied with it we can have the other template as well. Otherwise they will try various obscure workarounds to reproduce what they want anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My wording was "works properly with modern web standards." The template itself functions of course. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Keep I too think a deletion proposal is premature until such time as the replacement has been developed and deployed although I agree with the nom that the (dis)organization of the various templates and their usage is overly complex and that a modern replacement should be developed (I never liked the /s/e style templates and would prefer something with parameters for such functionality; I do not have a problem with its <div>...</div> based approach but perhaps it can all be wrapped in a single Lua-based Scribuntu module or the like). I am less concerned with a syntactically compatible replacement than with a viable replacement (I am fine with a complicated port to a better future solution). I first recommend deprecating with a comment on how to move to another solution before bringing it back here for deletion. —Uzume (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excerpt of just parts of the title page (a pseudo-toc) of an issue of the journal of record for the EU. Xover (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 078, 17 March 2014 Xover (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 087I, 15 March 2022 Xover (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 110, 8 April 2022 Xover (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 153, 3 June 2022 Xover (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 066, 2 March 2022 Xover (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also Official Journal of the European Union, L 116, 13 April 2022 Xover (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep This isn't an excerpt; it matches the Contents page of the on-line journal and links to the same items, which have also been transcribed. The format does not match as closely as it might, but it's not an excerpt. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not the contents page of the online journal, it's the download page for the journal that happens to display the first page of the PDF (which is the title page, that also happens to list the contents). See here for the published form of this work. What we're hosting is a poorly-formatted de-coupled excerpt of the title page. It's also—regardless of sourcing—just a loose table of contents. Xover (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand. You're saying that it matches the contents of the journal, yet somehow it also doesn't? Yet, if I click on the individual items in the contents, I get the named items on a subpage. How is this different from what we do everywhere else on Wikisource? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are loose tables of contents extracted from the title pages of issues of a journal. They link horizontally (not to subpages) to extracted texts and function like navboxes, not tables of contents on the top level page of a work. That their formatting is arbitrary wikipedia-like just reinforces this.
    The linked texts should strictly speaking also be migrated to a scan of the actual journal, but since those are actual texts (and not a loose navigation aid) I'm more inclined to let them sit there until someone does the work to move them within the containing work and scan-backing them. Xover (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, do I understand then that the articles should be consolidated as subpages, like a journal? In which case, these pages are necessary to have as the base page. Deleting them would disconnect all the component articles. It sounds more as though you're unhappy with the page formatting, rather than anything else. They are certainly not "excerpts", which was the basis for nominating them for deletion, and with that argument removed, there is no remaining basis for deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Por una Cabeza edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Hybrid page combining sources; unclear whether the translation was published or original, and whether it has been released under a compatible license.

Looks like a Wikisource user's translation which is not in accordance with WS:Translations (not based on a scanbacked original) and with WS:WWI (compilation of two English versions and even a non-English version). Moving it to the translation namespace is also being prevented by the fact we do not know under which licence the translator released the translation. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The creator is still active on Wikidata, so it should be possible to find out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I am pinging @Adam Cuerden: to ask if they are willing to bring the work up to our standards, that means especially scanbacking the original at the Spanish Wikisource and tagging the translation with a proper licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? The uploader was Durova. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, Adam was just editing the page a lot. So pinging @Durova:, too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Durova hasn't edited since 2017, so I think we can safely assume that avenue is closed. Xover (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete. This is an unsortable mess. Xover (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish duelling code edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted as an extract with no separate source. Recreated as a redirect.

Irish duelling code is part of a backlog of files without a copyright status tag, and also with no asserted source. It appears to be drawn from some derivative of The Code of Honor#35. Since the source and copyright status are not clearly asserted, I think it would be best to simply redirect it. I don't see any significant differences, and if there are differences, it would be a bit of a research project at this point to figure out what they are and why they matter.

There are obvious differences, I got mixed up there. Still, not knowing the source, I'm not sure what the value would be of preserving the derivative work, rather than just starting fresh on this relatively short and simple work if/when the source is found, if it is found to have value beyond the original, and if its copyright status permits its inclusion here. Updated 08:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a better venue for this suggestion, please let me know or simply move my comment if so. -Pete (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Delete and recreate as a redirect as per nom (the delete first is necessary to break the Wikidata coupling). The source is claimed to be a 1965 book which makes the copyright iffy, and means we can't actually scan-back this. The Irish code duello itself is from 1777 so there should be plenty of unambiguously public domain sources from which we can take it, if we want more copies than the one already in The Code of Honor#35. --Xover (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians edit

Just a copypaste from . As it has been discussed a few times recently, WS is neither a mirror site of other webs nor their archival site, such as web.archive. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the type of "born digital" work under discussion. But aren't like, say. all supreme court decisions posted in PDF in the same boat at that point to? If we aren't the Kremlin's archive why should we be the POTUS or SCOTUS or Congress's or Her Majesty's Government? Is it only because there isn't a download as PDF link? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of those examples are published in dead tree format, of which the PDFs are a scan (well, often produced from the same master rather than a literal scan). They are also published, by a distinguishable publisher, as a fairly standard book. These we have both tools, policies, and established practices to deal with, and our value proposition is clear. The text in question in this thread is a web page, hosted on a web site. It is dynamic in nature, and its layout changes as the website changes its stylesheet. We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout (in fact we lack several elements from the published version, because the contributor chose to ignore them as irrelevant and instead extracted what they decided was most important). There is no stable (fixed) source against which we can verify our text using our tooling (Proofread Page), except by seriously questionable approaches like producing a faux "scan" by printing the web page to PDF. The only way we can have a stable reference is by archiving the real source on Internet Archive (whose fidelity is often poor specifically due to the dynamic nature of web pages). At which point, what real value do we provide over simply linking the snapshot at Internet Archive?
And there is a giant slippery slope problem here too: if we permit web pages—for which it is impossible to, say, require scans etc.—how do we regulate someone wanting to cut&paste every single press blurb or whatever on Or for a million other such web sites? For example the multiple asian countries where it has become de rigeur for officials to use SEO and sites like ours for boosting their visibility (i.e. pure self-promotion). How about when some controversial figure (none mentioned to avoid stepping into a political quagmire, but there are plenty to choose from in any political, social, or cultural persuasion) figures out that all they need to do is slap a CC tag on their twitter feed and their followers can bot add their every tweet here? Or a blogger... Or a youtuber... or podcaster... or...
We have already had extremist writers that have gotten their thinly-veiled propaganda published in a hyper-local newspaper and then tried to shoehorn that into getting their stuff hosted here. Poets that have found a way to get their stuff uploaded on (and other open sites) and then tried to leverage that to get their poems hosted here. We've had any number of authors trying to leverage self-publishing (i.e. to get free web hosting forever here. We've partly managed to stave off these through our existing policies (previous publication by a reputable publisher, copyright, etc.). But those policies all assume we can rely on traditional book or newspaper or magazine publishers to be our gatekeepers, and on the cost of paper printing and distribution to weed out the chaff. Even with those barriers we still get stuff like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that manage to slip past (and we therefore do host multiple copies of this text). But for classes of texts (or videos, or...), like web pages, where there is no traditional publisher (anyone can be a publisher), and were creation and distribution is effectively free, and in a world where notoriety is easily leveraged into notability, none of these mechanisms work anymore.
We can try to say stuff like "This web page is hosted by a government", but governments are notoriously bad about creating and maintaining web sites, and the previously mentioned mechanisms mean propagandist or merely populist governments will be functionally equivalent to our hypothetical CC-licensed trolling influencer.
This is not an argument pro or con the specific text under discussion in this thread—so apologies for the tangent—but rather more in the nature of explaining why treating the United States Reports as equivalent to a web page on is deeply problematic without figuring out all these issues in some way first. Xover (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty soon the only reason bound printed volumes of any of these works like the Federal Register or the United States Reports or scientific journals will exist is that someone can have a copy somewhere on a shelf in an archive. But that is already tenuous, no one is ordering volumes from and scanning them for upload here. The significance of the print versions is dwindling, I am not even sure the January 6th committee final report had a version you could order from the GPO (for example Harvard lists only the Harper and Celadon), as opposed to the GPO version of the 9/11 Commission report having a large print run. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will also point out that the Russian version of this essay is available in a print version from the Russian State archives: MarkLSteadman, as well as a more minimally formatted version under the "transcripts" portion as opposed to the "news" portion of the website. [[1]]] (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We cannot sensibly reproduce its layout"? We can exactly reproduce an HTML document. Style sheets are basically defined as the stuff that doesn't matter. This is wildly opposed to scanned works, where there is no separation of content and form, and at their most frustrating make cunning use of lines and pages; let's see us do a work that has prose indexed by line numbers on one page, and a translation or running notes on the facing page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Keep - this essay has an entire Wikipedia article several sections long that was written about it, so clearly it has a good amount of historical notability. And I'd consider this kind of notability an exception to most of my principles regarding whether or not a work should be kept.
Beyond that, I think that in general the works of such a prolific political figure like the current Russian president are significant enough to world history to warrant their inclusion. And since there seems to be no reasonable option for a scan, I think this can exist here as a born-digital work. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: Regardless of interpretations of the policies mentioned there, what we have here is a document that is clearly widely referenced in the context of modern global politics. It is (as I understand it from skimming) a summation of Putin's views on Ukrainians and the situation in Ukraine, something that is perhaps key to those trying to understand motivations behind his political actions on this front. The essay also doesn't read like a blog post or a Twitter post or something that was intended to be exclusive to a webpage; it reads like a formal essay written by an aristocrat that probably appeared in writing before being released. (Of course this is no defense for his views on my part, as I am very much against Russia's authoritarian and intrusive war efforts—this just an analysis of the wording and language of the essay.)
And as I consider the purpose of the "no webpages" rule to weed out insignificant user-generated clutter like random blog posts, this certainly does not fall under that paradigm, as evidenced by the existence of the Wikipedia article.
Also consider that that very Wikipedia article had 8,771 page views this month, and our Wikisource entry for it has over 1K views this month. So, you might infer that about 1 in every 10 people (or so) who read the Wikipedia article visited Wikisource afterwards. That is quite an incredible and rare feat for a Wikisource page to have in general since the average page here gets, what, 1 page view a month? Not even kidding about that btw, it's incredibly sad. So deleting this transcription would really, honestly, be extremely detrimental to the Wikisource project, since these kinds of popular materials are exactly the kinds of things we need to get traffic flowing in. And that traffic is really something we lack as a community. So are we going to risk that, just because of an eye-dotting (and even debatable) interpretation of a policy? If policy agrees with you (which I'm not necessarily willing to concede), then the policy itself is harmful and should be overruled. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: I see nothing in that section to support your assertion. And many of our governmental publications are pulled from digital sources now because that's how world governments are publishing them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also just mention that "no value" is subjective once we get to modern texts with built in high quality text layers. For example the ability to link to multiple works from a single author page or the ability for, say, a book by a Ukrainian to link to this, to the ability to link to any documents mentioned. For example if we have a translation of the full mentioned work mentioned in this portion: "The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, “Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“, "In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin...", "In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth..." But any such wiki link requires having the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By subjective, I mean that YMMV, nothing more than that our policies permit such linking which some may find valuable and if you find them a distraction and net negative or de minimus that's a perfectly reasonable stance too
(or as mentioned having WP link to this version versus an copy of the Kremlin version). MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarkLSteadman: This would not be a net negative in any sense of the word. In fact the hard statistical evidence that I provided earlier says the exact opposite—the topic is notable enough to have a lengthy and widely-visited Wikipedia article, and a quite massive fraction of the views from that article are going to us, which we would lose if we deleted this. It's rare enough that we get 1K views a month on anything, let alone for that 1K to be a significant fraction of Wikipedia's total.
Also, as mentioned, the essay has been widely quoted and used in many, many other sources which are themselves notable and on the forefront of public discourse in their own right (like the primary news outlets of entire countries), so this is certainly no random-Tumblr-post-esque situation. Which again I must reiterate, is the purpose of the "no web pages" rule... We just want to make sure people don't come and dump their Twitter feeds here, and that's literally all I'm concerned about with it.
This clearly adds value, in fact objectively, demonstrably so. SnowyCinema (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not in disagreement. My point is that even if, say. Jan personally would never look on WS as opposed to going to Google, or reading this directly on a government website or what not, or finds no / minimal value in any of those other activities I mentioned, others clearly do find it valuable. The hosting such a work provides no value position isn't a unique opinion, from the start of the discussion on born-digital texts recently: "the crux of the issue for me: for born-digital texts, Wikisource and our tools and practices add no or very little value, and almost always require some level of compromise to our standards or approaches." MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which discussion, unfortunately, petered out without really bringing us anywhere. We have got to figure out how to deal with all the different classes of born-digital works because the number of them that are in some way relevant to us is growing extremely rapidly and we can't keep dealing with them case by case, and with everyone participating coming at it from different philosophical directions. This is unsustainable in terms of content curation, and it's a recipe for creating bitterly divisive schisms in the community. I have no idea what, specifically, to do about it or how to move the issue forward, but I think it's important we try to evolve some kind of functioning policy for this. Xover (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree completely, without some statement somewhere to point to it will be subjective (i.e. every contributor's own view on the matter) causing these issues (e.g a strong view of what the various current related existing policy statements mean). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Neutral: If we really had a hard (and enforced) "no webpages" rule I would be inclined to support SnowFire's reasoning for this text as in favour of an exception to the general rule. But since we don't actually have a functioning framework for this I am extremely sceptical of allowing anything that isn't squarely from the dead-trees era, and especially for anything first and only published as a web page. I'd have no hesitation if some more or less reputable publisher collected this and other of the author's essays and published it as a physical book. But for the current situation I don't want to support permitting / keeping anything that will make the problem worse in the long run. Which, being a pretty annoying reason for a delete vote, leads me to drop a useless but hopefully at least less frustrating neutral !vote instead. --Xover (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: These are fair contentions (even though you got me mixed up with SnowFire, hahaha!)—but I do want to note that the crux of my argument is not necessarily related to the fact that this is a born-digital text. It's more that, given the page view statistics and the notability of the topic, I would have been inclined to keep this no matter which dubious or contentious umbrella it may fall under. So, for this particular work (and any other like it), I think it would be a net negative to the project to delete it, since we would lose considerable traffic. I do agree that we need to come to some kind of conclusion with born-digital texts, but I don't claim to have the absolute answer to that.
In that debate, I will stand by that I think (generally) that documents (essays, edicts, and the like) linked directly to federal government agencies or officials should probably fall under the umbrella of what's accepted, no matter the form. Government documents have a clear usefulness, and are very likely to be notable in some right. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad traffic: While I agree that once we decide that some text is worthy to be hosted here for various reasons, we should host it no matter whether it originally served as somebody's successful propaganda, I am opposed to the reverse argumentation, i.e. using the fact that some propaganda attracts a lot of people as an argument for hosting the propaganda, and thus intentionally becoming one of its useful helpers. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think traffic is a useful metric, except as a very secondary data point. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some of the worst dross out there gets lots and lots of clicks by—for that very purpose—being deliberately controversial. Treating clicks as a primary metric means privileging click-bait.
A government agency can be a very good "reputable publishers" (for the purposes of a "previously published by a reputable publisher" assessment), but even otherwise reputable agencies push out a concerning proportion of dross once we're in "web" land, and not all governments (and hence their agencies) are particularly "reputable". We have examples of government agencies being turned into promotional vehicles for senior officials, and there are sadly many current examples of government agencies acting as pure propaganda and disinformation agents. Xover (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mentioned above, the Russian version (with a bunch of documents) was published in a print run by the Russian State Archives: There is a fixed form of the Russian version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. Given Xover’s concerns, with which I generally agree, I think that the lack of a policy in regard to Web-sites means that this should be included provisionally, with a later review (under new policy terms) at some later point. For example, I think a future review of all content originating on Web-sites would not be so onerous as our current review of works without license templates. I also agree with SnowyCinema’s arguments in favor of this work being an exception; certainly, we should do all we can to include the text of an essay so notable as to have a Wikipedia article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep We live in a digital age, where publishing that would be done in print is done electronically. We need to roll with it. It also seem weird to pick on this one; we have Joe Biden's Third State of the Union Address sourced digitally, for example. What's the difference here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As far as I understand it, since it exists in the CR version [2] which in principle I can buy in a print version [3] it is now "fixed" and no longer a web page. Separately, for speeches, such as this Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the US Congress sourced to [4] could be considered "fixed" and immutable as delivered, someone could compare against the recorded version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will also point out that it is included in the ICC docket tracker in a persistent form as well. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation:The Kingdom of God Is Within You edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Redundant, since it was a slightly reworded copy of C. Garnett's translation, and not a new translation.

First, it is not a Wikisource translation, but slightly reworded translation by Constance Garnett, which we already have in its original form. This can be verified by simple comparison of both texts, and can be also understood from the note in the header. While we accept Wikisource user's original translations, especially when lacking any other available, I do not think it is the task of Wikisource to try to "improve" translations by other authors (not speaking about the fact that the "improvements" can be dubious).
Secondly, the translation was not done in accordance with WS:Translations, as there is no transcription of the work present in Russian WS. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken (unsourced) edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Unsourced edition redundant to our scan-backed copies.

Unsourced edition of a hymn, which we have a sourced version at Collection of Sacred Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee Are SpokenBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting also that although this page links to as its source, it is not the same edition as the one on —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aladdin;Or The Wonderful Lamp (Sir Richard Burton) edit

What brought this to my attention was exactly how bad the title is, and I was just going to move it, but then I saw the horrendous formatting as well. We have several scan-backed versions of Aladdin, so we certainly don't need this unsourced version cluttering up the search results for "Aladdin". SnowyCinema (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is also an extract from the 3rd supplemental / 13 volume [5]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though that uses the spelling Alaeddin, and has different paragraph breaks etc.. -- Beardo (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is the problem with unsourced texts. Is this e.g. [6] or some other reediting? We have no clue which edition of The Arabian Nights this is from (is that supposed to the name as opposed to Selections from ...?). If it is some reediting, does that make it misleading to call it "Richard Burton"?   Delete and start afresh. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly -   Delete as per Mark. -- Beardo (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:Wikidata and Module:Wikibase edit

Old, deprecated, and very obsolete Wikidata access modules, now finally completely replaced by Module:WikidataIB. Xover (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nom. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete per nom, although there is also Module:Wd as a replacement too (since Module:WikidataIB is more focused on InfoBoxes). —Uzume (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-abandoned incomplete work. Also, it is tagged as {{Legislation-CAGov}}, but it is not a legal enactment or court decision so this license does not apply, so it is probably copyvio as well. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete The source document claims Crown Copyright so not acceptable for hosting until 2058. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letter from Pabi to Akhnaton edit

This translation is an extract from Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (1912). We have some recent precedent for deleting extracted translations of quoted works. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tide Haes Its Mantle Awa'-pit edit

This appears to be a translation of Le temps a laissié son manteau into Scots. It has no source and no translator information. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Śivapurāna edit

Abandoned partial translation without a source. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source is "[7]" copyright Delhi 1970 [8] so URAA restored since Shastri died in 1985 [9].   Delete. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a Single Word edit

No source and no license. In particular, I can find nothing about the translator "M. S. Morozov". The only other versions of this text I could find [10] [11] [12] are ultimately copied from ours, rather than the other way around. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to be similar to the Maude translation from 1927 in Russian Tales. "I was drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer a newspaper was as usual handed to me as a special mark of respect. (Maude)" vs. "I happened to be drinking tea this winter in a cook-shop where I am known. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and being a regular customer, a newspaper was as usual handed to me, as a special mark of respect (M. S. Morozov)." MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There appears to be a 1908 version of the Maude translation published in the October issue of the Grand Magazine (named Grand Magazine of Fiction at the time) under the "For a Single Word." I wonder if that is the source? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Speedied. Uploader noted that the scan had missing pages and poor scan quality.

I added this in the hope of transcribing a few poems I liked, but on review the source file is so poor, with missing pages and incomplete scans, that it would not be useful to work from. I'll look for another edition-- apologies for wasting peoples' time. FPTI (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undelete Index:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu edit

Only one user (besides deleting administrator) supported deletion, and those comments were without justification and/or not true. There is a substantial amount of English text in this work, which makes it clearly in scope. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Oppose In the 13 years this Index was up, the six pages of English introduction were never proofread. The pages that were created included: missing images pages in Latin with English titles; blank pages; and unproofread pages in Latin. Yes, there is substantial English, but only mixed with Latin in the endnotes. It is correct to say that only one person opposed the deletion prior to the deletion occurring. If the Index were proofread first at la.WS or the multi-language WS, we could host the six English pages here, but as a primarily Latin text, it is not in scope for en.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering the endnotes are about interpreting the latin text it really does feel like this is a good fit for multi-language WS. I could see a potential discussion if the endnotes were themselves meaningful independent texts but I don't understand how a 100 pages of "[Latin] See X. xx." can exist without the text. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

: Undelete. My interpretation of what makes a text "an English text" or "not an English text" is intended audience. Clearly this book was intended to be read by English speakers, given that the front matter, introduction, etc., were in English. Yes, the bulk of the text is in Latin, but the reason it's in Latin is for English speakers to study it in its (presumably) original form, not because the text needed to be conveyed in Latin for a strictly Latin-speaking audience.

Think of it like this: This version of the work is not strictly "a Latin version of Commentaries" but a book for English readers containing a Latin version of Commentaries to interpret. The point isn't to read the Latin natively (like an ancient Roman text would be), but to read it secondarily to one's academic knowledge of the language. So the crux of the work, while only taking up a small amount of the text, is in the English language, making me believe that this should be hosted at English Wikisource, since this is part of the English-speaking world's compendium of literature. No, I don't think Multilingual or Latin Wikisources are appropriate for this, and including the Introduction alone here (since the Introduction is not a work, but a piece of a work, and not even the only part of it in English), defies our rules on including excerpts. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From WWSI: "The English Wikisource only collects texts written in the English language." I would consider a Latin text aimed at English speakers as not written in the English language (e.g. the untranslated Principia). Re the crux issue, my view is the exact opposite, without the Latin text the introduction / notes have little value, but an edited Latin text could stand on its own. Re excerpts, that is what will happen once we blank out the Latin, that (and the title page) will be all that remain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, no, it's sort of like if you had a plate in a book, and the plate was a picture of a sign in French. But the caption was in English. So what language was the page in? English, not French, and the same logic applies to this book we're discussing... The book contains Latin to study (or whatnot), but the context of it was framed in English, so the book is descriptively an English work. And as I said below, splitting up content by language across interwikis gets complicated fast. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To take the plates example a bit further. Let's say I have a 300 plate facsimile edition of a manuscript edition of this. I would expect that we agree that none of the following would make it a work for here as a preferred relative to Latin WS:
1. There is a title page that says something like "Volume 525 in the British Museum Manuscript Series", a dedication / acknowledgement or each page is captioned as "Page 25, Book 4" instead of "Page Liber 4"
2. Notes are added comparing against other manuscript editions and these say things like "foo in the Parker Library manuscript", again instead of having "in the Parker Library manuscript be English rather than Latin
3. Notes of a highly technical nature such as a discussion of the current thinking of the identification of a particular site, or military specifics.
The experience of a Chinese historian might be different. A classicist would engage archaeologists in English, write in English journals etc., the Chinese historian next door might be presenting a paper written in Chinese based on a similar facsimile from a Chinese publisher in a conference in China. I would expect that we wouldn't consider those differences really significant.
A long series of English essays on topics to accompany the text on the other hand would make sense as a standalone work. To what extent glosses become independent works in themselves is of course up for discussion. I can see an argument, we do have works like An Ainu–English–Japanese Dictionary which are similar to a work like [13] which is similar to the glosses in the endnotes here, but I would hope we agree that [14] or [15] are not English texts per WWSI. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That opens us to a whole lot of foreign-language texts. Pretty much every major enough work has an edition with English notes and vocabulary for pedagogical use. I've worried about how they fall through the cracks at Wikisource, but I'm not sure supporting huge chunks of Latin/German/Spanish/French/Russian text here is a good idea either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly right. If there's an edition (that's a key word) of a foreign-language work with English footnotes or commentary, this is at its core part of the English-language lexicon. So I see absolutely zero issues with including lots of these, since they're just individual editions out of probably hundreds across the globe that exist, and it doesn't corrupt anything at English Wikisource really to include them here. What does corrupt something is for us to automatically exclude certain bits of the English compendium of knowledge from our site. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm curious how you came to your conclusion. The first 200 pages of the book are the text in Latin, followed by 150 pages of notes that are keyed to the text by page number. We don't host non-English texts, so we would not host the 200 pages of Caesar's text. Exactly what use are the 150 pages of notes that depend upon knowing the page numbers specific to a work we don't have? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Text is quite a vague word that can mean different things to different people. So it's unfortunate that we have a policy that doesn't elaborate on a specific definition of a word like text. For example, a poem in a larger poetry collection could be considered a "text" in some contexts. I would certainly consider that poem a work (or properly, a version of a work).
And as it turns out, if you want to use the loose definition of text that I suggested—and I'm assuming that's the one you all are using—we host quite a large number of poems in other languages than English. Why? Because these poems appear in printed works that are at the core English texts: in other words, even the one poem out of 120, that happened to be in French for some narrative or thematic reason, was broadly intended for English speakers to read. And I'm sure that most of you here would at least agree that it would be ludicrous to selectively pick and choose which bits of a poetry collection we want to include based on what language they happen to be written in.
So, I don't like the reverence to a word like "text" as if it's the be and end all, because it can't be. It doesn't capture the necessary nuance here. Let's use the word "scan" instead. That's more appropriate, yes, because that's what was brought up for an undeletion discussion, not the body of the work... And in the context of the broader scan, the intention is clearly for English speakers to read it. It was never for people in Ancient Rome because they were dead long before.
And a big part of the reason I'm making these arguments, by the way, is because of the structural importance of doing the simple thing, having this at enWS instead of making it into a discombobulated mess of interwoven interwikis. Like I said, being picky about which language is in which part of what scans is going to lead us into a kind of hellscape in terms of technical maintenance. Say you wanted to include the Introduction at enWS, but nothing else. How would you do that? How would you ensure no one proofreads the rest of it against your will? Would you use soft redirects to lead people to Latin Wikisource for the rest? Would you do the same at Latin Wikisource, to go back to the Introduction from the body? What if laWS already has 15 other versions of the same work? How would you make sure this one fits their version structure? What if laWS doesn't want this version, because they have some specific rule against some facet of your project? What if Latin Wikisource accepts your project, but doesn't want to let you soft redirect back to enWS, or doesn't have the technology/community consensus/whatever to do so? What if laWS wants the whole entire scan to be transcribed there just like we do, including the English introduction? So now, we have two places where the same transcription exists. Not good for my favorite rule to point to, the DRY rule.
Just one example of how this can get complex... I was gonna write a paragraph for both laWS and mulWS being exclusive keepers of this text, but I'm tired. Just let the platitude that it will also have major problems suffice for the penny I'm giving.
Maybe you'll shrug this off as a mere opinion on my part, that is absolutely nothing compared to the infallible word of Wikisource policy. But I do believe that texts should not be considered based solely on quantity of a certain language, but intent of using a certain language. Our policies are badly written in the first place, probably in need of decades of further reform, and shouldn't ever be someone's blindfold. (And, as far as I understand wiki culture, policies don't matter anyway if the community votes against them in a particular deletion discussion. So my vote, which is hypothetically more powerful than any policy, is still there.) SnowyCinema (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opinions and policy are not two different things; they are two forms of the same thing. Policy happens because many people held the same opinion and reached consensus on an issue. So to dismiss policy with a wave of personal opinion is to dismiss the collective opinions of many people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not necessarily even dismissing the policy outright. It certainly has merit: we've made it clear we don't want to keep "all works in all languages" (maybe so we don't have to be one letter off from Wiktionary's slogan). But the people who wrote the policy clearly made no consideration about a specific definition of "text", that could apply across the board. Either that, or "text" to the writers specifically meant "scan" or "entire piece of printed matter" (which I think is more useful to consider, and is also a valid definition of "text").
In other words, even with their intent in mind, I could be correct. On that note, this policy was written in the mid-2000s, so I wouldn't even call it "modern consensus", but just the opinions of people in the context of that time 95% of whom are probably long inactive now, so our views on their opinions are really only speculative in nature. But one thing we do know is how they worded it, and they clearly didn't word it with a whole lot of nuance. Literally only one sentence addresses this issue, and it defines what's not allowed with a word that could mean 5 different things to 10 different people. So I'd argue, the policy can't apply to this discussion, since people (not even just me) disagree widely on how to deal with a scan like this. So clearly, the rule can't address these nuances. (And by the way, this is the case with most of WS:WWI. I think lots of detail should be used there, or at least subpages of the policies should be made to address specific nuances. So, reform is needed badly.)
Even if I were to grant that my specific conclusion (that language of context should be considered and not which language is most prevalent) is wrong, it doesn't take away from the fact that a word like "text" is too vague for something like a sitewide policy. If the community is going to cite policy as an absolute arbiter of truth and authority, policy needs to be some of the most well-written and specific and all-encompassing content on the entire site. But it isn't, so I think it's fair to say it doesn't deserve that level of deference. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am inclined to agree that a work consisting of quite extensive comments in English on a non-English text which includes this non-English text that is being commented could be in our scope, mainly per argument by SnowyCinema above that it was intended for English speaking audience who want to study the Latin text. However, I am not voting to undelete the work, which had been abandoned long time before it was deleted, unless there is somebody who wishes to proofread it. BTW, maybe we should have a specific point about similar cases in our inclusion policy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have three concerns around the idea of hosting non-English texts with with English glosses / notes.
1. The maintenance burden is increased. This extends from the difficulty of finding additional contributors (e.g. if someone proofreads 120 out of 300 pages of Thai and stops, what do we do?) to verifying copyright and fidelity concerns (are these 300 pages of Arabic what they claim to be? What is the copyright status if it is a modern scan? etc.)
2. Data model concerns. Per practice, we should turn Commentaries on the Gallic War into a {{translations}} page when this is proofread to link to the two different editions. But this isn't a translation. We could make De Bello Gallico a {{versions}} page and link The Commentaries of C. Julius Caesar from that but that breaks our wikidata model of single works with multiple editions, etc.
3. If we do start having large extracts of non-English text, we will eventually start to attract non-English speaking contributors. While that might produce collaborative work, it also brings along its own set of challenges. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad 1: Similarly as I did not agree with undeletion of this abandoned work, I think that we should be strict about completion of all such works, and abandoned works of this type should be deleted after some reasonable time, which can be discussed (e. g. 1 year after the work stopped?).
Ad 2: In fact such a problem may arrise now as well. I can imagine that some English language work we already have includes e. g. some short poem, a letter etc. in a foreign language. Should the poem be added to the translation or version page? There is one specific example, here: Index:A grammar of the Bohemian or Cech language.djvu (currently also abandoned, but on my long list of works I hope to proofread one day). I think that such a kind of work does belong here. At the end of the book there are some works by Czech authors as "Reading lessons" in Czech, see e. g. Page:A grammar of the Bohemian or Cech language.djvu/162. I believe that such a reading lesson should not be omitted from the book, but at the same time it should not be added to any version or translation page.
Ad 3: It is quite possible, but at the same time it may also start attracting foreign contributors who speak English, and I may be considered to be an example of that :-) – after few coincidental attempts between 2011 and 2015 I started seriously contributing in 2016, after my attention was drawn to the above mentioned Grammar of the Bohemian language (although I soon moved to some different publications, as that one was too challenging because of complicated formatting). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: Your response to point #2 suggests you did not understand the concern. This issue is that, if we host a Latin edition of Caesar's Commentaries then we run into the conundrum of having to possess both a Translations page and a Versions page for certain works. Neither the set-up here nor at Wikidata can currently support this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did understand. And I wrote that we can run into the very same problem if we host an English work that includes just a short poem in a foreign language. And I suggested not to list non-English works either in translation page or a version page. That would eliminate the need to have both in such cases. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we have to list the main page title somewhere. For a work as an appendix and therefore as a subpage we don't necessarily need to build out the link but Commentaries of Caesar will point to what when we have both an English (e.g. [16] and [17]) and a Latin version under that title? Which gets back to the main text distinction (we wouldn't have this issue if it was entitled A Gallic Wars Lexicon. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Latin version of the Commentaries will be only a part of Observations upon Caesars Commentaries. It should not be linked to from anywhere, only the whole work called Observations... should be linked from appropriate places, like from the author page of Clement Edmonds. Commentaries of Caesar can either be the translation page containing a list of English translations, or should be a redirect to such a translation page. In this way we can avoid the problem. Or somebody may later come with some other possible solution(s). Let's not forget that it is just a technical problem and thus it is a problem inferior to building up our content. Adding content useful to English language audience should be our main goal and technical means should be adapted to this goal, not vice versa. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that it's not strictly a technical issue; it's a procedural one. An it's a problem that will be created for every instance we have of hosting a non-English text. Without a plan to deal with this issue, will we just leave it unsolved? The solution cannot be to say that we just won't link it from anywhere. This also goes against SnowyCinema's principle of DRY, since we would be duplicating non-English texts present at other WS projects and potentially duplicating them here as well. Why have just this author's footnotes on Caesar's Commentaries? Why not host all the editions of Caesar's Commentaries that have English footnotes or endnotes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, playing with words aside, I think what I have written about technical problems applies to procedures too: they serve our goal (hosting proofread texts useful to English readers), we should not adapt our goal to fit the procedures.
Not linking from version/translation pages (containing links to English language works) to non-English text which are incorporated inside an English language publication, and linking only to this English language publication from other proper places, is imo a possible solution. If it is not a good solution for some reason, some other has to be found anyway, no matter whether we accept works like these Commentaries. How should linking e.g. to a fully quoted foreign language poem in an English language publication be solved? I suggest not linking to it.
We can host all editions of Caeasar's Commentaries that have extensive English comments to the original text if somebody were willing to proofread them here. What is extensive and what not can be decided case by case, as no massive adding of such works is likely to happen anytime soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a straw man to compare a critical edition of the Commentaries of Caesar to a poem quoted inside another work. The latter is a work appearing inside another completely different work, but the topic at hand is an edition of Caesar's Commentaries with notes added. The two situations are not equivalent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say that the situation is the same, I said that the technical (procedural) problem is the same, because it is the procedure that was above used as an argument. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that is a straw man argument, as I said. The problem is not the same because of the reasons I stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The procedure is absolutely the same, so if you see any other problem, it is not procedural. I really do suggest focusing more on understanding the core of the message before you call somebody's arguments a "straw man". Reading (and thinking) twice may help to avoid some misunderstandings. Now I am going to stop beating the dead horse unless somebody comes with something worthy to think about. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Please read what I wrote initially, because I do not think you've understood, or are instead dodging the issue. The solution will never be to ignore the issue or to prop up some other argument to be battled instead of the actual issue. If we do host this work, we can't connect it at Wikidata, and we have no means for listing it here, so how will anyone find it? It's not the same as a short foreign language work appearing inside another work because we've never included those procedurally in any listing. Not when a quotation appears at the start of a book chapter, not when a biography quotes a letter or poetry, and not when a literary survey of an author's body of works includes numerous quotations either. This is fundamentally different: it's a work not in English, with bits added, and we have no means in place here or at Wikidata to deal with that, in part because no Wikisource has ever done this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the other points:
1. We can be stricter and enforce additional criteria, but that will need to be reflected in the policy language. And of course if we had a larger community, including more bilingual admins, they could help maintain such works. My point is that maintaining a large collection of works like this [18] is an increased burden relative to the same work in English, and that if concerns are raised (in this case we know it is safe, but e.g. someone uploads a 1980s collection of classical Persian poetry, and claims it is pubic domain it will be hard for me to search.
2. I will note that there is currently no sourced version of the work on la.wikisource. If people are interested proofreading latin shouldn't we concentrate on getting a complete version there? MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: My example was a poem that is happenstance in another language, for some reason or another, included in a larger poetry collection of English poems. So I guess our infrastructure "doesn't support this" too you're saying (since poems themselves are works even if included in collections), yet we've been doing this for decades anyway with no contest. I've even seen entire Versions pages that only link to foreign-language poems hosted on English Wikisource, because they were included in collections multiple times. Well, anyway, if the poem in the poetry collection is in French, or in this case if the Caesar's Commentaries is given an introduction in English, in both cases the context is set in English which I've said multiple times, but that point was never addressed anywhere. The Latin body of the text is not holistically and wholesale what the work is as you seem to be suggesting... The body of the work is part of the work. Only part. I don't think of it as a Latin text with English commentary, but as an English work that has a Latin text in it. Sort of like a page in a novel that contains a photograph of a sign in French, but a caption in English. So the page is not a page in French, but a page in English using the French as a display for study by English speakers. Even though the photographed French sign might contain three paragraphs of French words, whereas the English caption is only one sentence long, the page is in English, just like this English work with a Latin text in it for the exact same kind of study. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please include examples of what you're saying you've seen, because I have only non-examples (quotes and poetry that were not indexed). But the example of a work inside a collection is still not directly analogous to this case. And I understand that you think of it differently, but this is far more like a critical edition of a Shakespeare play than a collection of literature. For a critical edition of any work, it is still an edition of that work, and not something else. All our annotated Shakespeare plays are listed as copies of his plays, because that's what they are. I cannot interpret a Latin-language work with English notes added as a fundamentally English-language work that happens to have Latin text in it. The Latin text is the core of what was published, and everything else in the publication is subservient to the Latin text. That's not an English work with Latin in it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And let me pose a very practical question: Who gets credit as the Author for this work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example: Posthumous Poems/Chanson de Février. Should this be deleted too, or relegated to another project? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that such an instance as that is a non-example. It's not indexed here or on Wikidata because it's not the work; it's included inside another collective work that is indexed. We have countless such poems even in English that have not been indexed anywhere at all. With the item currently under discussion, we lack the means entirely for housing the edition both here and at Wikidata because it's a work in Latin written by Caesar with critical commentary added to it. That's how any major library would index it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing vote to   Abstain—I'm not sure anymore, but EncycloPetey makes an intuitively good point in his rhetorical question about who would be credited as the author, and such like that. I can see there are both pros and cons to including this at English Wikisource, and I've gone into many of the pros. But, this is one of the only examples of a "kind-of-bilingual" gray-area work of this nature that I've even seen on the project, and the fact that it only has an introduction in English of 6 pages' length isn't doing it any favors. If it had much more substantive amounts of English content, I'd probably be more sympathetic.
I will say that I worry about the precedent this work may set for future discussion on far less gray-area bilingual material than this. I still maintain that WS:WWI should be immensely improved and made much more specific so that we're not left up to so much interpretation, and that a single sentence describing "texts" is not sufficient. We should probably investigate many different examples of foreign works with English text in them, to come to some more nuanced and universal conclusion.
I do disagree with EP's idea that poems in collections, i.e. "subworks", should lack indexing on Wikidata "because it's not the work"—see my efforts on any collections I've done like Illinois Verse, The High School Boy and His Problems, or The Way of the Wild, where I have gone above and beyond to connect all subworks to Wikidata and list each one at author and disambiguation pages, since I think they should be treated the same as any other work (and this is not inconsistent with past practices at Wikidata and Wikisource). So I think that the lack of indexing of Posthumous Poems is not a matter of "they shouldn't be indexed", but more that "they should ideally be indexed but aren't because it's hard and no one wants to take the time to do it". But this isn't that relevant to my overall change of perspective on Commentaries. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I am not arguing that "subworks" should lack indexing as a general principle. I was noting that (a) we historically have done a very poor job of indexing them, and that (b) some such works should not be indexed because of what they are and how they are included. If, for example, a novel places a poem at the start of a chapter, or (as noted above) a photograph of a sign in French appears in a book, such "subworks" are not indexed, as per standard library practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also much more comfortable being less strict with the metadata around subworks / appenda / etc.: they can rely on the stricter metadata "box" of the main work (putting aside the difference between subwork like an appendix as opposed to breaking up a chapter to wikidata a poem contained in it). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolutionary Catechism edit

Incomplete text copied from an incomplete digital version with no source (see its Talk page). Both our copy and the "original" are missing the start of the document, as evidence by the start of the list at item number II. Both copies are also a translation with no credited translator, and therefore of uncertain copyright status. The scan from IA that was linked from our page as a possible "source" is also missing item number I., and that scan also has no information about where it came from, no information about the publisher, and no credited translator. It looks like a recent digital creation using a word processor, and not a scan of an 1866 publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nom —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked at the sourcing and agree with the suspected CV.   Delete The standard source is Sam Dolgoff, copyright 1971. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Middle-Class Gentleman edit

If you look at the source on Gutenberg, you will see that "Philip Dwight Jones" is listed as both the translator and the ebook producer. I therefore believe that this is a rare instance of a work originally published by Project Gutenberg. Is such a work in scope, or is it doubly out of scope as self-published and second-hand? —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a translation of a public domain work. If it's public domain--which it claims to be--I would keep this along the lines of a Wikisource translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Keep I don't see that counts as self-published, and we accept to keep second-hand works from that time, don't we, until we have a better replacement ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many public domain translations of this work: from 1672 [19] to modern [20] [21] [22] [23] MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of copyright: This would be a rare case of an original Project Gutenberg transcription, and despite the work being from 2001 and being impossible to fall into the PD naturally, if I'm correctly reading the very complex legal notice at the bottom of every Gutenberg transcription, the terms comply with wiki standards on licensing, allowing free distribution, derivatives, etc. So it seems freely licensed.
However: Although this is a web transcription from a reputable source like Gutenberg, the transcription itself has no particular notoriety (even though the source work does). Most damningly, I believe Gutenberg works are constantly subject to further updates, which would not be in line with our purposes. The text is from 2001, and was last updated on February 7, 2013, giving it 12 years of potential strings of updates. I.e., it may be impossible to ascertain what the most pure version of this transcription is, so we probably shouldn't include it. So,   Delete. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interlinear Greek Translation:Bible edit

While I understand that there is value to interlinear texts, we generally only host one user translation of a given work, and we already have Translation:Bible. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bobdole2021: I believe this is a project you are involved in —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment It depends on the source text, in this case, I would think. Translation:Bible is presumably using the Masoretic text (in Hebrew) for the Old Testament, which is different from the source text for Interlinear Greek Translation:Bible, which is from the Greek Septuagint. This is one reason we want our user-created translations to clearly identify what they are translating, so that we can determine what is happening in cases like this. If one is translating the Masoretic, and another the Septuagint, and another the Latin Vulgate, then that feels like legitimate separate translations. But without having a clearly identified starting point for the translation, we cannot determine that. And even for "the Septuagint", whose edition of the Septuagint is being used? There are whole volumes listing the differences between the various Greek copies of the Septuagint. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Translation:Bible is a bit unique, in that every book has (or should have) its own source. So Hebrew works like Translation:Genesis would be translated from Hebrew, while Greek works like Translation:Esther (Greek) would be translated from Greek, Translation:1 Meqabyan from Ge'ez, etc. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There would be a good argument to be made, that Translation:Bible should actually be in Portal space, since it is a list of separate works rather than a cohesive work itself. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but also no. The Masoretic text is a cohesive collection, and there are published editions that can be used as a basis for translation. The Vulgate is a cohesive collection, and it has published editions too. But the Dead Sea Scrolls are not; they are a collection by virtue of being discovered in the same location together. And even if you consider Genesis a "book" in its own right, there is still no single source text. There is the Masoretic edition in Hebrew, and the Septuagint editions in Greek, and the Vulgate edition of Jerome in Latin. There is not even an editio princeps as often happens with classical texts. Considering Genesis (and the other "books" of the Bible) to be works in their own right does nothing to help the fundamental issues here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately, Translation:Bible is nowhere near as sensible as all that :p
    I wonder if we could approach this by splitting Translation:Bible into component sources?
    • Hebrew OT books based on the Masoretic text, which is what I assume heWS has (he:ביבליה, not scan-backed)
    • Greek OT books based on the Septuagint, which is what I assume elWS has (el:Η Αγία Γραφή, also not scan-backed)
    • Greek NT books based on this scan at elWS
    • The others I'll need to research further but you get the gist.
    We already have separate translations for Esther (Hebrew and Greek) and Psalms (Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac) so we can just extend this to the rest of the works I guess.
    My main concern is the idea of having a separate "regular" translation and "interlinear" translation of the same work; otherwise, I'm open to whatever needs to be done to clean this mess up —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps we consider an interlinear translation to be something like the Translation equivalent of an Annotated text, requiring a "clean" copy to exist first? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphabetical lists of works edit

There are three hopelessly incomplete pages with alphabetical lists of works:

Although the three pages were created as early as 1915 2013, there are still just these three, other letters do not have such lists. They are not categorized. They are not linked from anywhere except from each other and from some discussion pages. People do not add there new works, they are just a maintenance burden (continuous link-fixing, removing deleted works etc.). They were suggested to be deleted in 1917 2017 but after practically nobody participated in the discussion, they were kept with a note that they should be bot-maintained in future, which has still not happened (in seven years from that time).

Because in their current form they are only a useless burden, I suggest their deleting. If somebody decides to make a bot-maintained version in the future, they can be founded anew anytime. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete per nomination. Looks like they were created in 2013, not 1915 :D -Pete (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete - extremely difficult to maintain even if we did respect the listing project a bit more. If we have a listing like this, it should be provided by the backend and not any kind of frontend technology like a bot. Maybe there are Special pages that do something similar?
A similar issue: It also makes me wonder about the whole author initial situation at pages like Wikisource:Authors-B etc. While these do appear to be maintained better than what's currently under discussion, the author initial pages still suffer from the same problem—an impossible-to-maintain project for little actual benefit, especially since it wastes the time of editors trying to maintain it. There are probably millions of theoretical authors that would fit our requirements and could be put there, so then we have to start considering subpages of these, then subpages of subpages, and whatnot. So far, entries seem to have only been added by individual editors, which I see as a huge red flag for something as vast as this. It should at least be bot-maintained, but I maintain (if you will) that even if that were happening it would still be a fundamentally unsustainable situation, since any user owning a bot could leave suddenly and decide no longer to maintain it.
(I do understand that sorting authors by surname has its difficulties that we haven't necessarily figured out yet, and that our author headers have been relying on the initials system for over a decade, but it's a practice we should probably figure out how to change in the long term.) SnowyCinema (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Passionate Pilgrim (Project Gutenberg edition) edit

Second-hand transcription for which we have a scan-backed version at A Passionate Pilgrim and Other Tales (Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1875)/A Passionate Pilgrim (horrible page name aside). We also have multiple transcription projects set up on the (also somewhat excessively detailed) versions page, so we're not hurting for options here. Xover (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One volume of eight-volume set, already proofread here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep These are two different editions of the same work, as evidenced by Page:Japan, its history, arts, and literature (1901 V3).pdf/15 and Page:Brinkley - Japan - Volume 3.djvu/19. Any attempt to reconcile one as a facsimile of the other should be done with page-namespace redirects (process pending). SnowyCinema (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: In practical terms, you might be right, especially granting your assumption that the other volumes in this "edition" were never published and are not connected.
But, this discussion is going to be considered in my broader brainstorming on how to include facsimile content on the site. I suspect the entire eight-volume set was reproduced (in all volumes) for whatever newer edition this was, but maybe I'm wrong. Specifically replicating multi-volume facsimiles (esp. MVFs where some volumes are missing from the set) may be more difficult than with works that were only facsimiled in one volume (such as Thunder on the Left with the original 1925 novel and its 1926 and 1936 facsimiles).
So, I don't think deleting this index, until we have a more robust system for dealing with these sorts of editions, will necessarily be harmful. My "keep" vote is more a theoretical "keep", since I do think it has value in the long-term, but only on the condition that my desires with it are met, which I don't know how to do for the time being.
(This reminds me a lot of Index:Stella Dallas (c. 1925).pdf, an exact facsimile of the original novel except with many stills added from the film adaptation. My plan with this would be to redirect the pages that are facsimiled, but to proofread the images and most of the front matter. A work like this is useful since film stills like these are valuable to the broader research area of film history.) SnowyCinema (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A system for facsimiles is underway: Category:Facsimiles. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment This index has had no proofreading completed. I would say keep it only if someone actually intends to complete this volume. But if neither the person who created the Index page nor the person who set up the contents has any desire to do any work, then this Index is useful and would be better deleted. I say this because we have had new contributors stumble into incomplete Index pages, enthusiastically work through many pages, but end up crestfallen when they discover it's a close (or exact) duplicate of another scan. Since this does have another completed scan in existence, I would rather not leave this around for someone else to fall into that trap. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • EncycloPetey: This is the reason why I nominated Index:The trail of the golden horn.djvu (as a batch) earlier (of which this was one index created by that user): the indexes are not connected to a portal or author that could help new users find them, so they are completely useless in that respect, and they have a large maintenance burden if people use the pages (copied directly from Project Gutenberg) as the basis of proofreading. (Incidentally, I have finished making the list of indexes; it is here.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But that work is neither a duplicate nor likely to be. Nor has this Index been filled with bot-generated page text. This situation is not analogous to that one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • EncycloPetey: From the prior discussion, it seems that the text layer importation was only justified as a deletion rationale as to the pages, although I supported the justification as to the indexes as a whole. However, those other indexes have the same problem as this index, namely, a lack of connection to portal and author pages. The problem in those cases and in this case, separate from the already transcribed set, is that there is no versions information provided, which is a further problem. Ideally, for any given work, an editor seeking to proofread a work would want to find the best edition of the work and then start transcribing. With an author, portal, or versions page, versions and scans (or indexes) can be identified. These indexes have no connection to any such pages, and are thus of negative utility and should be deleted en masse. I made a similar argument as to The Trail of the Golden Horn and the other indexes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The reason that something else was nominated for deletion is irrelevant to this discussion. A lack of links is also not a reason for deletion; we can simply add the appropriate links. And we have never limited ourselves to just one edition of a work; it's why we have versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exerpted translations from The Table-Talk of a Mesopotamian Judge (1922) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete SnowyCinema (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John McCain Concession Speech and works of president-elect Obama edit

I doubt this work is compatible with the Wikisource copyright policy. It seems plausible that the anonymous uploader, and HFWang~enwikisource who worked on the page, may have erroneously assumed that {{PD-USgov}} would apply. But this speech was made in McCain's capacity as a candidate, not as a functionary of the U.S. federal government. Normal copyright would apply unless it was explicitly released under a free license or dedicated into the public domain. The same reasoning would apply to Barack Obama's 2008 election victory speech. -Pete (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The press conferences of the incoming Obama administration are similar; I'm not sure whether there is a specific provision of U.S. copyright law that designates a president-elect's creations to the public domain, so I'm less sure about these ones. Notifying @Tonyfuchs1019: who created some of these pages.

-Pete (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The president-elect is a bit more complicated, some transition records are government records and some are private: and thus it gets into what and what are not presidential records., e.g. Presidential records include: " includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;" while "materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." And PETT records might become records. E.g. if Obama was announcing his cabinet picks at the press conference that may become part of the agency records and enter the public domain. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's great info; I suspected things like that might be in play. To be more explicit, I propose:
(1) and (2) We !vote on whether the first two items above, the speeches, should be deleted or kept, and if kept, what copyright templates they should carry; and
(3) We should determine the copyright status, and the legal basis thereof, of the press conferences, and mark them as such. On this one, I'm pretty sure the CC license templates they have are inaccurate; it's possible they are OK, as I'm pretty sure the Obama administration did use CC licenses to some degree (Code for America was pretty involved in his campaign), but I don't see any links or evidence suggesting that is the case. -Pete (talk)
If there are copyright concerns, then this should be listed at Wikisource:Copyright discussions instead of here. This page is for deciding deletion only, not resolving copyright status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. The two speeches should be moved. The Press Conference may be suitable here per the ongoing discussion of digital works that has come up elsewhere on this page. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: This makes good sense, sorry for using this venue wrong. What's the best way forward? I could, for instance, retract #2 and #3 and then start discussions at "copyright discussions" about them instead. #1, which is what got me here to begin with, seems pretty clear-cut, so I'm inclined to leave that one here. Does that sound right? @MarkLSteadman: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "the two speeches should be moved." Do you mean #1 and #2 in my numbering scheme? (I think all of these could be described as speeches.) What do you mean by "moved" -- you mean, the discussions about them should be moved? I'm not necessarily opposed, but again I do feel that the first speech is rather clear-cut. If I'm wrong and there's nuance to consider, I'm fine with moving the discussion...if that's what you mean. -Pete (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth Correct. #1 and #2 per your numbering should be closed here and opened up in Wikisource:Copyright discussions. #3 (the press conferences) I personally feel has been settled per my comment below from a copyright statement ( had a CC-BY release statement per the previous discussion mentioned). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. McCain speech edit

2. Obama speech edit

3. Obama press conferences edit