Index:PL Rolland - Gandhi.djvu

Published in 1933, less than 95 years ago. Delete index and all pages, restore in 2029. Michalg95 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I disagree, keep it, the first edition of the book was 1924 as Ankry (a very experienced user) stated (see the file description) and I believe it. Draco flavus (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This edition does not declare who the translator is. So:

• If this is a reprint of the 1924 edition, it is PD in US and protected in Poland (and EU) till 1.1.2040.
• If this is another translation, then it is actually anonymous and so PD in Poland (50 post publication for anonymous works in 1996) and PD in US as PD-1996.

However, at the moment, I am unable to verify which case it actually is. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the same translation (reprint of the edition from 1924), I have checked it in the library. Draco flavus (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Have we reached a conclusion? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Dispilio Tablet

Page consisting only of an image, both outside project scope and copyright-violating. The en:Dispilio tablet is a prehistoric artefact with some scratched marks on it that have been tentatively suggested might constitute "proto-writing". The image, File:Dispilio tablet text.png, was once uploaded in the mistaken belief that it showed the surface of the artefact and its "text", and could therefore pass as PD-Art. But that's not what it is. This is not a reproduction of the artefact at all, but a tabulation of some hypothetical "signs" isolated from the jumble of scratch marks on the original object by an imaginative researcher, shown in comparison to other signs from other sources. As such, it is a creative modern work by that researcher and copyrightable. The actual artefact bears no visual resemblance to the image at all. The image has been marked as a copyright violation on Commons.

At the same time, there really isn't anything about the tablet that could possibly be the object of a Wikisource page in any case. While the archaeologists who discovered the object have proposed the tentative suggestion that the markings on the object might "resemble writing", nobody has ever done any actual research or published anything about them. There is no published or publishable "text" on this artefact, hence it isn't a "document" whose "content" Wikisource could represent, even if there was a free image of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete If the problem were solely that it was a copyright issue, that is easily solved with a fair use justification, so I think that's off topic. This is similar to the Phaistos Disc, which also seems to have proto-writing or an undeciphered script and I think that is in scope, but since you pointed out that there is no scholarship on this tablet, I am in favor of deleting until or unless there is a literature on this to at least confirm that this is something worth documenting. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but just for clarification:

• I always thought Wikisource doesn't do non-free local file uploads, does it? As long as files have to be free files on Commons, the copyright issue is a killer.
• The Phaistos Disc is a very different case. If it's meaningful at all, it's real writing, not proto-writing, albeit undeciphered. It's much more text-like, insofar as it has clearly delineated, distinct and repeatable identifiable characters, arranged in a clearly intentional linear sequence. So you can actually form the abstraction of a "text" representing its content, as in "¦ 𐇑𐇛𐇜𐇐𐇡𐇽 | 𐇧𐇷𐇛 | 𐇬𐇼𐇖𐇽 | 𐇬𐇬𐇱 | 𐇑𐇛𐇓𐇷𐇰 ". The Dispilio tablet has nothing like that.
• And even if the Dispilio tablet were shown to have a text on it, that text isn't what the current image shows. As I said, what it shows is an artificial selection of individual groups of strokes claimed by the researchers to resemble signs, isolated and arranged in a tabulated form completely unrelated to their arrangement on the original object, and combined with other signs from elsewhere. The actual object apparently looked like this. As you can see, it was filled with a chaotic, dense jumble of individual strokes, with no resemblance to our image at all. (There seem to be only two authentic photographs of it that have ever been published, neither of which is free, and it's unlikely there will ever be new ones – the object was probably irreparably damaged when it was found, and if it still exists at all and hasn't decayed completely in the meantime, it's probably sitting in some tank of preservation fluid, from which it is unlikely to emerge any time soon). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Every WMF site gets to choose whether it accepts non-free media. For instance, en.wp accepts non-free album covers and es.wp doesn't. This edition of Wikisource has no policy on non-free media. To the extent that there is writing or proto-writing in the Disc, that of course, would be in the public domain, even if a given photograph of the Disc is not. Re: the "text" image, yes, it certainly appears that this is not something that we have or can adequately transcribe, so I agree with delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)