Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

أهلا و سهلا · Xoş gəlmişsiniz · Вiтаем · Добре дошъл · স্বাগতম · Degemer mat · Dobrodošli · Benvinguts · Croeso · Velkommen · Willkommen · Şıma xeyr ameyê · Κκαλώς ήρθες · Welcome · Bonvenon · Bienvenidos · Tere tulemast · Ongietorri · خوش آمدید · Tervetuloa · Bienvenue · Wolkom · Fáilte · ברוכים הבאים · Aloha · स्वागतम · Dobrodošli · Isten hozott · Բարի գալուստ · Benvenite · Nno̱ · Selamat datang · Bonveno · Velkommin · Benvenuti · ᐊᕆᐅᙵᐃᐹ · ようこそ · Sugeng rawuh · კეთილი იყოს შენი მობრძანება · Tikilluarit · 환영합니다 · Salve · Wilkóm · Laipni lūdzam · സ്വാഗതം · स्वागत आ · Merħba · Welkom · Velkommen · Planvengut · Witajcie · Bem-vindo · Allinmi hamusqaykichik · Bun venit · Добро пожаловать · स्वागतम् · ආයුබෝවන් · Vitajte · Dobrodošli · Soo dhowow · Mirëserdhët · Добро дошли · Wilujeng sumping · Välkommen · Karibu · స్వాగతం · ยินดีต้อนรับ · Mabuhay · Hoşgeldiniz · Räxim itegez · Maeva · خۇش كەپسىز · خوش آمديد · Chào mừng đến · Benokömö · װילקום · კუჩხი ბედინერი ჸოფედას თქვანი მოზოჯუა · 欢迎 · 歡迎 · સુસ્વાગત · (edit)


ar: هذا الموقع الرئيسي لنقاش ويكي مصدر ومكان طلب المساعدة. استخدم اللغات التي تعرف، وترجم ما ترغب.
bn: উইকিসংকলনের বিষয়বস্তু ও সমস্যার আলোচনা করার এইটি একটি কেন্দ্রীয় আলোচনার স্থান। প্রয়োজন হলে সাহায্য চাইতে পারেন। আপনি যে ভাষা জানেন তাই ব্যবহার করতে পারেন ও অনুবাদ করতে পারেন।
de: Dies ist eine zentrale Stelle, um alle Themen um Wikisource zu diskutieren, und ein Platz, um nach Hilfe zu fragen. Benutzen Sie die Sprache(n), die Sie beherrschen, und übersetzen Sie, was Ihnen gefällt.
diq: No wikiçıme heta merselan war ardış u mınaqeşe kerdış i heta cay peşti waştışiyo.Zıwanê ke şıma zanê ê zımani dı iştıraq bıkerê u açarnayış seni beno bıumısê.
el: Αυτή είναι η κεντρική τοποθεσία για να συζητήσετε θέματα για τη Βικιθήκη, αλλά και το μέρος για να ζητήσετε βοήθεια. Χρησιμοποιήστε τη γλώσσα (ή τις γλώσσες) που γνωρίζετε και μεταφράστε αυτά που θέλετε.
en: This is the central location for discussing issues with Wikisource, and the place to ask for help. Use the language(s) you know, and translate what you like.
eo: Jen la centra diskutloko por ĉio, kio rilatas al la Wikisource kiel vikio. Uzu la lingvo(j)n kiu(j)n vi konas kaj traduku laŭplaĉe tion, kion aliaj redaktis.
es: Este es el lugar central para discutir cualquier asunto de Wikisource y es el lugar para pedir ayuda. Use los idiomas que conozca, y traduzca lo que crea necesario que otros sepan.
fr: Ceci est la page principale pour discuter de ce qui a trait à Wikisource, et pour demander de l’aide. Utilisez la (ou les) langue(s) que vous connaissez, et traduisez ce qui vous plaît.
he: זה הדף המיועד לדיונים העוסקים בויקיטקסט, והמקום לפנות לעזרה. השתמשו בשפות שאתם מכירים, ותרגמו את מה שאתם רוצים.
hy: Սա Վիքիդարանի հետ կապված հարցերի քննարկման կենտրոնական վայրն է, որտեղ դուք կարող եք նաև դիմել հարցերով։ Օգտագործեք ձեր իմացած լեզուն(երը) և թարգմանե՛ք ի՜նչ կամենում եք։
it: Questo è il luogo principale dove discutere di Wikisource, e il posto dove chiedere aiuto.Scrivi nella lingua che vuoi, puoi anche tradurre quello che vuoi.
ja: ここはプロジェクトについて議論したり、質問がある時に尋ねたりするための場所です。お望みの言語を使って書き込んで下さい。他の人の書き込みを翻訳して下さる方も歓迎です。
ko: 이곳은 주로 위키문헌과 관련된 문제들에 관한 논의를 하는 곳이며 도움을 구할 수 있는 곳입니다. 당신이 구사할 수 있는 언어를 사용해서 마음껏 번역해 주시길 바랍니다.
nl: Dit is de centrale plek om elk onderwerp in Wikisource te bediscussiëren en de plaats om hulp te vragen. Gebruik de taal die je kent en vertaal wat en wanneer je wilt.
pl: To główne miejsce dyskusji o sprawach związanych z Wikiźródłami i miejsce uzyskiwania pomocy. Używaj języków, które znasz i tłumacz co i kiedy chcesz.
pt: Esta é a página principal para discutir tudo o que se relaciona com o Wikisource e também o lugar para procurar ajuda. Faça uso da(s) língua(s) que conhece, e traduza os textos que quiser.
ro: Acesta este locul central de discutare a problemelor legate de Wikisursă și locul unde se poate solicita ajutor. Folosiți limbile pe care le stăpâniți, și când doriți, traduceți ceea ce vă place
ru: Это центральное место для обсуждений, связанных с Викитекой в целом, а также место, где можно спросить о помощи. Используйте язык, который вы знаете и переводите что и когда вам нравится.
su: Ieu mangrupa loka pikeun nyawalakeun hal-hal ngeunaan Wikisource, sarta tempat pikeun ménta pitulung. Pigunakeun basa nu ku anjeun dipikawanoh, tarjamahkeun nu dipikaresep.
sv: Detta är den huvudsakliga platsen där alla typer av frågor rörande Wikisource diskuteras och där nya frågor kan ställas. Använd de språk som du kan och översätt när och vad du vill av andra.
tl: Ito ang sentrong lokasyon para pag-usupan ang mga isyu kasama ng Wikisource, at ang lugar upang humingi ng tulong. Gamitin ang (mga) wika na alam mo, at isalin ang anong gusto mo.
vi: Đây là trung tâm để thảo luận các vấn đề liên quan đến Wikisource. Bạn sử dụng các ngôn ngữ bạn biết, và dịch những gì bạn thích.
vo: Atos binon top cifik, kö mögos ad bespikön valikosi dö Vükifonät, e kö kanoy i begön yufi. Gebolös pükis, kelis sevol, e tradutolös utosi, kelosi vilol.
zh-hant: 這裡是討論與維基文庫有關話題和尋求幫助的頁面。使用您所了解的語言留言。您也可以在任何時候把他人的留言翻譯成您熟悉的語言。
zh-hans: 这里是讨论与维基文库有关话题和寻求帮助的页面。使用您所了解的语言留言。您也可以在任何时候把他人的留言翻译成您熟悉的语言。
(edit)


Important project pages: What is Wikisource?Wikisource and WikibooksVotesCopyrightPossible copyright violationsProposed deletionsCatalogingWikisource and Project Gutenberg

Languages: Language policyLanguage domain requestsLanguage domain requests/Rules for votingList of Wikisource Languages

Coordination: StatisticsProofreadPage StatisticsSubdomain coordinationNews


Pre-launch discussions


Archives

The whole history is here.

How to revitalize mul.source[edit]

I re-opened an old issue into wikisource-l, titled "Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum", about the real need to split wikisource into language specific projects. I realize that different families of languages need different software settings and good translations of help pages, and differences in alphabet are a terrible obstacle, but.... as a matter of fact, some basic knowledge of latin alphabet and of English language is needed dealing with html and any programming language, isnt't it?

To revert that decision, it probably impossible; nevetheless mul.source IMHO should be strengthened as much as possible, and best users should be strongly encouraged to work into it. This could be done removing any language-related limitation, allowing to load here any text into any language, in particular multi-language texts; hopefully, this would encourage those users to import here best scripts, best templates, best policies from their language-specific projects. --Alex brollo (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

mul.source is strengthened by use and support, it has still an active role on PD works for some of the active communities (like pl.source). About language-related limitations: there is certainly no limitation other than the technical. This is the multilingual wikisource, so we accept PD-US & CC-BY-SA source texts in all the languages... check the Wikisource:Language_policy... Sure, we need, we encourage, and we import policies / manuals / templates /ideas from other projects at our pace and speed... but I don't get the point on how to improve other than keeping alive and working this community... ... I hope the response is not going in a direction that forces any community to stay here (or being expelled from here)... if they don't want to...--C.R. (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • po pierwsze primo, próba realizacji w ten sposób dyskusji o "rewitalizacji" projektów językowych dyskryminuje osoby nieanglojęzyczne. W mojej ocenie takie postawienie sprawy ma spowodować osłabienie projektów językowych, w których z takim trudem budowano społeczność, zasady, itd...., - z zasady na mul zamieszczamy teksty, które są PD według prawa w us, a nie weszły do PD w kraju, co do tekstów wielojęzykowych, to społeczności także wypracowały swoje zasady ich obróbki. Takie propozycje przedstawiane i prowadzone w ten sposób, w jaki robi to Alex będą skutkować jedynie "rozrzedzeniem" projektów językowych (szczególnie małych) i w efekcie ich osłabieniem, nie wspominając o dezorientowaniu wolontariuszy, problemach ze zrozumieniem (szczególnie dla nie znających j. ang.), redudancji prac nad tekstami i ogólnym bałaganem. W mojej ocenie pomysł utopijny, podkopujący piękne dziedzictwo Żródeł, mający na celu jedynie osłabienie projektu Wikiźródeł jako całości. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Zdzislaw (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
As it is probably evident, English is not my language. Far from weaking minor projects, my aim was to avoid the pain of "rediscovering the wheel" more and more times, centralyzing here the best from major projects. So perhaps I'd like to weak the major ones, not the minor ones. Please take a look to the discussion in wikisource-l for pro and cons; my aim here is only to let mul.source users known about that discussion. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The mailing list: Wikisource-l - November;--C.R. (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks C.R. About oldwikisource-mul.wikisource: how can I link mul.source pages (work or author item) to wikidata? I tried some time ago and I failed; where I was wrong? And I tried Match & split tool, and I failed; where was I wrong? Have been these troubles solved by now? Alex brollo (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The link to oldwiki-mulwiki is not implemented yet in wikidata, as far as I know... however T73406... Match & split tool is new for me... try the guidelines here, that seem quite cross-wiki to me :)--C.R. (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have read this discussion. The thesis posed by Alex totally not appeal to me. The matter is... turned upside down. The point of view of readers is totally disregarded! I maintain everything I wrote before. Such movements confuse readers and position in the local (language) "reading market" built over the years - eg building awareness among e-book readers users (currently approx. 6k downloads per months in e-book formats). Moving texts to mul also cause clutter, confusion and blurring of volunteers communities painstakingly built over the years. Zdzislaw (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried again to link Author:Eduardo Scarpetta to its wikidata item, I failed. Here my talk about M&S tool & mul.wikisource: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Phe#M.26S_bot. I'd simply like that any new template, Lua script, wikidata setting, export tool..... would be tested first here, so converting mul.source into a "idea incubator" too; @C.R.:, how you can imagine to export & effectively use M&S tool into nap.source, if you never tried it here (and you can't!)? How train users using minor languages hosted here to wikidata linking, if linking to wikidata is impossible? In my vision, I'd like that this project - being an "incubator" for new local projects - was the best one from any point of view, and that best developers should feel themselves obliged to test here their best ideas. I'd like to find here, i.e., the marvellous "mise en page" of fr.source, the hOCR tool by Phe, the beautiful FreedImage from en.source, the memoRegex from it.source.... and what about policies and marvellous works of de.source, that I can't study at all, since German language is too hard for me? But I imagine too, that lots of unknown, useful tools have been developed into minor projects. What's a better place to share ideas, tools, templates, but here? --Alex brollo (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The place is good and all the languages, tools and people are welcome. Pre-1923 works can be, without any doubt, prepared here until the details of the license are clear for the target-country readers. So mul.wikisource is not only a good incubator but a good buffer -and a good front-page for the neapolitan-speaking US community (sorry)-... On why some communities kept it as a low priority, without helping to exploit the tools and synergies, I don't know... I can tell you the main obstacle right now for napsource is that we've been on-hold without discussion for 4 years... as if we were invisible... we have enough workload on pre-1923 unclassified works to continue working here, just see Category:Napulitano, so right as our polish counterpart, we will keep visiting the place... -C.R. (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
(minor additional comment)--C.R. (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The opening of this thread is not only OK but necessary. Since years we did not talk about this, about the very profund questions of this project. We have a chaos here now. Thousands of copyvio pages. Every ip can edit here in pages, whose languages nobody understand. Yes, let's talk about it. -jkb- (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I contributed here a little bit, both into multi-language works and into neapolitan, but I wasn't aware of troubles mentioned by -jkb-. Really anonymous contribution into unknown language could be a major trouble - copyvio being one from less alarming features. Here a rather bold suggestion (considering that here best practices should be implemented and encouraged and that there are serious safety issues): to allow only proofreading procedure based on Commons printed, well-sourced images. --Alex brollo (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, two cents:

  1. In order to solve effectively the question that alex is posing: I suggest you to open a decision process on every wikisource with a clear proposal to achieve a consensus on the convenience of coming back to the oldsource. For sure you will find new arguments apart from those given: -we rather need small & motivated communities devoted to the language; -we serve our minority community of readers/contributors/researchers; -the license restrictions of commons impedes you to load e.g. copyrighted Italian material even if it is PD-US, ecc...;
  2. In order to revitalize wikisource, I suggest you to use it, to help to solve bugs... etc..., copyvios may exist in all the wikis... templates may be broken as well... I am sure the detection time is lower in the active and expert wikis ... and if this is a chaos, maybe some motivated sourcer can help us to categorise and put everything in order... I wanted to make the point that we are open and alive, even if some communities don't know that we are still operating. In fact, we serve the original scope of putting all the source-PD-texts available to any person, in any language... For example: this scope has been trunked in itsource, where even simple translations are forbidden. I agree with the final aim of making this wiki active, but i strongly disagree that the domain separation is a failure;
  3. If it is of use for you: I came here for research, to discover the neapolitan iceberg. I feel empathy with other colleagues in our situation. I came here because google-books/internet/IA is a mess, and I want as much PD texts as I can get in the same platform, with a good frontpage and in my language, so I can contribute/read from the first day even if I have an US locale setting: this must be an Out Of the Box Feature... and not only... domain separation allows it to be available even before you enter here (search unification vs search in language specific wiki: FYI... there are 111> neapolitan targeted words but they are again on the lowest part of the iceberg between a bunch of 2000 multilingual entries). I want the domain to be able to source nap.pedia also.... The domain is a great tool, that may help researchers/readers/learners in order to appreciate the literature (sources are literature) in my language... OOTB... so why should I renounce to it only because, technically, the unification "seems" better? Have you ever tried in google to search texts in minority languages? --C.R. (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ad. #1: Putting such proposals "in bulk" "on every wikisource", as a result of "the idea of" one user (I have not noticed that such a proposal he put on his local it wiki), in my opinion, is an highly detrimental action to the project. The only effect of such actions include: unnecessary divisions between local users, leaving volunteers, stratification of local language projects (for oldwiki and local) and endless discussions - especially in small and medium-sized projects, in which the community, the principles and the content has been built over the years. It's a very bad strategic decision (after many years of hard work on the development of local communities opening a decision process on every wikisource), if you want to weaken the local sources, do not make the atmosphere of "artificial willingness", but say it openly. Zdzislaw (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Zdzislaw, from my ignorant opinion... I see much more dangerous targetting the question in english to mulsource & the mailing list (biased towards a naturally multilingual community)... and then get the wrong impression/consensus...--C.R. (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading, you are right I formulated point 1 in a very straight way :D --C.R. (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, the main thing which is missing here is to precise which goals you wish to achieve by wikisource merge. Then we can gather advantages and disadvantages of the merge and perform a reasonable discussion. As billinghurst pointed you in the mailing list, without such information we discuss about pure ideas or just about nothing. So if you seriously think about the merge, a discussion about the merge should be performed here, and likely in all other wikisources (communities decissions are even required by WMF rules), but not at the moment.

I agree that your idea of multilingual library is good but this idea should be done in a way that is not destructive for existing projects (is it is ever possible). However, my first thought about it was: it should not be done by merging projects, but by creating a new one that gathers necessary information from others (sth like "reverse" commons). But don't treat this as a serious proposal; I am even not sure if it is technically possible.

Separate projects has their own rules. Eg. in plwikisource we decided to require the uploaded texts to pe also PD in Poland, not only in US; we require new texts to have strict bibliographic source (which is difficult to require here, partially because of the language barier), etc. Recently, we also had a vote to go in opposite direction than yours: separate old-Polish texts out of plwikisource. They have their own communities (in most cases, except dead or almost dead projects) and I, personally, doubt if they all can share your point of view (that is required for full merge).

But for your initial sentence: "This could be done removing any language-related limitation, allowing to load here any text" I say: NO. Allowing a user to choose whether they want to upload a text into a separate lang.wikisource or here is the worst idea. The rules concerning this should be strict. Otherwise users will come here with texts that were rejected elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see that there's no agreement about the hypotetical (and, I admit, utopic) goal of reversing the long-standing wikisource split, nor about the freedom to upload here texts of any language. There's perhaps some agreement about the need to share (and centralyze, since "if you are repeating yourself you are going wrong") best wikisource tols, gadgets, templates, scripts? Have a multi-language contributor to study local, fastly changing complex settings any time he contribute to a different project? Does this fastly growing difference between projects make simpler to implement new extensions? Are mul.source users happy from being excluded from wikidata? Is so fuzzy idea, to ask strongly that, as an incubator, mul.source should offer the best from wikisource skills and experiences? And if this is not a fuzzy idea.... how do it? Alex brollo (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That is not exactly what I meant: If local wikisource has extra limitations concerning eg. copyright of texts except US copyright, the texts that do not fit language-specific wikisource requirements but are PD in US can be uploaded here. Eg. pre-1923 texts copyrighted in home country in some cases. Note, that in such cases, source DjVu files are likely also incompatible with commons requirements, so they are uploaded locally (if ProofreadPage is used).
Also, there were requests to add support for mul.wikisource in wikidata, but AFAIR they were rejected. I do not remember why; you should dig in phabricator to find the precise reason. So whether we are happy or not is irrelevant: we can do nothing with wikidata support at the moment, I am afraid. However, If you find wikisource as a suitable place for handling scripts, etc. you are welcome. Ankry (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: About wikidata: what about shouting, if asking turned out ineffective? IMHO the wikidata issue is the proof of a deep, severe trouble into mul.source settings; it should be fixed as soon as possible. --Alex brollo (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: Do we really want interwiki links to mulws, betawv, and incubator? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: I realize that 1-1 interwiki mechanism is a solution not suitable for wikisource. So while I find it potentially usefull for mul.ws (even if only a single link is allowed) I do not think it is worth "shouting". However it seems to me thare's nobody skilled enough/interested enough/having enough time to develop an acceptable alternative to 1-1 interwiki for wikisource (I think it is worth shouting; but where?).
@Koavf: unsure about incubator and copletely no idea about betawv (as I do not know these projects). But in mul.ws we have many texts in languages that will never have their own subdomain and the texts are worth to be linked some way to other ws. Thre are likely some conflicts like the same text in more than one minority language, but they are rather rare. I much more often encounter conflicts inside large ws sites (en/fr/ru/pl) that provide more than one edition/translation of the same text and they need to be linked some way together using interwiki-like mechanism. The Bible is the key example (eg. you are here and wish to find translations of this section to English/Swedish/Russian/Arabic and/or the Latin original; especially difficult if you do not know these languages). Ankry (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Interwii linking is now possible using the prefix "mul" (see cross linking between it:Indice:Basile - Lu cunto de li cunti, Vol.I.djvu and Index:Lo cunto de li cunte - Tomo I.djvu manually adding links. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alex_brollo:, minor comment: for that specific case, maybe the interwiki should be used pointing the itsource namespace Opera... those are different editions... it may be ok for the moment, since iw provides cross-wiki awareness--C.R. (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@C.R.: Excellent idea! I don't know id mul.surce is aware of subtle reasons (mainly related to wikidata) inspiring the idea of a Work: namespace, nor I know if such a namespace has been activated here, but we could too to use a "pseudo-namespace" Work: and link its items with it.source Opera: .... perhaps someone will ask us for details. --Alex brollo (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

new Wsexport instance[edit]

hello, the new version of WSexport is available at the new location. Admins, please update the link to WSexport on MediaWiki:Common.js:
current (line 76) -> 'http://wsexport.wmflabs.org/tool/book.php?lang=www&format=epub&page=' + mw.config.get('wgPageName'),
new link -> 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/wsexport/tool/book.php?lang=www&format=epub&page=' + mw.config.get('wgPageName'),

thanks, Zdzislaw (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Tpt (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unknown namespaces: Gadget, Topic and other[edit]

While using Advanced search, I saw some unknowun namespaces: Gadget, Gadget definition, Topic. They seem unused here, where can I find some doc about? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

not yet used on wikis, see: en:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-10#New namespaces.3F, Zdzislaw (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Zdzislaw: Thanks! I see a brief mention of new nsGadget into the immediately following Tech news from mediawiki; luckily here I've not sysop privileges, so I can simply wait and see :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-51[edit]

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorize templates/scripts/gadgets by user groups[edit]

We - a little group of users coming from it.source and presently working here as "nap.source", @C.R.: being our leader - are introducing some templates, modules and js scripts (tha latter into user subpages, as "personal shared tools"). I'm going to categorize them in some way, probably into a Category:Nap tools, just to keep trace of them. I encourage other groups to do the same, and - if possible - to add a brief doc in English, just to share best ideas among smaller projects. --Alex brollo (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a problem that there is no clear guideline on how pages are to be categorized. Often, tests have many different categories and not one single category containing all talk pages, templates and content pages. For importers (if a language gets its own domain), such a category makes life a lot easier. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: the idea sounds good for me, I support sharing of tools between various projects; but I would like to get some clarifications, regarding some points:
  1. When I look into Category:Nap tools, I see there items with names like Content, Type, looking like standard English names, and implying that these items might have usage, not limited by any local-wikisource and tending to be universal. And it seems to me that you are intending to have collected there all the tools which are somehow used inside of pages of the Neapoitan wikisource (including that tools which are not neapolitan-specific but nevertheless used in the Nap-WS). Alex: do I correctly understand the idea of this category? (I put this question not for criticizing, but just to get more clear understanding for the idea.)
  2. If such language categories would be created — like Category:Nap tools, Category:Mdf tools (for the Mokshan WS which is cared by me), Category:Pl tools (for the Polish WS) etc. — then some additional root category should be created which would contain all these categories. Such root category would be convenient for seeing which local tools do exist at all, and to browse them easily.
  3. And some remark (maybe too pedantic): I think that the category name in the shape <lang-code> tools (Category:Nap tools, Category:Mdf tools, Category:Pl tools etc.) is slightly confusing, because it appears to indicate that the tools inside it are language-specific, althoug they are rather language-wikisource-specific. And I think that the category, in the case of the Neapolitan, should be named like Nap-wikisource tools, or even Neapolitan wikisource tools, — this name would make more clear that it holds tools related to to the language wikisource and not to the language itself. --Nigmont (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont, C.R.: Thanks for interest and suggestions. Yes, you are right, my dream would be - as I told into a previos talk - that mul.source would be the "container" for anything useful into any wikisource project, so my effort is to work for nap.wikisource but for any other user of mul.wikisource. English could perhaps make things easier.
About names of categories: you are right again, thanks for suggestion. There's a global category for nap.source items: Category:Napulitano, it would be great to rename it into Category:Neapolitan wikisource with well-organized subcategories Category:Neapolitan wikisource texts, Category:Neapolitan wikisource tools.... but it's too heavily populated to change its name; on the contrary, Category:Nap tools collects so few pages, that its a very easy task to rename it, as soon as your proposal will be discussed into our small user community. And I hope that this discussion will be useful and inspiring for other small projects hosted here. Alex brollo (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: I think that the Category:Napulitano is quite a different case: this name is the name of the language of the works which are stored inside the category, and this name is written in the same language in which the works have been written themselves, and it's good for this category to be named so; and I think Category:Napulitano should not be renamed (even if it would be easy to do such renaming). But the category for language-wikisource tools is intented to be exposed not only to users of the local wikisource (who know the language) but to any other users as well, so IMO this category should be named, firstly, in English, and secondly, its name must clearly show that this category contains tools used in the Wikisource of that particular language (though some of those tools may be not specific to that language WS). --Nigmont (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alex brollo: according to discussion above, I created Category:Wikisource tools, and I propose to use it for storing categories like Category:Neapolitan wikisource tools, Category:Mokshan wikisource tools (created by me, I included in it some templates used in the Mokshan WS) etc. I already included there Category:Mokshan wikisource tools, and propose to do the same for the Neapolitan one — include it there (along with including in the Category:Napulitano). --Nigmont (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nigmont, C.R.: Yes check.svg Done Alex brollo (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the approach, it will be useful for the export, and at the same time the tools are open and can be inside other categories, not necessarily lang-specific--C.R. (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

Tech News: 2015-52[edit]

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot upload of pre-formatted OCR[edit]

@Zyephyrus, C.R.: I'm using my bot to upload FineReader 11 OCR of some neapolitan books, got after some offline work on original djvu images (by ScanTailor or using internal tools of FineReader 11). I know that OCR upload is not appreciated into some projects, but consider that I do this for djvu files that have no OCR layer (i.e. Index:Nu guaglione 'e mala vita.djvu), and that uploaded text has a useful pre-formatting ({{Rh}}, use of {{Noindent}} and {{Outdent}}, language categorization), so making user editing faster and easier. If I'm breaking some mul.source rule, please tell me. --Alex brollo (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

If the reason is development/improvement I would say —go for it; many projects use bot actions as this without necessarily disturbing our "amanuense" pace of check & review, but rather improving our performance.--C.R. (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree! lots of OCRs from Internet Archive or other sources were helped by external tools. When asked third question in our Wikisource Tenth birthday interview:
"What do you think Wikisource's greatest achievement is so far?"
I had answered:
"Togetherness; all librarians and lovers of texts in the world working together to rescue texts."
I am happy if this is still true. :-)
--Zyephyrus (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Zyephyrus: Thanks Zyephyrus. I agree so much that I would like to add at the end of your statement "... working into a unique project", but I found that this dream is both impossible (by now) and not so widely shared.... mul.source being the only project where something like this (t.i. different groups of users from many countries and using many languages, sharing the same environment, the same tools....) could happen. --Alex brollo (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 Scholarships - Deadline soon![edit]

Please help translate to your language

A reminder - applications for scholarships for Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario, Italy, are closing soon! Please get your applications in by January 9th. To apply, visit the page below:

Patrick Earley (WMF) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02[edit]

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help to settle harassment by admins on Czech Wikisource[edit]

Hi, in May 2015 I saw an act of harassment by admins on Czech Wikisource (a user got a week ban for replying "don't troll" after an admin interrupted a discussion with a totally unerelevant post - the admin was indeed trolling). In response to this harassment I posted a question to the local Village pump if the site has any admin vote rules and admin election archive. My question was never answered and I was promptly banned indef (!!!) for it. Yes, I'm not kidding, I was banned indef for posing a question on site rules. Please note that I was never doing any vandalisms or something like this on Czech Wikisource. I was a problem user on Czech Wikipedia many years ago (2006) but all of this ended a long time ago. I edited Czech Wikisource from several accounts but I did constructive edits only. I added more than 20 entries from Otto's encyclopedia, corrected typos and pointed out some page names may be misspelled (which was proven). There is absolutely no reason for me to be banned indef on the site.

Why I was banned? Because local admins hate me. 1) -jkb- hates me because many years ago (2006) I supported his archenemy VZ on Czech Wikipedia. (-jkb- managed to drive away the "founder" of Czech Wikipedia from the project) 2) Milda hates me because I started the vote on his desysop on Czech Wiktionary (and he was eventually really desysopped). 3) Danny B. hates me because because I started 2 votes on his desysop on Czech Wiktionary - both of them showed that there was no consensus for him to be an admin but he keeps his "buttons" anyway.

You can see more details on this case in a RfC on meta: meta:Requests for comment/cs.wikisource admins. Thanks to all!! --Auvajs (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a pretty entangled and complex situation. It's seems to me that the block was maybe a bit rough and unfair but I don't see what oldwikisource has to do with it. I feel like it should be settled either on cswikisource or on meta. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

1) m:Requests for comment/cs.wikisource admins, 2) cs:Wikizdroje:Nástěnka správců/Poznámky k blokům, trully -jkb- (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no blind confidence on admins. Neither on users. But if we compare (a) a banned user who confesses having had multiple accounts, and having been "harassed" and/or banned several times by several admins in several wikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource), and who spams against the admins who blocked him, and (b) 3 admins who don't disagree with the ban (and keep in mind what being an admin implies, and the rules that apply to them), then I have a very much more confidence on cs.source admins. -Aleator 00:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03[edit]

17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[edit]

Please help translate to your language

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Just FYI: I have made the numbers there consistent with statistics on meta. It seems that for about a month only main and Author namespaces are counted in these statistics (while Page and Index are no more). IMO, this is a resonable change. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; IMHO nsIndex and nsPage are the most important ones, really NPOV, while ns0 are merely derived works/derived editions; but I realize that my opinion isn't so much shared, most wikisourcians see nsIndex and nsPage simply as "transcription tools". --Alex brollo (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: I generally agree with you, but I also think that statistics should be kept in a consistent way. If some Wikisource projects use ProofreadPage as the main tool, the pages in main namespace may be even created by bot basing on page/metadata information. However not all Wikisource use actively ProofreadPage extension (eg. Russian, Hebrew, Chinese) and while different technology is used to create content I see no better way than to compare number of pages in main/Author namespace (which is still not the best way as pages may be tiny and large). While user contribution should be counted basing on Page/Index contribution also (here it is not). However, maybe the best way is just to count content in bytes?
I also noticed that eswikisource people place books' pages content directly in the main namespace. I wonder why. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A sound reason could be, to export book "as it is", i.e. saving pagination too (a very important TEI element, I'd like that nsPage could be exported too); an unsound, but probably true reason, could be to "win a statistics competition". :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Alex_brollo: is there a phabricator entry on the nsPage export need? it would be interesting!--C.R. (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@C.R.: I don't know, but when I tried to underline the great significance of nsIndex and nsPage, I didn't found any enthusiasm about. "NsIndex and nsPage are transcription tools" is the largely prevailing opinion. Alex brollo (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Alex_brollo:: Using Page namespace for book presentation (instead of putting pages in the main namespace for this) and information from Index page about pagination may be a nice enhancement to the ProofreadPage; @Tpt, Phe, Zdzislaw: what do you think of this idea? The way es people has chosen has a disadvantage: at the moment they have not a full-text page nor an index page required to generate PDF/ePub/mobi ebook. But this is their choice... Ankry (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[edit]

16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

As Ankry has suggested on my talk page], and as I support this idea, we could rather need an access to OTRS dealing with (not very often) Problems here in this domain (see also the following thread on copyvios). If it should be an access for Oldwikisource only or for more / all Wikisources - no idea. I was several years ago in the OTRS team but then I left it. I see the following possibilities:

  • if there are some OTRS members from the en-Wikisource, migt be they could take care off our problems as well
  • we suggest somebody (how many users?) from us who do it
  • combined both

But as Ankry suggested, the multilinguality shoud be established somehow. Opinions? -jkb- (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

can we use the template we use in meta for multilingual pages? I don't now how to import it, I am very bad at templates. OTRS understanding & clearance is a very powerful copyvio solving process. I am very interested in empowering the community to use it. It is very important to clarify our copyright needs and to solve any issue that involves the authors of the owners. I was actually working in the OTRS page in neapolitan (convergent evolution! :D), since I am working on the free release of some contents.--C.R. (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. I asked OTRS tickets for es.source in the past, and I found no problem.
Which template? meta:template:OTRS pending and meta:template:PermissionOTRS? (I see OTRS ticket is now being added here in license templates, as those pages in Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed). Regards.-Aleator 01:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Dealing with OTRS with users who speak at least one widely used language and know a bit about copyright is not a big problem. But the problem is that many people here do not even understand what copyright is what OTRS procedure is for and how does it work. The greater problem is if such people do not even understand any commonly used language. How to explain them anything? Where to redirect them to? Why should they look for information on another project, especially while this information is too general? Assume sb is ug-N, ar-2 and zh-1... I tried some time ago to explain OTRS permission requirement to a person who is kz-N, ru-2 and I failed with my ru-2. I asked for help a coleague who is kz-N, pl-4 and he also failed. It is difficult to explain new subjects to old people. And in most cases people will not tell you they do not understand a word. They will tell you nothing...
Note that most external OTRS pages are prepared to deal with images rather than with texts. Wikisource OTRS is a bit specific: we can choose only single license - CC-BY-SA 3.0. So all large sections about posible licenses and license choice have to be dropped and removed. Instead, we should explain why only this one licence is accepted. Also, if we do not have an OTRS information here, people often interprete this as "OTRS is not for this project" Ankry (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As I can see we can import from meta, and we can change the template in the way we want (alternatively: we can create something like it here).
But I am not sure if we can produce a template in all minor languages we have here, it would be a chaos. Indeed, we should take some more main languages (like the meta template does), and if some people doesn't understand it, the must simply ask a person on their project for the help; possibly we could link such a text text to the google translator, as we can identify the language in the most cases. -jkb- (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we can. If we have a reliable translation. OTRS agents may just compare ticket contents with the empty template. Ankry (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yo, actually (my confusion) I was meaning commons:Commons:OTRS. We can rely on that format or rather on a localisation split-phrased system like meta has. As long as the structure of the CC-BY-SA assertion response is similar to the "I hereby affirm that"..., fragment it should be possible to get it released. And yes, we need push-effort for translation on each language... if other wikis help us... then it's only win win.. :D--C.R. (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios and how to deal with them[edit]

See first

I am very sure that we have here a lot of copyvio pages. Some ones are clear copyvios (as especially users from amaller projects do not understand anything on copyright), and we have a lot of own works here, inserted by the authors or friends, wo claim "he/she is very important for the culture" etc. This is in contrary to one of the most important principle here "no original research no original works". If there are users who would like to change this, so there should be done a RFC or something like that, probably not only here but in a broader circle. I don't know, but I'm not very happy about this situation. Cheers - and give me some opinions. -jkb- (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it's very hard to counteract, as many of those languages are not understood (or in some cases even readable) by anyone except for those who add to them. The only thing that we can do, in my eyes, is be very strict about source indication and patrol all new pages to make sure that they either have a source or a copyright tag. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that is our problem, more over multiplicated because even every IP can edit here without giving a summary for the edit. And Yes, the most users from small aand very small projects do not understand the principle of licence + source etc. For the future we could implementate a script that prevents saving the page without summary, and the footer should contain a very clear notice, that the page will be deleted if the licence, source is not given. Something like that.
But even so we have here the problem with the alredy created pages. I'm realy not happy with the sitaution, but how should we manage such problems like here or here? We are discussing with the authors, in one case a very long time, when they do not mind our questions and continue edititng? I deleted the malayan pages today as I do not think we can tolerate such copyright violations. (And yes, I know that we know a very small percentage of such pages, because we cannot read it... but if we find something, so we should act somehow.) -jkb- (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@-jkb-: It's hardly a perfect solution but we could encourage users who have CC-NC/ND texts to go to http://wikilivres.ru/ and users who want to publish their own works to http://soulibre.ru/Justin (koavf)TCM 03:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Another way (a little bit hard) could be something similar to German wikisource policy, t.i. to allow proofread uploads of published, printed books only with a complete frontispiece image. It would be a great learning opportunity for users of smaller project and, on the same time, it would be simpler to check uploads by sysops.Alex brollo (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think a mandatory edit summary and better notice are very good ideas for a simple start.
I am not sure how to handle the pages that are already created. Obviously, it is impossible for us to check all the pages one by one. The best policy that we can have, in my eyes, is that when concerns are raised, we contact the uploader of the text, and if he does not respond, we consider it a copyvio and delete it.
I do not really feel something for the German policy, because it can really be a death warrant to smaller language projects. While I agree with your argument that it would be a great learning oppertunity and it would make things easier to check, I have a big objection. I am familiar with Limburgish publications, and in most cases they are self-published, which makes it very difficult to check whether they are copyvios or not. My other objection would be that it increases the threshold for users to get engaged with wikisource. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Some thoughts to two points from above:
  • how to deal with existing pages - I thin we could use a three step strategy: 1: we contact the uploader, i he doesn' answer (I'm sure many ones are not working here any more) 2: we try to contact an user in the home language Wikipedia just to ge an idea, what we are dealing with (is it a text? is it a hoax or fake?), 3: an the we delete it (or we use a template saying the page will be deleted on ... fix datum)
  • German policy: the German Wikisource is a project where I can say I trust the texts extraordinary, because the possibility of copyvio / fake / other manipulations of the text are extremely marginal if not on the zero level; but this is not practicab le here on this multilanguage project, where we have big problems to judge what it is (today I deleted a page after using google translator, in this case very easy, but it was rather an exeption).
Regards -jkb- (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Another idea, could be to actively search for one or more thrusted users for any language, and to get their help. Are presently contributions categorized for language in any automated way? Does it exist a script or a tool to "sniff" the language of uncategorized pages? Unicode mapping could help for sure, mainly into non-latin alphabets, but I imagine that it would not be unequivocal. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[edit]

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

DynamicPageList extension[edit]

Could be DynamicPageList extension useful here? Category intersection could be particularly interesting in this complex multilingual environment, IMHO; I just tried DynamicPageList to intersect Category:Innece napulitane and Category:Index - Text Layer Requested ... with no result ;-) .--Alex brollo (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to solve the issue with {{nap}}, that self-categorizes nsIndex from page raw contents into any way we nap-sourcers can imagine. Presently the template filters Language=..... nap.... pages, but the filter could be very easily removed if you like it. --Alex brollo (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06[edit]

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)