From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
    • 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.  Oppose Zdzislaw (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
The mailing list: Wikisource-l - November;--C.R. (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I tried again to link Author:Eduardo Scarpetta to its wikidata item, I failed. Here my talk about M&S tool & mul.wikisource: 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(minor additional comment)--C.R. (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Re-reading, you are right I formulated point 1 in a very straight way :D --C.R. (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@Alex brollo: Do we really want interwiki links to mulws, betawv, and incubator? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alex brollo: I realize that 1-1 interwiki mechanism is a solution not suitable for wikisource. So while I find it potentially usefull for (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 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
We have many useful pages here. Subdomain coordination seems good. A few language subdomains ban Wikisource translations, so how about adding separate translation namespace to revitalize here?--Jusjih (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

Hi, I don't think your edit shows the reality. Regards, 13:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: the changes are entirely consistent with official data, it is consistent with the definition of "articles": "$wgContentNamespaces exists to allow custom namespaces to be acknowledged as containing useful content for the purpose of Special:Random, Special:Statistics, and {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}". Changes were discussed and carried out on phab:T54709#1735526. Zdzislaw (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I can't log in (some bug).
This is certainly closer to the real volume of content. Regards, 14:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann, is this the right screenshot? --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phe's graph
Phe's graph
Yann seemed to indicate the transclusions (not proofread (per day???)) - so, rather this graph. Zdzislaw (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2009 the PageViews figures had been the chosen solution and some kind of criteria mix had seemed to be an interesting idea too. There were problems with articles (see here): what is a "good article" in the different wikisources and how can we count them? --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No consensus either on French WS for the time being. Ideas? --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zyephyrus: I really do not understand why did you undo an Ankry edit, who updated the statistics exactly according to the same source, they were updated previously in 2015? If the community (without any consensus), removed Page and Index namespaces from the variable defining the "contents" of wikisources for statistics (phab:T54709#1735526, [17]), why now "the circle" has to be updated using a different basis than so far? Zdzislaw (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the very least, if you change the numbers, you need to change what is shown (texts, not pages). IMHO, pages are a much more objective criteria. What is a page is quite similar in any language, where what is a text varies wildly across languages.
Now if we want to show the numbers of texts, this graph gives an indication (number of proofread texts), but incomplete as some languages have a large number of non-proofread texts.
Page views would be another objective criteria. This is quite independent of the volume, quality, and activity of a particular language. Yann (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: what is shown? "text" is still a page in main NS. On the "circle" there was shown a number of good pages shown at column "good" of this table (see: 06.2015 table and this edit). Until November 2015 it was the sum of the wikisource "content" - a number of "pages" in Main (texts), Page, Author and Index namespaces. In November 2015 wikisource community decided to change the "content" for the Wikistats by removing a Page and Index namespaces from the variable (phab:T54709#1735526, [18]). So from November 2015 statistics includes only the sum of pages in Main and Author namespaces. But they are still "content pages". From 11.2015 these pages are shown in the statistics, on meta:Wikisource and by {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} word. So, if we decided to remove Page and Index namespaces from statistics and leave only pages in Main and Author namespaces, consequently we should update the circle on the same way (from the same source of data).
I agree that the number of pages in Page namespace much better reflect the wikisource content, but... if so, why we removed them from the variable that defines "contents" of our statistics? Zdzislaw (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann, Zyephyrus, Zdzislaw: I am sorry for long delay to my response, but I am out of computer this week and mobile phone editing is not so easy... However I wonder why this discussion is held here instead of Scriptorium, where I did notify about the change and its rationale about a month ago and I am still awaiting feedback there. I think that there was consensus (nobody oposed strongly) that the main page numbers should be based on the official wikisource stats available on meta. @Yann, Zyephyrus: if you disagree with that, please suggest what the numbers should be based on (in your opinion) taking into account that many wikisources do not use ProofreadPage at all (eg. Chinese).

I strongly disagree that keeping outdated numbers on the main page is the best idea and I am suggesting to remove the numbers totally instead of reverting current values to outdated ones. Ankry (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. could sb. move this discussion to Scriptorium, please?

Done --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I don't understand how we have such differences between this table and this one. We should have similar figures for both if we add texts "with scans" and "w/o scans" for languages which use the proofread system. For en.wikisource, we have 566,972 vs. 334,207. What are these 232,735 pages which make the difference? For fr.wikisource, we have 251,220 vs. 193,781. Even including author pages (7,685) and disambiguation pages (1,899), we are far from the total. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann, Zyephyrus, Ankry, Tpt, Phe: Let me explain... Once again I looked through the mediawiki code and its ws onfiguration regard to statistics.
The present state after changes: [19], [20] and [21]:
  • for wikisource statistics content, the namespaces which are considered generating a count of the number of articles in the ws are MAIN, PAGE, AUTHOR and INDEKS NS (and a few specific ns defined in initialiseSettings.php - e.g. Translation NS for en wikisource)
  • to the page with all these NS were classified as "a good" (taken to stats) must satisfy the condition contained in the variable $wgArticleCountMethod - for all ws this is 'default' => 'link' condition - that is means "the page must contain a wiki link to be considered valid"
In summary, for the number of pages in the stats are taken into account almost all the pages of MAIN NS (such sites wikicode contain almost always at least a link to the category), and only the pages of the Page, Author NS which in its wikicode include a internal link (e.g. this page is counted as "good" for the stats because there is at least one wiki link in wikicode, but... this not -> in my opinion this is a "stupid" way of ws content calculation)
As a result, for fr ws now we have 251 369 such pages which is consistent with this table
  • Therefore, I suggest that:
  1. (as e.g. for scwikinews) to change the way of counting in $wgArticleCountMethod to 'any': all pages are considered as valid articles by opening Wikimedia-Site-Requests (to change InitialiseSettings.php for all ws) at Phabricator
  2. after that updates the article count UpdateArticleCount.php.
Zdzislaw (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Sorry for replying so late.
Whether there is an internal link should be completely irrelevant when we use transclusions with <pages>. IMHO, we should count all pages in MAIN NS and AUTHOR NS (and possibly others: Portail?). Regards, Yann (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@-jkb-: It's hardly a perfect solution but we could encourage users who have CC-NC/ND texts to go to and users who want to publish their own works to (koavf)TCM 03:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New framework Discourse as an alternative to wikisource-l[edit]

As you perhaps know if you follow the mail list wikisource-l, there's an ungoing test of another kind of talk, more similar to a forum, here: I hope to find the time to share into discourse something I learned here, since I'm using mul.source to test new tools, templates and editing tricks into a "light" environment as mul.source, very different from "heavy" environment as it.source or other major wikisource projects and using only basic user privileges (and a bot with similar, basic user privileges). My experience here has been, so far, very interesting and exciting! --Alex brollo (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just opened a talk into Discourse about Module:Nap that naepolitan group is testing here; presently our bot is running for a mass edit of Neapolitan nsPage pages replacing "hard categorization" with a Scribunto dynamic self-categorization. --Alex brollo (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to[edit]

Hello everybody!

at phab:T64717 there is an open proposal about moving this wiki, now hosted at, to the new address

As per the original proposer: "Old Wikisource" at would be better served if moved to "Mul" is the official ISO-639 code for "multiple languages", which is appropriate to this project. This would allow full interwiki linking, easier support from Wikidata, standardisation of URLs, and recognition as an active project. There is informal support for this in the Wikisource community on scattered discussions and the mailing list.

Needless to say, I perfectly agree with that, and I would like to stress in particular the point about recognition as an active project. Still too many people think about this project as the "old wikisource", implying it to be something like an "incubator", or even worse, an abandoned dumping place where "old" junk is left to rot. But we all know that this is simply not true, and the work of many users is there to prove it: this is a living project actively developed, and deserves a proper name and a proper address, which cannot be other than: the Multingual Wikisource, at

Moreover, once the move is done can be re-used to become a true portal site, like Wikipedia has at This will provide easier access to the other Wikisources as well.

Other wikis have been recently moved (see phab:T21986), so it seems that this proposal may be actually feasible. Before it can be implemented, however, a formal community consensus must be gathered, so here we are :) Candalua (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that leaving it as it is would not be bad. Anyway, "old" is not proper because of the meaning of English word "old". "Incubator" would not be accurate because we also have texts of wikis that have its own subdomain because of certain reasons (e.g. Wikisource:Subdomain_coordination#cite_note-2). I find it more standard, suitable, accurate, descriptive and intuitive to call it "multilingual", so "mul" seems the best for me. -Aleator 17:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • Is the move absolutely needed? Our Main Page already points to many language subdomains.--Jusjih (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I don't see the necessity of this move. I'm also concerned that this will not make other wikisources more accessible. Instead, I'm afraid that if this domain becomes a portal site, we will lose the "Languages at Wikisource" section on our Main Page which is a beautiful linking section; not only to those languages that have their own subdomain, but also to languages which are only represented at this wiki. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • // moved here from oppose // -jkb- (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC) I would say it could be iritating for many user and visitors as the present address has been used more than 10 yearsReply[reply]
Comment: @Candalua:, is it feasible to add an automatic redirect from to (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
probably not yes, butthis is not the only point: since more than 10 years everybody knows the address in the address line, and as I said it could be iritating to see there something else. But, I must say, it is not so important... Thus, I move to neutral :-) -jkb- (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we can ask to keep a redirect to at least for some time, while everybody gets used to it; and it can be transformed into a "portal" in some later moment. --Candalua (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Candalua:, but that later, will it be possible to leave (mainly for works in the main namespace) although soft redirects to mul - (many websites from outside links to our pages) - in order not to link back to non-existent pages? Zdzislaw (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well the linking from outside (probably quite often) would be another question to solve. -jkb- (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Candalua:Could the renaming into help to solve the wikidata trouble? Alex brollo (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't know the tech details, but apparently the main reason given so far was: "not a subdomain". So hopefully it will help. Candalua (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idea. I am quite convinced that is feasible. Shall we specify explicitly a requirement written as follows?:

A variation of this may be redirecting all the traffic pointing to https://wikisource/wiki/xxx pages to pages, but I am worried to be so general.

If we request it on this terms I guess there is no problem! :D--C.R. (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure if moving to mul.wikisource can help in any way to add the wikidata support. The main argument against (that nobody responded) was concerning multiple language versions of a text in this wiki. Ankry (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.R.:: yes, seems a good idea. @Zdzislaw: i hope this answers your question.
@Ankry: the "multiple links" is not a problem of only (albeit it's more evident here). In every subdomain you can have several versions of the same text, corresponding to different editions or translations. We need to be able to link all the editions on one subdomain with all the editions on all the other subdomains: there is phab:T128173 for that. In the meantime, we'll have to do with disambiguation pages. Candalua (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Candalua: I did not mean that this is a real problem for us. I suggest only that no response is a bad signal to devs and that they may think about it as a real problem. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry: I didn't get it that way, but you may be right. I posted on phab:T54971 to try to clarify the situation. Candalua (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Candalua:: Leaving a redirect from "" to "" and then transforming it into a portal site is just postponing a change. If the move is done, I think, it would be best to create a portal site right away. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A new problem into transcluded ns0 pages[edit]

A change into mediawiki software breaks the output of tag <pages..../>, when it contains the text fromsection= tosection= ; empty parameters fromsection= and tosection= should be removed or normalized into fromsection="" tosection="" . This evening I'll run BrolloBot to evaluate the number of broken ns0 pages, and to fix them. If any of you uses personal tools to add a pages tag with empty fromsection and tosection parameters, please fix it converting the code into normalized form. Empty parameters should be probably avoided everywhere. --Alex brollo (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For further info, this problem is due to phab:T108134. The developers say they will look into it "later today". Also, Phe posted a script to fix it. Candalua (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot found & fixed a small number of broken pages (the whole ns0 has been read)- just a few dozens. It was not so a serious issue here. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad & good news about IA djvu files[edit]

Bad news: IA stopped to derive djvu files for new items.

Good news: Phe and Tpt are already working to solve the problem, IA upload tool will hopefully upload the IA djvu file.... even if it doens't exists into IA :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any progress on this? Please let the Wikisources know if a bot / tool becomes available to create the djvu files. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a minor correction: The MediaWiki deployment dates are March 22–24, not 21–23. My apologies. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories created by Babel AutoCreate[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure whether this is the right place, but well. Could any admin please delete all categories created by Special:Contributions/Babel AutoCreate? all of them are wrong, created due to a bug. Matiia (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matiia: Done Ankry (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A draft idea: Module:testo[edit]

A new Module[edit]

Just to let you know about Module:Testo, a generalization of it:Modulo:Testo, vaguely coming from mul.source Module:Nap code. It recovers and shows medatata & links for a ns0 page title using data stored into related Index page.

A example:

* {{testo|O Panu Czorlińscim co do Pucka po sece jachoł}}


It runs decently on proofread works, with a well filled Index page form. --Alex brollo (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled message[edit]

  • I put my proivedeniya, but for some reason erased. How can I restore? I registered.--Кинйә 17:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC) unsigned comment by Азат Хәлилов (talk) .

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

help on formatting[edit]

Can anyone help me with formatting, for example this page? --Kumincir (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kumincir: maybe I could help, but you need to clarify first: what is the trouble that you have? You have some trouble(s) with that alphabetical list on the left side of that page?
If yes — then what kind of the problem is that you are unable to resolve:
1) how to make alphabetical numbering instead of standard numeral;
2) how to deal with the occurence that the list is deployed on two pages and is splitted and divided between them — how to make correct displaying of these list's parts on the proofread page, and on the final transclusion (in order the list's parts were correctly joined into one single list) as well;
3) or do you have both problems at once? --Nigmont (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nigmont: Yes, I mean both of them. It is nice to have the text have the exact appearance, but at least, good formatting should be fine. For the Poesaka Soenda, in the beginning, I thought I would just change the format into one column to avoid formatting problems. Any suggestion? --Kumincir (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kumincir: Yes, I think — anyway you should refuse from using the multicol template in such a way, or else you would not get one contiguous text on a transcluded page: you would get text splitted to pieces corresponding to book pages and each of those page pieces would be separated into two columns, and the text would be swapped from right to left column at every next page.

I tried to change formatting on two pages of your book: Page # 18 and Page # 19, let me explain:

1. Regrading numbering as letters: I do not know to do this by means of the Wikimedia itself, so I did such formatting using html code:

<ol type="a">
<li>item a text</li>
<li>item b text</li>

2. Regarding how to deal with continuation of list between pages: you should get accustomed with page sections "Footer" and "Header": their content is displayed while viewing the page (in the page namespace) but not transcluded; and this is very convenient. You may put in these sections intermediary starts and ends of a list, which (starts and ends) are needed while single page display (to avoid the text to be broken) but not needed (superfluous and excessive) on the final transcluded pages. Now let's see how I did this on that pages: # 18 — I put the intermediary end of the list in the 'Footer' section, and # 19 — I put the intermediary start in the 'Header' section.

And see the result how it was transcluded — on my sandbox.

Take a look on all of this and decide if such ideas are appropriate for you? Anyway if you do not like something of this — you are free to revert my two edits of that pages to their previous state and to continue to do formatting as you wish. Or if in my solutions some more fixes are needed (e. g. I see some slight issues with linebreaks) — I may try to help with this as well. Regards, Nigmont (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nigmont: Many thanks for your suggestions. I'll figure it out what fit best for it. --Kumincir (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help is needed for the Mingrelian WS[edit]

There is a problem on the Mingrelian Wikisource (which is a local Wikisource here, at the Multi-lang. WS): there are many poetry pages in it, which's code contain opening tag <poem> but does not contain the complementary closing tag </poem>, and because of this these pages loose normal poetry formatting. Examples: *ათე სქანი, *ხამ შური, ხამ გური, *სისანდობა ვა რე, and lots of others. Additional details can be seen in the discussion: User talk:მარგალონა#Template:Header.

As I think: maybe some bot-owner could help with the problem, and might launch their bot to perform such a task:

  • Pass through all the pages which are included in the Category:Mingrelian and its sub-categories,
  • and for each of them where within its code — the tag <poem> presents but the closing tag code </poem> is missed:
    • to insert a line consisting entirely of needed </poem> tag — to place it at the end of the page just before the lines with categories (or maybe more precise: just after the last text line which is before the category lines)
  • for all other pages (those ones where both tags present as required, as well as pages which haven't the tag <poem> at all) — to leave them untouched.

Can anyone help to Mingrelian contributor(s) to resolve the problem? --Nigmont (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have used this search query to find all the articles:
insource:/\<poem\>/ incategory:Mingrelian -insource:/\<\/poem\>/
and this source code to add missing enclosing tag:
I also changed |noauthor to |author parameter. I know it broke some stuff. For instance, Mingrelian authors are created in the mainspace and the links were to mainspace too. But yall don't worry. I'll move all the authors to the Author: namespace.--Dixtosa (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authors thing is also done. Dixtosa (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dixtosa: Thank you very much for your great help! --Nigmont (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books to be added using bot on Sourcewiki Wikisource for Hindi[edit]

Dear Sourcewiki burocrats, I will be using my bot account RahmanuddinBot (not flagged as bot on this wiki) to add OCR'ed text to Hindi books' index pages. Please let me know if I need to do any pre-work before I do that! --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one replied on this thread and no one added bot flag and User:Ankry has blocked my bot. In such case, I am using my own account to do the required tasks. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not bureaucrat here, so I do not feel authorized to respond your request. However, massive automatic edits require a bot flag here. Please wait for a bureaucrat decission.
Note, in some cases the bot edits are broken as pages without text should be marked "without text" (or maybe, created manually to revise they are really without text) instead of "not proofread".
BTW, if you feel the block was unfair, feel free to ask another admin to revise it. I will accept their decission. Ankry (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@రహ్మానుద్దీన్: requests for a bot flag should be placed here. I suggest you to ping bureaucrats when you make one. Ankry (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooswesthoesbes, Zyephyrus: Would you consider adding the bot flag here (for RahmanuddinBot) to avoid massive RC spamming? Ankry (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, I also unblocked the account. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Providing help on js cleaning[edit]

Hey, tpt (talkcontribs) proposed me to work on js cleaning task of Wikisource:Shared Scripts. Right now I don't have enough permissions to edit it, so I may propose some changes in a user subpage if you wish. Also tell if you have other similar tasks you might like to be done. :) --Psychoslave (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers.
Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

20:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

15:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mein Kampf in German[edit]

See Mein Kampf, started today. This problemfull text is in German and doesn't belong here - this is my oppinion. I will suggest to delete it here as "out of scope" - see German Wikisource. -jkb- (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to stop these contributions untill we clear this problem. The German Wikisource has been informed. -jkb- (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's a very important historical material, but unfortunately it's not allowed to be posted in German Wikisource due to the special German historical background. If you want an English description, I will add it. Wetitpig0 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid to answer it with "no". If it is an important historical material - that is another question. But first of all it is a very shity and very troubled material. And, as the users on the German Wikisource told you, the text without a solid scientific commentary should not find a place in Wikimedia Foundation projects. But this is only one point: in the Oldwikisource it is out of scope because of the German Wikisource. -jkb- (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I don't need any English description as I speak German and I studied the history. Anyway, thanks. -jkb- (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the general point and the arguments of -jkb- and I think this work should be deleted. Also I could additionally say that, AFAIK, any material which belongs to any language which has own separate sub-domain of Wikisource, may be posted here, on the multi-lang WS, only in the case when:
that material may not be posted on the own language subdomain because of copyright restrictions of the main country of that language but may be posted here because such copyright restrictions does not exist according to laws of the US.
Any other reason of banning the material on the "national" WS (the German one as in this case) does not fit for transferring of publishing material here instead of the "national" WS, as I think. --Nigmont (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
btw. there still may be some copyright restictions in the US (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Mein Kampf) --WikiAnika (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yepp, thank you; this was another point I wanted to ask in the deWS or deWP. -jkb- (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this website, only the copyright of ENGLISH version was seized. Therefore, the German version is in public domain in the US.Wetitpig0 (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another website also found that the US government has transferred the copyright to the government of Bavaria.Wetitpig0 (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bavarian State is the inheritor of the private person Adolf Hitler (no children to inherit). The Bavarian State is also the instance, that will use any possible legal force against any publication of that book. You believe they won't use the (in this case) more restrictive US copyright law for works published in 1923 and later to hinder anyone to publish it (without solid scientific notations)?
I don't know how to link it correctly, but have a look at the Public Catalog of the United States Copyright Office and search for Mein Kampf / By Adolf Hitler. --> Entire Copyright Document: V1798P254-255 (Houghton Mifflin Company) and Entire Copyright Document: V1786P346-347 (also Houghton Mifflin Company) --WikiAnika (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) btw. according to "this website" Anne Franks Diary shall be in the PD as well, we all know what happend to the publication of it at nl.wsReply[reply]

Check this first: Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archives/Mein KampfWetitpig0 (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whats your point? --WikiAnika (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only the English Edition is copyrighed, but not the German version.Wetitpig0 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in the US? Why? --WikiAnika (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wetitpig0, WikiAnika: Main Kampf is still copyrighted in US because of URAA. As it was NOT in Public Domain in Germany on 1.1.1996, it is copyrighted in US 95 years from publication date. So eg. a 1925 edition would be PD in US some day in 2020 (assuming exact publication date is known). It is clear copyright violation till this date. The fact it is PD in Germany is irrelevant for this project. Ankry (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wetitpig0: The information in Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/archives/Mein Kampf is outdated as in 2004 we were not aware about URAA. Ankry (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As stated above the question of copyright or copyvio is pretty secondary here anyway. The main point I made is the language problem - the work is not appropriate here (beside other points like copyright not clear, nazi propaganda etc.). See also my announcement in Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Mein Kampf. Regards, -jkb- (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deleted, see my deletion notice in proposed deletions. -jkb- (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proofreadpage on the Norwegian Wikisource[edit]

When editing a page in the "Index" namespace on the Norwegian Wikisource, the attributes of s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index attributes don't seem to be used. For example, try to edit s:no:Indeks:Nansen,Fridtjof-Fram over Polhavet I-1942.djvu. In the edit window, only 8 fields are shown, while a lot more are listed in "MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index attributes". Could anyone help us find out why? Kåre-Olav (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Kåre-Olav! MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index attributes and MediaWiki:Proofreadpage js attributes can be deleted, if they exist, because they are substituted by MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config‎. More information in Wikisource:ProofreadPage/Improve_index_pages#Improvement_of_the_index_form. I suggest adding some short help text at "Help" field (e.g. mouse over "?" symbol in "language code" in multilingual Wikisource (e.g.)). Best regards! -Aleator 00:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I have deleted those two pages. Still, the index page form doesn't seem to actually use the attributes which are given on our s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config. As you can see, there are more than 15 attribute names on that page, while only 8 are shown in the index edit form... I tried to copy the one you have on this wiki, but still no changes in the form. Kåre-Olav (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmm... I better would revert this edit in s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config because it must be coordinated with s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage_index_template, and the first now has new and unpaired items, and the second the desired 18 items that we want to see in the form.
Now, if we try to edit one Index and click on "show changes" button, (without modifying nothing), there will be unwanted (?) changes: this index still turns from 18 items (still not appeareing on the form) to 8 items (still 8 fields in the form). But why we still see e.g. "Merknader" form field??? It has to come from the now deleted and hardcoded s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index attributes. But if s:no:MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config exists, and it exists, "Merknader" must not appear. The only explanation I can figure out is that we have to wait for some update or refresh. Let's see again in 24 hours (any other help comments will be welcome). -Aleator 01:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted that edit. Nothing happened. It seems to me that our wiki is ignoring all pages in the MediaWiki namespace and using a default instead. Look at s:no:MediaWiki:Sidebar. Here we have included a link to our local Scriptorium (Kontoret), but it doesn't show up in the sidebar. What could be causing this? Kåre-Olav (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Kåre-Olav! I opened phab:T142921 because I don't know what is happening; let's wait for the help of the developers. Perhaps it has relation to some bugs (like phab:T126146) which afected some Norwegian wikis because of the no-nb language code confusion. In any case, if other users can have a look that would be great. Best regards! -Aleator 09:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! Kåre-Olav (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No feedback. Waiting... -Aleator 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Deceased user[edit]

moved from en:WS:AN by user:billinghurst

Eclecticology, who contributed thousands of edits here as early as 2002, has died; see [263]. This was announced over at w:en:WP:AN, the en:wp administrators' noticeboard. As a very infrequent visitor here, I'm unclear about the relationship between the English Wikisource and the non-language-affiliated version of Wikisource, but was an administrator and bureaucrat over there, so I'd appreciate it if someone here would contact the folks over there. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sad news :(
I requested removal of his rights per standard procedure. Ankry (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sad news for me as well. Thank you Ankry for your action. -jkb- (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0[edit]

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. Joe Sutherland (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Password reset[edit]

I apologise that this message is in English. ⧼Centralnotice-shared-help-translate⧽

We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.

Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.

In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.

Select strong passwords – eight or more characters long, and containing letters, numbers, and punctuation. Joe Sutherland (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding to the above section (Password reset)[edit]

Please accept my apologies - that first line should read "Help with translations!". Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) / MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

15:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"copyvio invasion" from cawiki/commons[edit]

I found some users that uploaded a lot of copyvios and not appropriate files / audio files here:

I have found their accounts with the same uploads on cawiki and/or commons, mostly blocked there indef. I blocked the user and deleted the files, but might be there are some elder left or they will come in the next future. Pls have a look at this. Thanks -jkb- (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aleator: you have some idea? -jkb- (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@-jkb-: It seems to be related to some news that say Wikimedia and Facebook have given Angolans free access to their websites, but not to the rest of the internet. So, naturally, Angolans have started hiding pirated movies and music in Wikipedia articles (...) (e.g. w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media). In Angola the spoken language is Portuguese, which fits with some of their edits, but I cannot understand why they choose to edit on (it makes no sense). I'll have a look to uploaded files all around. Thanks for ping (that's a good invention :) -Aleator 16:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thanks. OK, I am not admin on Facebook, and what WMF did concerning other projects ... OK, no comment. But all of the files and audio files were not sourced, not licenced / copyvios, fully out of scope here on sourceswiki. WMF should make an agreement where the kiddies can edit (yep, the most fotos were kids from Africa etc.); yep, the spoke portuguese so I don't know what they have been looking for in the dcatalan projets aölthough even editin in portuguese projets; the most blocks were on cawiki and commons (and now here). However, we have to delete the inputs. Thanks once more, -jkb- (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a bit unhappy about the ongoing problems with the angolan kids. Yes, everybody knows the huge problems over there, not only with the education, internet and the situation of the youth. And everybody, me inclusive, must support the thought (see Aleators report above) to support the young people there with free access or whatever to WMF projects. But the people who are responsible for this had to instruct them what where when and how they can edit here. At present it seems to be a problem here, on commons and on because the angolan users supply us with a great amount of copyvios and other not suitable files. It costs us time to repair it, and more over, I do not delete the files and I do not block the users with pleasure, I'm sorry about it, but otherwise a chaos will uprise here soon. Any idea somebody? @Aleator: do you know what responsible person in the WMF could be contacted in this matter? Regards -jkb- (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been searching and it seems the problems started December 2014. In wmf:Wikipedia Zero there is a mail to WZ team. I've also found this july 2015 link in Meta (m:Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2015-07#Wikipedia_Zero_being_used_to_violate_copyright) which lists some WMF members that may be interested, so I ping them all 3: @AVrana (WMF), Dfoy (WMF), Jalexander-WMF: (I'll also ping them from Commons because 2 first user account don't exist here at Multilingual Wikisource). In any case it seems that it is a group of youngs (w:pt:Usuário(a) Discussão:Evanildo Da Silva Tecnomant has written a list of friends very close to the list above). I'm sure: they will get tired soon. Best regards! -Aleator 00:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Numbers at the main page[edit]

What pages do you mean? I enter any language edition in the top ten and see completely different numbers... --Infovarius (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infovarius: These are very old, outdated values based on these statistics. However, my attempt to update them almost a year ago was contested (see this discussion).
It seems there is no clear consensus which statistics should be used, if any. And it is a real problem as we have various statistics:
I can imagine many criteria that can be used. But, as various Wikisources are very different according to used technology, organization, encoding, etc., no single criterion allows to compare all Wikisources in a fair way. Just few examples:
criterion disadvantages
1. number of "good articles" definition of a good article varies among wikis: some wikis include pages from the Page namespace here, some do not; it is not fair to count a text from 50-page book as "1" when ProofreadPage is not used vs. as "51" when all 50 pages are "good articles"
2. number of pages in the main namespace in some wikis subpages are used to present short encyclopedic notes or dictionary entries; it is not fair to treat few-words entry in the same way as a novel; also some wikis use the Author ns, some present the same content in the main ns
3. number of pages in the main namespace (without subpages) in some wikis subpages are used for presenting content of large books; it is not fair to treat a multi-volume book in the same way as a short poem or large novel as a short poem; also some wikis use the Author ns, while others present information about authors in the main ns
4. number of "proofread" / "validated" pages in the Page namespace not all wikis use ProofreadPage; they would be discriminated
5. number of pages in the Page namespace as above + some wikis upload pure OCR which is not very valuable contribution
6. number of bytes in all pages some languages use mainly single-byte Unicode characters, some base on multi-byte characters; also in few wikis multiple copies of almost the same content may be present (various orthography / alphabet / presentation form versions etc.)
7. number of bytes in the main ns pages see above + in wikis using ProofreadPage the main ns contains almost no content
8. number of characters in all pages some languages are more compact, some are more verbose
9. database size each edit creates a new copy of the whole page in the database; so wikis with edits to large pages (not using ProofreadPage) would be preferred here
10. number of pageviews per day/month/year wikisource traffic is generally low and it is easy to falsify it; so not very reliable; our activity should be based on creating content, not on traffic generation
Maybe we should start the discussion again? I have no idea which criterion or which criteria are the best to be used on the main page. Ten of them seems to be too many. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, good review. So many criteria... I can propose a new one: a number of creative works (can be obtained by a query to Wikidata). --Infovarius (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are joking, aren't you? Ankry (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New way to edit wikitext[edit]

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse filter[edit]

@-jkb-, Jusjih, Satdeep Gill, Tpt, Yann:@Zyephyrus: To minimize recent problems with Angolan/Wikipedia_zero users using wikis as file-sharing sites, I just added a filter limitting file uploads by low-contribution users. Everybody is still authorized to upload djvu/pdf. Other files should mostly go to Commons. Let me know if you see any problem with this filter. Ankry (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • just as I told you on your talk page: very good and useful idea, thanks. -jkb- (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amazing idea. Thank you. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Using AWB on Multilingual Wikisource[edit]

Multilingual Wikisource is not available as an option on AWB. Can anyone suggest a solution ? --Satdeep Gill (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Satdeep Gill: OptionsPreferencesSiteProject: Custom —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Thanks a lot. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Satdeep Gill: No problem. You will probably have better luck in the future getting questions answered if you post to w:WT:AWB but I monitor this page as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing gu[edit]

Wikisource:Languages I have edited this to remove Gujarati texts and requested that Category:Gujarati and Category:ગુજરાતી be deleted. s:gu: exists and no texts are hosted here (although the project page said otherwise until I edited it). —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Done. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]