Wikisource:Scriptorium

Edit(+) / Seite bearbeiten(+) / Modifier(+) / Pagina bewerken (+) / Düzenle (+) See Scriptoria in other language sub-domains:

- - - - - - - - - - -

Wikisource project pages

• What is Wikisource?
• Wikisource and Wikibooks
• Votes
• Statistics
• Copyright
• Possible copyright violations
• Proposed deletions
• Cataloging
• Wikisource and Project Gutenberg
• Languages - see below

Separate discussions

Verschobene Diskussionen / Discussions déplacées / verschoven besprekingen / 移动的讨论 / Discussioni spostate

Logo

• Wikisource:Logo
• Wikisource:New_Wikisource_logo

Languages

• Language policy
• Language domain requests
• Language domain requests/Rules for voting
• List of Wikisource Languages (=Main Page)

The language domain vote (over now):

• New vote on language subdomains (vote has concluded)
• New discussion on language subdomains (vote has concluded)

Archives

Archive / 存 / Archivi (oldest first)

• m:Wikisource (Pre-launch discussions)
• November 2003 to January 2004
• Feb 2004 - Jun 2004
• Jul 2004 - Oct 2004
• Oct 2004 - Feb 2005
• Feb 2005 - Apr 2005
• Apr 2005 - Aug 2005
• Aug 2005 - Sep 2005 (through the move to language subdomains)
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Sep 2005 - Jan 2006 (months following the move language subdomains)

==================================================

Note for people following an old link

Could an admin add a note to MediaWiki:Noarticletext, mentioning the language subdomains. I have so often clicked on links at Wikipedia and got this simple note. I know that it were outdated links and that the text now is in a subdomain, but most other people will think the article doesn't exist (anymore) and delete the link. --Jofi 00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. However explainations could be improved. Yann 14:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "other language subdomains", because some people might not know what a subdomain is? Unfortunately Google still displays the old pages, and often the ranking of the old, long deleted pages is higher than of the new ones in the subdomains. --Jofi 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource:New Wikisource logo

There's a new discussion and a soon-to-come vote on the new logo of Wikisource. Please discuss it on the talk page, and discuss the seperate logos there. Datrio 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Quick Survey of Languages

Out of curiousity, I did a quick survey of activity and progress on the various subdomains using RecentChanges and looking at Main Pages.

If I am not mistaken, there are currently 27 languages with Wikisource subdomains. Of those, I found only one that seems largely inactive, namely cy.wikisource.org. Besides cy.wikisource, there are just 2-3 others with only minimal recent activity (i.e. an average of just 1-2 edits per day), but all of those have nevertheless added significant content over the past few months and have useful Main Pages.

This means that nearly two dozen languages are flourishing, less than five months after the transfer. All of the larger languages (e.g. English, French, German) seem to have recovered completely from the move and done a great deal to revamp their infrastructures. Other languages have to have managed to do so to a large extent from scratch.

This is something very positive and wonderful. Would be good to get specific feedback from various languages. Dovi 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

de: It has completely recovered from the move, the only (and serious) problem are many external links that link to the old domain. Contributions at de vary very much, but really increased in comparison to before the move. Biggest problem at the moment: There is no community, people come, contribute their sources and are gone again. --Jofi 00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Language comparisons by dump size

I took a look at the compressed database sizes (dumps from 22 Jan - 1 Feb). These are the file sizes of pages-articles.xml.bz2

 1 enwikisource 93.0 MB
 2 frwikisource 52.6 MB 
 3 arwikisource 23.2 MB
 4 eswikisource 17.4 MB
 5 dewikisource 14.1 MB
 6 lawikisource 13.1 MB
   sourceswiki  12.0 MB
 7 zhwikisource  9.4 MB
 8 rowikisource  8.2 MB
 9 itwikisource  7.8 MB
10 plwikisource  7.0 MB
11 elwikisource  6.1 MB
12 ruwikisource  5.9 MB
13 hrwikisource  4.3 MB
14 hewikisource  3.6 MB
15 ptwikisource  1.6 MB
16 nlwikisource  1.5 MB
17 jawikisource  1.2 MB
18 srwikisource  1.1 MB
19 dawikisource  783 KB
20 svwikisource  693 KB
21 kowikisource  649 KB
22 glwikisource  266 KB
23 idwikisource  265 KB
24 trwikisource  257 KB
25 fawikisource  168 KB
26 iswikisource  150 KB
27 cywikisource   66 KB

At the moment cy seems to be the only subdomain that has so little contributions, that it might be necessary to shut it down and merge with the international part again (see contribution above). Surprising results in comparison to the article statistics at Main Page: "ar" and "la" have much content, but little articles, the same at "el". The opposite with "hr": There are many articles with rather little content. --Jofi 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I neither support nor oppose merging inactive language subdomains back to multilingual Wikisource, but I hope that we make a written rule.--Jusjih 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless it starts collecting spam, there is no need to do such a thing. And even then it would be locked, not "moved back." Plus, the cy.wikipedia has a reasonable amount of activity, so people who know the language will be looking at that Wikisource from time to time.

But the focus of my comments were not on cy.wikisource, rather on the two dozen wikis that seem to be doing not just well (which all of us had hoped would happen), but far better than I personally expected! This is a great thing, and thanks also to Jofi for his stats, which make it even clearer.

As far as community - on en.wikisource I think that has really happened, and quite nicely too, not just people "stopping by" to leave texts. At he.wikisource too, though of course the number of people is much smaller. What really seems to make it happen is working together on infrastucture - policies, templates, cleanup, Main Page and other central pages, categories and classification systems, and of course helping out others with questions and problems. In other words, it seems like the people who want to be librarians make up the steady community, which seems rather appropriate... Dovi 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly generally support language domains. But at "cy" there were no real contributions since December, 11th and the only real contributions have been made in the first 26 hours after the creation of the subdomain. The only admin is Brion VIBBER. I don't know if he really wants to maintain the domain, but the spam on one page kept unreverted for about 3 weeks. If the contributions to "cy" don't increase, there is no reason why we should keep the multilangual part of Wikisource. The activity of "cy" could be reached by almost any language subdomain, and there would be no argument to refuse any of the requests. --Jofi 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a small point: when comparing database size, remember that non Latin alphabet languages (i.e. Arabic, Chinese, Indian languages, etc.) use much more space (x 2 ?) than Latin alphabet languages. Yann 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Latin alphabet languages get a much better compression rate. Bogdan 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison is not very precise. But "la" does use Latin alphabet (what else ;-)) and "ar" has less than 800 counted articles. So it's still remarkable. --Jofi 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi there! I was setting up an account here to be of some help, but noticed it doesnt work for the language subdomains. Then I wonder, what is the point of starting an account here in the first place? Is the top-level just a shell for the lower levels? Why isnt it linked? I'll probably want to add stuff in English, and occasionally in Dutch; so what accounts should I create?

And, consequently, perhaps it might be worth it to streamline the accounts so that one single account works on different subdomains? Certainly it might be worth it to use signal more clearly that this is the top-level in the first place, as there is no visual difference whatsoever.

Cheers! 12:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

The old main WS is used to host documents in languages which do not have a subdomain. Regards, Yann 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is linked. If you check the option remember me you can use the same account and password combination on most projects. For me it works here and on most Wikipedias except English, I happen to have a different name there, bc this one was taken :(

I am afraid you are not right. You can use the same user name and password in every project, but unless you create an account in every project, you cannot log in. The button remember me BTW is something quite else, it makes your log in automatically every time you visit the project. -jkb- 12:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikisource-logo.jpg

According to the page for this image, its copyright has just been released to the Wikimedia Foundation. How can we verify that WMF actually has the copyright for this work? We might need to contact someone to get this finalized. But this opens up a number of possible works for our new logo if this is the case (such as the stylized version and other derivatives of the stylized iceberg).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The author has left the same message on his own page: see here. Since he was logged in when he wrote that, I guess we have a proof that it was him and not someone else. ThomasV 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the copyright status of the image affects any stylized versions of the image - only versions that directly use the image itself (which is currently just the current logo). The stylized versions fall under whatever license their creators grant, irrespective of how the original image is licensed as they are not derivative works in the legal sense. (Note, ianal, but that is my understanding, anyway) --HappyDog 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that if someone stylized the iceberg logo, that would be considered a derivative work, since they're taking the iceberg as a source of ideas and expanding on it to produce something new. As such they would have to obtain permission from the current copyright holder to create a stylized version. I'm not a lawyer, either, so I may have a wrong understanding, but that was how I understood it to be.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Taking your ideas from a source is different from using the image _as_ the source. A moot point in the current situation, but I'd be interested to know what the actual legal position would be if permission had not been granted. --HappyDog 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

new subdomains

new subdomains were created :

• yi.wikisource.org
• sk.wikisource.org
• cs.wikisource.org
• ml.wikisource.org

congratulations and good luck! ThomasV 11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank a lot, -jkb- 12:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Cite.php: for references in the same page. You can read more here. Used at spanish wikisource in this article. --LadyInGrey 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource-I mailing list

I've noticed that most of our sister projects have a mailing list of their own yet we do not. I was wondering what people would think of having a mailing list for us to make discussions and whatnot on. It would probably be a much better method than relying on this Scriptorium (let's be realistic: very few discussions ever happen here anymore, since many contributors do not regularly check this site)--discussions stand a much better chance of not stalling and dying. Also, it would be a way to let people see what sorts of things are going on at WS. What are your thoughts?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I support a mailing list. Previously, you, I, and other administrators could oversee all pages, so we could delete copyvios in any languages, but as more language subdomains break away from this multilingual site, a mailing list becomes even more important to co-ordinate things at Wikisource subdomains.--Jusjih 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. would be useful. ThomasV 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

support from me, -jkb- 09:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The list has been created. For those interested, subscription information can be found here.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who may be interested in subscribing, the first mailing list discussion to begin concerns the creation of a Wikisource <format>-to-wikimarkup conversion script (see the archives). // Pathoschild 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets try and advertise this in the subdomains too. I put a message in the Spanish Cafe. Anyone that can translate various languages, please advertise this to people at those subdomains too. --BirgitteSB 18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages

Since this wiki is still active, I think it would be good to add some documentation to it and give it a bit of a backbone. Recently, on the English sub-domain, we've written a lot of policies, and I think a few would be beneficial here. I think we should definitely port over the inclusion policy once it's been established and the deletion policy at the least so that we can have some official documents to point to should people ask.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Zhaladshar!!!!!!! Yes!!!!! First, I miss such pages here. Secondly, I think in the process of creating new language Wikisources they would be very usefull for the new ones. Now i mus search in all projects to find something on deletion, on blocking, is a xx.wikisource more close to xx.wikipedia or to wikisource.org, on copyright (in fact, there are some serious differences between the page here and the page on the en.wikisource) etc. I think we need it. Urgently. -jkb- 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The great work done on en.ws would be beneficial here. Yann 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to porting over deletion, copyright, inclusion, administrator, and blocking policies to begin with. We can change them as we need to fit this sub-domain, and it would allow us to have an actual, hard copy policy to point to and allow newer sub-domains to have an established document to refer to/translate and adopt on their own project. That way, some of the growing pains can be avoided.

I'll also revamp many of the pages in our "Wikisource:" namespace which are so out of date that it's embarrassing. Once school lets out, I can dedicate much more time to this project. But I expect to have policies over here by the end of the week.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am not like to promise I will help by writing some pages on this – 1. my english is ok but other speak better, 2. some of you are longer time here as me so you can judge the questions better, 3. I still have much to do with the new cs.wikisource. But if there is something I could help so i will do so.
As fitst I would like to mention that there are some differences on the use of the fair use licence:

• Wikisource:Copyright – probably limited
• s:en:Help:Copyright and Wikisource - ???
• en:Wikisource:Wikisource:Copyright explicitly prohibited on Wikisource.

So, what with fair use??? -jkb- 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use doesn't make sense here, as it usually means "part of a work" included in other related document, but we want to publish whole works independently. The exception may be book covers or photos of the author. Yann 18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one of the things the copyright policy will formalize is that (1) all texts must be public domain, GFDL, or GFDL-compatible. WS has been lax on this and it caused us some frustration and problems a little while ago; (2) it will prohibit fair use (I prefer in its entirety, but at least no fair use texts) to an extent we can decide upon later. For a site like WS, copyright should have been the first thing we nailed down, but it's pretty much turned into the very last thing. Ironic...—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I support disallowing fair use that will not fit here. Is there any draft policy here to disallow non-commercial licenses as well? Fair use and non-commercial licenses are now disallowed at English Wikisource, but this policy has not been uniformly enforced at other subdomains, including Chinese Wikisource.--Jusjih 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright policy? Delete all Creative Commons works?

I recently wrote a very long email to wikisource-l to express desire for establishing consistency across subdomains: "Currently it seems that some licenses are valid on some subdomains but not others. (English Wikisource) requires all content to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. However, maybe some other language subdomains do not have this policy?" In the same email, I went to explain that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free but not compatible with the GFDL.

The first reply was from Erik Moeller (Eloquence), who wrote: "Wikisource should instead follow similar principles as the Wikimedia Commons and allow any free content license to be used for added works." That said, I thought that someone high up in Wikimedia said that we must have GFDL-compatibility, which implies that Creative Commons works must leave Wikisource? --Kernigh 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting Hindi sources and Scriptorium out of Wikisource?

Isn't it time to move Hindi pages out of the main domain? Almost all pages found by "random page" in the main domain are in Hindi (and their number growing), and this does not help looking for other sources in more rare languages. Additionally the Hindi script URLs are much harder to work with, and the community Scriptorium gets in fact "polluted" by the inability to locate appropriate categories.

Most of the Scriptorium should also go to Meta-Wiki as it is already cross-project, and contains much more tools and management templates or help pages already written there for specific languages.

The main Wikisource sites hould just include the multilingual portal, and the initial sections for rare languages, properly organized into language categories, for easier transfer to another domain later when this content becomes significant. To ease this transition, a minimum set of international common (meta-)pages and templates should be created that will be transfered to the new domain translated later with the articles.

So the main wikisource should remain small and manageable. (note that new domain names could be created early as equivalents to the main site. This would make interwikis to Wikisource already working for those languages that still have not been transfered into a separate database.) 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I did most of the work regarding Hindi and Sanskrit here. And most of the pages are Sanskrit, not Hindi. I am totally against separating languages unless there is a significant community to support a subdomain. In cases of Hindi and Sanskrit, I doubt that such a community exists, seeing the edits made upto now, and the number of editors on corresponding Wikipedia languages. And please, logging in and sign your comments. Yann 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Yann. Unless there are a number of people who are willing to start up a new language Wikisource, a sub-domain should not be made.

The Scriptorium is not a place to locate language categories (I'm assuming you mean here to locate works written in a particular language). This is to discuss local issues on this wiki is sometimes used to coordinate between the different languages.

The current wiki is small and scaleable, and should remain entirely open for works of a particular language which will likely never get its own sub-domain. I see no reason why any of this should be ported over to Meta.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this anonymous contributor that moving these pages out to a subdomain would clarify the situation here... ThomasV 08:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a Hindi sub-domain as a project that will be all that active. It seems to be the case that inactive projects collect more vandalism than anything else. I seems safer to keep them here where a number of people watch the project than to move it to a new domain which might only be frequented by a very few people and only at irregular intervals. I would love to see a Hindi sub-domain, don't get me wrong, but I believe there should be support from people who will be active for it.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

sure. all I wanted to say is that there would be advantages to it. ThomasV 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

languages main pages

For those wikis that do not have a subdomain, I would like to proceed with a reorganization. Currently we have a set of main pages for each languages, and a set of categories. This has two drawbacks :

1. it is redundant.
2. it is difficult to locate a document, or to access the list, for someone who does not understand a language.

Since the number of pages in languages that are here is in general small, it would be possible to have the whole list of texts directly on their corresponding main page. So, I propose to use the category pages as the main pages. That is, move the content of each main page to the corresponding category page, where it would be used as a header. It would make it more direct to access the list of pages written in a given language. What do you guys think? ThomasV 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is good, but someone must be able to identify which language an article belongs to.--Jusjih 15:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, I am starting to move a few of those, and to have a unified design.ThomasV 07:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Change Logos to SVG-Version

Hi there! There are SVG-Versions available for Image:Wikimedia without text-35px.png, Image:Wikibooks without text-35px.png, Image:Commons without text-35px.png and Image:Wikiquote without text-35px.png. Would be lovely if one of the admins could change those images in Template:Sisterprojects No Text and Main Page. The new logos are Image:Wikimedia-logo.svg, Image:Wikibooks-logo.svg, Image:Commons-logo.svg and Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg. Thank you very much! Regards, 217.225.124.149 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what the big deal about the SVG versions are. What's wrong with the PNG ones?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there may be some browsers/systems which do not support SVG, so I would not change the logos. Yann 14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Browsers without SVG support should not be a problem. The MediaWiki software should render the images as PNG. I know that there was a problem with transparency in PNG, but was not that fixed? I think the advantage of SVG is that scaled versions of scalable SVG graphics are more accurate than scaled verions of portable PNG graphics. 82.212.68.183 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Important change in the policy of de.wikisource

At de.wikisource there is a majority of those, who don't want to have texts without source or texts copied from other websites any longer (see here). So, if you contributed German texts in the last years, I strongly encourage you to add your source to the text. If you cannot do this or if you copied the text from another website and you want to keep your wikified version of it, then now is the right time to copy your text from de and to transfer ist elsewhere. It most likely will be deleted at de. --Jofi 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does the German Wikisource want to delete web sources? Does this mean that if a text (such as Kafka's The Metamorphosis were copied to de.wikisource from a website it will be deleted simply because it's an internet source?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really do not understand what de.wikisource wants to do. Yann 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the purpose of Wikisource is not to be a copy of Project good mountain or any other website. But works copied from other sites on the web can still be useful on Wikisource. So I see no reason to delete those works or to forbid copying more works. 82.212.68.183 14:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you forbid copying works from websites, the number of works the German Wikisource has will become virtually nil. How many people have access to old books and decent OCR material that they can scan in works and edit them? Such a process is extremely time consuming--just as much as transcribing them would be. I'm hoping that we are just not understanding what is happening (maybe they are forbidding a certain kind of web document?) and it's not an all out ban on web sources.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

At de.wikisource there are some projects that OCR works and edit them. And that is nice. But in fact you did understand correctly what is happening: Most likely anything else shall be deleted. Certainly that means, that thousands of pages will be deleted. In fact the whole process of transfering the texts from multilangual wikisource to de was unnecessary: Almost everything of those texts have no source or are copied from other websites. --Jofi 23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what is causing this change. How and why was this decided upon? It is an extremely dramatic change in policy, and I wonder about the ramifications. The biggest I'm concerned about (it's the only one I can think of right now; I'm sure I can come up with more later) is that user involvement in de.wikisource will drop dramatically. If all web-based contributions are excluded, most people who do not have decent OCR software or the rare books will be turned off of the project, because they've got no opportunity to be involved. Sure, some will stay, because they've got the required tools to allow them to be useful, but what about the newbies? Saying to them, "Oh, I'm sorry. We do not accept what you are uploading to our project. Please do not continue to add those works" would not put de.wikisource in a very good light and will cause growth in that project to all but halt. This is the reverse direction of what any Wikimedia project should want.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is entirely contrary with the rules of wikisource. For me, it is a nonsense. Marc 08:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)