Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard
| Wikisource snapshot |
|---|
|
No. of pages = 4,865,702 No. of pages in Main = 636,100 No. of users = 3,309,042 |
Checkuser requests
[edit]- Wikisource:checkuser policy
- At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to be undertaken by stewards
- it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
- requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
- requests for checkuser
Bureaucrat requests
[edit]- To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.
Page (un)protection requests
[edit] | At this section you can request protection of a page, eg. a text that you have checked against a hard copy, or a template. Please make sure that the request follows the requirements of the procedure for protecting pages. You can also request unprotection of a text according to the procedure for protecting pages. You should request a reprotection when your work is done. Alternately utilise {{edit protected}} for the respective talk page. |
Unprotect Author:Beatrix Potter. It's been eight years, no pressing need for any protection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)- Actually, we should also unprotect all her works, which were all protected when decision was made to feature the author as a whole. On the placement of featured stars: why were they put on two of these works specifically? and why was protection level different between works (auto vs full)? Also, I have just adapted the template for authors. — Alien 3
3 3 08:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)- I assume The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1910) because it has the color illustrations and is the first and most famous while The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots being recently discovered and hence of interest and published and hence that the public domain isn't just books first published ages ago. For works shown on the front page, they are targets of vandalism so I can understand locking them down around the time of featuring. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't remember but yeah that sounds plausible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I assume The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1910) because it has the color illustrations and is the first and most famous while The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots being recently discovered and hence of interest and published and hence that the public domain isn't just books first published ages ago. For works shown on the front page, they are targets of vandalism so I can understand locking them down around the time of featuring. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Sub-discussion: "featured" stars
[edit]On the placement of featured stars: why were they put on two of these works specifically?
- I'll check the rest of them for featured stars. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- ... does anyone know why the "featured" status from Wikidata isn't displaying a star here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- We chose to feature a collection of her tales all at once, because they are all short, rather than a single story. So featured status won't appear on just one page. Refer to this version to see what was featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. Most of the works that were part of the featured collection, are linked to Wikidata items that have the badge featured article (Q17437796), which is supposed to display a gold star in the top right corner of the page on enWS (next to the "validated" icon that is generated from the badge validated (Q20748093)). However, this gold star is not being displayed, except on pages where it has been manually added by the template {{featured}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- (Note: I have now manually added {{featured}} to all of the works that were in the featured collection) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I was answering an earlier question, and your comment was inserted while I was writing mine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- As I understand it, we chose to manually control our star placements rather than rely on stability of labelling at Wikidata for Featured status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Gotcha :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. Most of the works that were part of the featured collection, are linked to Wikidata items that have the badge featured article (Q17437796), which is supposed to display a gold star in the top right corner of the page on enWS (next to the "validated" icon that is generated from the badge validated (Q20748093)). However, this gold star is not being displayed, except on pages where it has been manually added by the template {{featured}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- We chose to feature a collection of her tales all at once, because they are all short, rather than a single story. So featured status won't appear on just one page. Refer to this version to see what was featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- ... does anyone know why the "featured" status from Wikidata isn't displaying a star here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Unprotect as it was featured eight years ago and there's no real need to make editing admin-only. If not, could someone replace the {{page break}} templates with {{ppb}} and remove the first one? Nighfidelity (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Unprotected and page breaks regularised. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Nighfidelity: Although it was first featured in 2018, it was featured every October from 2018 through 2023 because of the inactivity of Featured Texts. Many works have been on the Main page for several years running, which is why they have long-term page protection. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Either remove or at least reduce protections as per Template talk:Page#Reduce protections. The original reasoning for full protection is no longer true and the current transclusion count is well below 500. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Other
[edit]Download button vs. download sidebar
[edit]I’m reporting this here because I think an administrator needs to fix a page. The download features in the sidebar don’t do the same thing as the “download” button which floats to the right of the title; see, e.g., here, where the “Download” button gets the whole book, and the download sidebar features only get a list of the books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't know why nobody followed up on this issue back in February. Possibly it's because it's a somewhat technical issue and we're a little short on technically-minded admins. In any case: apologies for dropping the ball on this one! Could you retest the issue you originally saw to verify it still behaves the way you observed then? I suspect there may have been intervening changes.@Samwilson: Using the Download button to download a PDF on the page TE(æ)A,ea. links above gives me a PDF with all the auxtoc pages but none of the actual chapters. Can you tell what's going on there? Xover (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Xover: Now, both options are broken. I suspect your removal of the hidden ToC is to blame. Having reverted that change, the issue is reversed: the “download” button gets only the list of books, while the sidebar gets the whole book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea., @Xover: I would've said that the sidebar links and the button are the same links, but they're not it seems:
- And indeed, the output differs. It's also different from the CLI tool's output with an unencoded title. I'll have a look at fixing this. Sam Wilson 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Xover: Now, both options are broken. I suspect your removal of the hidden ToC is to blame. Having reverted that change, the issue is reversed: the “download” button gets only the list of books, while the sidebar gets the whole book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The original upload of this file had many pages removed, for some reason (separate from the two missing pages, which have been added). The following pages need to be moved:
- /2–/12 up 5
- /13–/15 up 6
- /16 up 7
- /17–/65 up 8
- /66 up 9
- /67–/149 up 10
- /150 up 11
- /151–/185 up 12
- /186 up 13
- /187–/192 up 14
- /193 up 19
The large swath of pages marked “Problematic” is, I believe, owing to the confused state of the pages. I’ll look over them after the move to see if they need to be changed in any respect. In addition, /31 and /32 can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.:
Done Xover (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Xover: Thank you. For those pages, delete /158, /159, /161, /196, and /197, and move /163–/195 up two. They can then all be marked as proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done. As no bot operating admins seem to have time and as the pages were not that many, I did it manually. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Index merge request
[edit]I’m putting this request here so that administrators can deal with the Page: moves. Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf has recently been created, which contains the entire issue of the periodical from which Index:The Eye of Argon.djvu has been excerpted. Could someone please move the pages from the .djvu to the .pdf, please? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe @CalendulaAsteraceae:? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to do this move, but I notice that Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf is missing pages 49 and 50. Maybe take this to the scan lab first? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe at least put two blind pages if the right pages are temporarily not to find anywhere... Draco flavus (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to do this move, but I notice that Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf is missing pages 49 and 50. Maybe take this to the scan lab first? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
V22 Discussions
[edit]Hi admins, just checking if it would be ok to start three separate discussions at the Scriptorium to try to get consensus on the best way for Vector 22 to handle a few specifics, to keep the discussions with the WMF web staff going and get their support implementing the outcomes. The main things seem to be:
- {{overfloat image}} (currently breaks when Standard and Large text sizes are selected)
- Text size options in appearance menu (what should the default be, etc.)
- Dark mode
I don't want to rush in if this isn't the best way to go about this. --YodinT 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Request for temporary importer rights
[edit]Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask – if not, please let me know where else I should ask. I was just contacted by @Exec8, who told me about a project called "Local Laws Digitization and Proofreading Project" from 2023, that added a lot of legal texts from the Philippines to Wikisource. These texts are all in English, but unfortunately they were added to the multilingual Wikisource instead of the English Wikisource.
I can import them from the multilingual Wikisource and import them here (I am one of the new wiki importers, so I have plenty of experience with that), but in order to do that, I will need the importer rights (specifically the importupload right, which no other user group has access to).
This right can only be added and removed by Stewards, but they usually want to see local consensus.
I will only need the rights for around a week in order to complete the import. I don't have a full overview yet of which works will be imported, but a sample is all the works listed here (and more). I will import index pages and page pages. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- We first need to know whether these texts meet the requirements for English Wikisource. Some similar Chinese law texts could not be hosted here, and now reside at Wikibooks. It would be counterproductive to transfer the texts only to find they would be deleted. Could you share the names/locations of some of these texts, so that we can assess the suitability for migrating them here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- The list I was given was this (yes, it was in this format …):
- … and just now I notice that the files that these index pages are based are uploaded locally to the multilingual Wikisource, instead of to Commons. Sigh.
- They should be fine to upload on Commons under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, if I understand it correctly. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's going to be hard to judge these since they were all uploaded as "Source: Government; Author: Government" without any elaboration or links in the file data. I pulled up one specific Index at random, and it is from a mayoral office, listing the individual people assigned to each team for Covid response. Does Philippine national copyright law covers local government as well? Even if it does, we have no source website nor electronic trail to follow for the origin of the document to verify it. If this Index is typical of the lot, then it may be in scope for en.WS, but without knowing where the digital copies originated I'd be hesitant to import them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Philippine copyright laws exempt works of the Government of the Philippines, which includes works created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, which may cover local government units, including municipal councils, as I read it, although I am not completely sure about that. It would be nice to have some official Philippine interpretation of this provision. However, I agree that we need the source of the files. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I confirm what Jan had mentioned there. This is also confirmed from my direct conversation with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. All works of government is public domain unless explicitly stated otherwise by the government agency or instrumentalities. In relation to the original source, the pdf files are direct reproduction of the original documents loaned by the local government councils (municipalities and cities) and are mostly not available in other digital reproduction. -- Exec8 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I was the project lead for this project. I am the one discussing with the local government unit ( LGU) officials regarding this digitization. We submit the proposal, discuss the terms and if appoved by the government partner, proceed with the project. Most of the time, the project is approved and I can vouch that all the uploaded legal materials come from the offices or records of the partner governments.
- In the Philippines, Intellectual Property law specifically states that "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.."
- In this issue, local statutes, particularly the ordinances in provinces, towns and cities are included. Since there is no necessity for authorities to withhold republication of the law in other digital platforms, we were given approvals to publish these local ordinances in Wikisource and Wikicommons. I also guarantee, as a project lead that ALL of the documents uploaded were directly sourced, derived from and originated in legislative offices, archives and records of our partner LGUs.
- For each location, after all the uploading and proofreading done by us and our partner offices, they personally check the accuracy of the digital formats.
- So to summarize and vouch for the authenticity of our uploaded documents and materials, we are authorized by our partner LGUs and their personnel have checked the accuracy of these documents in relation to the physical copies available in their offices. Lady01v (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the information above, I think the indexes could be imported here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- I confirm what Jan had mentioned there. This is also confirmed from my direct conversation with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. All works of government is public domain unless explicitly stated otherwise by the government agency or instrumentalities. In relation to the original source, the pdf files are direct reproduction of the original documents loaned by the local government councils (municipalities and cities) and are mostly not available in other digital reproduction. -- Exec8 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Philippine copyright laws exempt works of the Government of the Philippines, which includes works created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, which may cover local government units, including municipal councils, as I read it, although I am not completely sure about that. It would be nice to have some official Philippine interpretation of this provision. However, I agree that we need the source of the files. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's going to be hard to judge these since they were all uploaded as "Source: Government; Author: Government" without any elaboration or links in the file data. I pulled up one specific Index at random, and it is from a mayoral office, listing the individual people assigned to each team for Covid response. Does Philippine national copyright law covers local government as well? Even if it does, we have no source website nor electronic trail to follow for the origin of the document to verify it. If this Index is typical of the lot, then it may be in scope for en.WS, but without knowing where the digital copies originated I'd be hesitant to import them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Bot confirmations
[edit]In response to the current request on WS:S I was reviewing the policy on Bots and realised that we're supposed to have been doing biennial confirmations every 6 months of Bots. I don't recall the last time this was done and I see that the current list has a lot of unauthorised bots on it. I propose that we do a clean up of the inactive Bots listed in Category:Bot accounts, Special:Listusers/bot and Wikisource:Bots/List over the next few months and that in July (on schedule) we have a catch-up on confirmations of Bots that are currently active. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I fixed the PDF file. Now some pages should be moved: Page:Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments With Truth, vol. 1.pdf/86 should be moved to 88, and all pages until Page:Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments With Truth, vol. 1.pdf/82 which should be moved to 84. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, Could any admin fix this please? Yann (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann What exactly should be done? Specifically, which pages should be moved, and by which offset for each page. I suppose it would be 1-82, all moved by +2? — Alien 3
3 3 13:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)- @Alien333: No, there were only a few pages, and there is only one left to be moved Page:Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments With Truth, vol. 1.pdf/82 to 84. Yann (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann What exactly should be done? Specifically, which pages should be moved, and by which offset for each page. I suppose it would be 1-82, all moved by +2? — Alien 3
This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC) Spam whitelist addition for docs.congress.hrep.online
[edit]I'm adding a new text at Index:G.R. 278353 & 278359 (January 28, 2026 Resolution).pdf, and one of the links in the original text is a link to "docs.congress.hrep.online/download/docs/hrep.house.rules.adopted.ebook.pdf". The spam filter advises me that .online URLs are blocked by the spam filter. (I've removed the HTTPS part so it doesn't block my mention here.)
For reference, the specific pages affected are page 11 and page 16.
To complete my initial proofread of the text, I've substituted that link with https://d2d8rbkx2fec82.cloudfront.net/download/docs/hrep.house.rules.adopted.ebook.pdf, which I took from the official House of Representatives website at https://www.congress.gov.ph/legislative-information/rules-of-the-house.
At the moment, docs.congress.hrep.online seems to just be a CNAME to d1xz902s8qnrk7.cloudfront.net (based on a quick DIG query), which is different from my subsituted link but leads to the same content—https://d1xz902s8qnrk7.cloudfront.net/download/docs/hrep.house.rules.adopted.ebook.pdf.
I ask if the above link could be added to the spam whitelist, or if it's sufficient to use the substituted URL above. (The substituted URL may be more susceptible to rot though.)
Thanks! SciWhiz12 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2026 (UTC) Now that the file has been fixed could someone move all the pages after Page:Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.pdf/9 exclusive forward by 2. See WS:S#Index:Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.pdf for detail. ToxicPea (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Memoirs of Vidocq
[edit]Could someone move the volumes (Memoirs of Vidocq, Volume I to Memoirs of Vidocq, Volume IV) to Memoirs of Vidocq/Volume 1 (and etc.) Nighfidelity (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Nighfidelity: Done, but the chapters need to be moved also (from Roman to Arabic numerals), isn't? Can you do it, or admin right is needed? Yann (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think the individual chapters of Volume 1 and Volume 2 (such as Memoirs of Vidocq/Volume 1/Chapter I or Memoirs of Vidocq/Volume 2/Chapter XV) should be moved to Arabic numerals as well, to match both the policy and the numbering style used for chapters of the other volumes (such as Memoirs of Vidocq/Volume 3/Chapter 32). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)