@Krenair: is community consensus the only obstacle? Should we open some poll to get the consensus?

@Candalua: See T64717#656286 and T64717#656295. For community consensus info, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes

@Aklapper: so what are the answers to my questions? "Yes"? "No"? "Maybe"?

In T64717#1570354, @Candalua wrote:

@Krenair: is community consensus the only obstacle? Should we open some poll to get the consensus?

Community consensus would certainly be needed if it were to be moved, but I don't know enough about the problems involved to say whether it's possible to do or not.

We used to have a redirect from mul.wikisource.org to wikisource.org but it doesn't seem to be working now.

It looks like it was removed intentionally by @faidon in https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-dns/commit/3fb1154f98b2a3a0d76471eebc2473fd52b0abd9#diff-227a32f97573385d08bf644960e284c3 . @faidon Can you explain why mul.wikisource.org was considered a dead subdomain? It was added in T75407

It should not have been removed as it was purposefully added to allow for interlanguage links from the language wikis back to oldwikisource. Please have it added back in. There was a consensus to have it added, and no discussion undertaken back to the community about its removal. :frown:

mul.ws has incoming links. It needs to be re-added.

Change 233716 had a related patch set uploaded (by Alex Monk):
Re-add mul.wikisource.org

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/233716

So I think what we need to do now is get the domain set up and working like it was previously for the redirects.
Then to deal with this actual request (moving www.wikisource.org to mul.wikisource.org), someone should start a discussion and gain community consensus. If that succeeds, we should figure out what's needed at the apache level, add the necessary line to multiversion (in mediawiki-config), and finally flip the wgServer etc. variables over to the new domain.

The priority for me was the ability to interlanguage link from Wikisources, and the means to have whatever is required to have wikidata linking. After that I am fairly ambivalent to www <-> mul, to having the nude without the prepend. I will leave the matter to be discussed on mulWS, and to ping the wikis as required once a discussion is flowing.

Change 233716 merged by Dzahn:
Re-add mul.wikisource.org

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/233716

"Old Wikisource" at www.wikisource.org would be better served if moved to mul.wikisource.org. "Mul" is the official ISO-639 code for "multiple languages", which is appropriate to this project

First - are we sure mul. behaves like every other ISO-639 language abbreviation in mediawiki? I might be wrong but if memory serves me right, mul. wasn't "working" like we'd expect it to.

Second - wasn't the whole idea behind this primarily the restoration of www.wikisource.org as an independent domain (just like www.wikipedia.org is)?

In T64717#1573177, @GOIII wrote:

"Old Wikisource" at www.wikisource.org would be better served if moved to mul.wikisource.org. "Mul" is the official ISO-639 code for "multiple languages", which is appropriate to this project

First - are we sure mul. behaves like every other ISO-639 language abbreviation in mediawiki? I might be wrong but if memory serves me right, mul. wasn't "working" like we'd expect it to.

Second - wasn't the whole idea behind this primarily the restoration of www.wikisource.org as an independent domain (just like www.wikipedia.org is)?

Well, re-reading the task description, the primary objective seems to be limited to providing the Multilingual Wikisource with a language code which works exactly like all others.
I cannot say that "mul" will work for sure, but hey, we have a lot of projects which use completely invented language codes, like "simple" or "be-x-old", so why not "mul"?
Also, it's worth noting that a wiki renaming has been successfully done just recently in T11823 (with some problems which are now being sorted out).

As for having www.wikisource.org work as an independent domain, it will be an obvious (and very recommandable, I think) consequence, but probably it will be better served by opening a separate task (marking the current one as blocking for that).

mul isn’t invented: it’s one of several special codes in the ISO 639-2 standard.

In T64717#1636748, @mxn wrote:

mul isn’t invented: it’s one of several special codes in the ISO 639-2 standard.

Yes, yes, yes. I never said that. My point is that I see no reasons why a special code like "mul" shouldn't work, because we are already using many codes which are not even included in the ISO standard, and we are not experiencing any problems with them, as far as I know. Then of course I may be wrong about that, but I think we should not be overly cautious.

I don't see why this is "Traffic". but it's declined anyways

In T64717#2062328, @Dzahn wrote:

I don't see why this is "Traffic". but it's declined anyways

Why is it declined?

In T64717#2062666, @Candalua wrote:

In T64717#2062328, @Dzahn wrote:

I don't see why this is "Traffic". but it's declined anyways

Why is it declined?

See the comment above mine by Luke081515

"Declined per T124354. There is no consensus for this change yet. Please reopen the task if consensus reached."

OK. I'm opening a formal discussion on the project to gather consensus about the move:

https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Move_www.wikisource.org_to_mul.wikisource.org

In T64717#2063405, @Dzahn wrote:

In T64717#2062666, @Candalua wrote:

In T64717#2062328, @Dzahn wrote:

I don't see why this is "Traffic". but it's declined anyways

Why is it declined?

See the comment above mine by Luke081515

"Declined per T124354. There is no consensus for this change yet. Please reopen the task if consensus reached."

It's not declined, the closure has been an ill-considered bulk action which also has been almost immediately reverted, which you can also see above your comment.

Oh, i didn't see the revert, you are absolutely right. I did not mean to add confusion.

since www.wikisource.org and mul.wikisource.org both already exist in DNS and that seemed to be the only thing that needs operations, i'm removing the DNS and operations tags.

Current state of Move www.wikisource.org to mul.wikisource.org: 10 support, 2 oppose (one of which qualified as "weak oppose"). Does this count as consensus or do we need more votes?

I wonder whether @Deskana has any comment to add as the situation with regards to portal searches that the Discovery team has been working upon, and has identified issues for www.wikisource and the deployment of the portal search. My understanding is that the move would free up the portal for searching and other development that is used at other sisters. (Of course, I may be misunderstanding)

Thanks for pinging me, @Billinghurst. I'd be happy to comment.

The Wikipedia portal at www.wikipedia.org sees quite a bit of traffic (~14 million daily page views), primarily due to things like browser bookmarks and how many random people know the name Wikipedia. I don't have the data, but I doubt that www.wikisource.org gets nearly as many page views. I personally think the potential rewards are not worth the effort here at all, but this isn't my decision, so I won't decline the task. :-)

well, just ignore those misconfigurations, my mouse has problem recently.

In T64717#3224069, @Liuxinyu970226 wrote:

per krinkle

Why exactly this task is stalled?

In T64717#5436374, @Ankry wrote:

In T64717#3224069, @Liuxinyu970226 wrote:

per krinkle

Why exactly this task is stalled?

Renaming wikis is tricky and hard

Is it any trickier than it was five years ago? It seems like making new wikis is a lot harder than it was. Is there some kind of structural problem here? We've had some non-standard names to be changed (like roa-rup.wp or zh* Wikipedias at T10217) for years and years.

In T64717#5436566, @Koavf wrote:

Is it any trickier than it was five years ago?

I'm not aware of any new issue in that regard, but keep in mind that just the fact something hard was done in the past doesn't make it less hard.

It seems like making new wikis is a lot harder than it was.

[offtopic] That's another problem, we have a bug in the script we use for creating wikis, and we're getting close to fixing it.

Is there some kind of structural problem here?

Yes, if running a website that is in top 10 (which includes complicated infrastructure) and relying on many volunteers is a structural problem.

We've had some non-standard names to be changed (like roa-rup.wp or zh* Wikipedias at T10217) for years and years.

Just the fact something difficult was done in the past doesn't make it less difficult :).

The discussion to move can reasonably interpreted as consensus. I'm therefore removing that tag.