In T281026#7044392, @Samwilson wrote:

This sounds similar to the 2020 wishlist proposal Insert attestation using Wikisource as a corpus, which references:

• T139152: Add a feature to allow searching and importing/copying content from sister projects
• T157802: Search relevant sentences from Wikisource to illustrate the Wiktionary

In T281026#7038237, @Aklapper wrote:

Hi, which exact Wikisource and which exact Wiktionary is this about? What does "export" mean and do exactly?
Please see and follow https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_report_a_bug - thanks!

In T281026#7031295, @Billinghurst wrote:

Tell us more.

We had a gadget at English Wikisource that did (have?) a enWiktionary word lookup.

One of the issues that I have seen when I have found words at enWS that could be citeable at enWikt has been that I am transcribing in the Page: namespace, and it can be weeks+++ before the work is ready to be transcluded into the main ns, and by then I have forgotten, or have to go and find where the word was. So in the end they get poked onto my user page, and never progress.

In T270628#6713771, @Urbanecm wrote:

In T270628#6713666, @Base wrote:

Deleting a namespace would mean that all pages that are/were in it (deleted or not) would be inaccessible without sysadmin intervention, since the system would no longer recognize the namespace properly.

I think there is a maintenance script to fix this. At least it is supposed to be applied when a new namespaces or new interwiki prefixes are being added. It is also possible to move them via API using page ids, rather than page names, but it is indeed easier to move them beforehand :)

There's a script to fix unaccessible pages due to a new namespace (alias), not due to removed namespace. When a page is inaccessible due to new namespace, it's easy to detect the namespace and move the page accordingly. However, when a namespace is deleted, it's not so simple -- should the page be moved to main NS? Deleted? Moved to somewhere else? That's why manual action by community is preferred :).

In T270628#6713753, @Arxivist wrote:

[...]
Thanks for the answer.

All pages in this namespace have been renamed to the main namespace.
The community doesn't need this namespace. It needed to be removed (permanently).

Thanks. I'll have a look at this one in January 2021, after the holiday season ends.

In T270627#6707443, @Samwilson wrote:

Out of interest (for T256392) should this new namespace be given WS Export links in the sidebar? I'm working on the assumption that any content namespace should get these links.

In T270628#6713658, @Urbanecm wrote:

From a technical perspective, it is preferable to only delete namespaces when they were never used. Deleting a namespace would mean that all pages that are/were in it (deleted or not) would be inaccessible without sysadmin intervention, since the system would no longer recognize the namespace properly.

Since the namespace was used previously, I would recommend to simply stop using it (you can enforce that either via MediaWiki's native namespace protection feature or via an abusefilter), which would allow you to access all pages in that NS with no limits.

You can also move all pages away from the namespace to somewhere else, which would also allow you to access the pages with no limits. Alternatively, you can delete all the pages that are there, which means you will no longer be able to see them once the namespace is deleted.

Do you still wish to proceed with this?

In T270628#6713622, @Base wrote:

@Arxivist , https://uk.wikisource.org/wiki/Спеціальна:Усі_сторінки/Переклад%3A — оці сторінки тоді стануть сторінками основного простору — це те що ти хочеш? // (en: these pages will become part of main namespace, is this what your intention is?)

In T262193#6699571, @Arxivist wrote:

1. The specified decision as an example (of the monument to Lenin) is not a court dispute over copyright. I think this example is manipulation in the discussion. It concerns the movement of a monument from place to place. The mention of copyright is indirect. This example is not subject to copyright litigation!

2. Manipulation also in 1969. The copyright law came into effect in February 1994. 1994-25 = 1969.

3. Copies are not reissued by scanning.

4. Your opinion is more like the original research (thought), but is not supported by court decisions in essence (such as the case of Alyoshin).

5. Are there examples of copyright court decisions to support your point?

In T262193#6698508, @NickK wrote:

In T262193#6698003, @Arxivist wrote:

In T262193#6697192, @Aklapper wrote:

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

At the moment I'm translating all text. For now, see the original (Ukrainian). Thanks.

I think it would be better to discuss this either on Ukrainian Wikisource or on Wikimedia Commons, as Phabricator is not a great place for such discussions.

Alyoshyn's case is indeed quite interesting, however, it might have been a creative legal reasoning, as the case requested to replace all 50 UAH bills and the National Bank of Ukraine to pay a significant amount of money.

There are however opposite interpretations, in particular https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/11693601 stating that a 1960 work clearly falling under the 2001 copyright law.

Also manipulation and only original opinion. The state very often loses court cases.

1. The specified decision as an example (of the monument to Lenin) is not a court dispute over copyright. I think this example is manipulation in the discussion. It concerns the movement of a monument from place to place. The mention of copyright is indirect. This example is not subject to copyright litigation!

In T262193#6697192, @Aklapper wrote:

Please provide references for statements like judicial practice - thanks.

In T262193#6696595, @Urbanecm wrote:

In T262193#6688414, @Arxivist wrote:

1. UKwikisource has template PD-Ukraine-1969 (https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) which falls under the Ukrainian and American laws, but does not exist on Commons.

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

2. Ukraine has copyright law. It states that all government documents are not copyrighted. But there is another law regarding state standards, which says that each standard cannot be shared without the specific permission.

That indicates they're de-facto copyrighted - as copyright is basically "right to copy".

In T262193#6696999, @Ahonc wrote:

In T262193#6696595, @Urbanecm wrote:

It can be created on Commons, can't it?

It cannot because it is own interpretation of laws by Arxivist. Common interpretation is if author died before 1951 the work is in PD (since next year it will be 70 years+1 after death of author). So works with author died between 1951 and 1969 are consider as not in PD on Commons.

1. UKwikisource has template PD-Ukraine-1969 (https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) which falls under the Ukrainian and American laws, but does not exist on Commons.
2. Ukraine has copyright law. It states that all government documents are not copyrighted. But there is another law regarding state standards, which says that each standard cannot be shared without the specific permission.

In the Meaning of ignoring law?

Hi, Aklapper. That's right, the text is in French (edited by analogy, since there are no examples). It is also true that this is a copyright page. Exceptions are indicated there. Among other things, one template requires a description. And true about an example. Among other things, there are discrepancies with Commons (they adhere to a more rigid approach than the existing one, but in a conflict of law). (So much easier than taking it all apart?) There are discussions on this topic in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2970422). We have a template (example: https://uk.wikisource.org/w/index.php?curid=124135) for this. Other countries also have exceptions that prevent them from uploading to commons (eg Wikisource India). I just don't understand why some sections are allowed, but we cannot (and they do not have confirmation of the EDP). Our community voted for it. We will license all files with templates. At the first opportunity, we will upload to Commons. Thanks and hope for understanding.

In T262193#6686559, @Urbanecm wrote:

I don't see any EDP posted at meta. I'm afraid that having a different view on copyright is not a reason to warrant enabling local uploads. Either given material is free, and then it should be possible to have it at Commons, or it isn't free, and at that point we need an EDP.

Panoramas posted with justification can make sense in Wikipedia, however, I don't see how that would benefit Wikisource.

In T262193#6684877, @Aklapper wrote:

@Arxivist: The status is "stalled" (see upper left corner) as we need an EDP from you. See the links in T262193#6490568.

For example, since there is no freedom of panoramas in Ukraine, photographs cannot be uploaded to commons. At the same time, the Ukrainian Wikipedia uploading these files with justification (which is permitted by law).

Thanks for the answer. We have a fundamentally different view of local copyright law. Commons advocates a tighter understanding of the law, but we have decided on broader exceptions. At least because of this principle, you can enable this option. The same story with documents of state standards. Commons believes that the copyright law is not enough (after all, there is a collision), we are on the side of the copyright law says that all government (documents, regulations, etc.) can be uploading.

All files are confirmed by a license or template (internal copyright, criteria).

Hi. What is the approval situation? Community doesn't mind.

In T262193#6490568, @Aklapper wrote:

@Arxivist: For further info and background, please also see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_uploads_policy .
Also see the uk: entry on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Wikisource

чт, 24 вер. 2020 о 12:32 Aklapper <no-reply@phabricator.wikimedia.org> пише: