Wikibooks:Reading room/General

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

Introducing myself[edit]

Hello to everyone, I am posting this as I saw a message on profile page to introduce myself. I am medical graduate from India ,currently pursuing PG in Radiology and also preparing for some more exams. I like to untangle the anything that i feel is too complicated to my liking and i good at it (at least that is what my colleagues have told me). Ever I started my med school preps , their were just way too many things to cram in my brain (which shrinks a little every day) , so i started to make jingles out the first alphabets. I will most likely be contributing a lot of my mnemonics to this site and messing with others , and if i ever manage to write a book , it will happen here at Wikibooks. —Preceding unsigned comment by Randjo (discusscontribs) added before 8:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Randjo! Thanks for joining! Make sure to also add the pencil and cursive icon above the editing space after a comment, thanks! --atcovi (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there I was hoping someone could tell me how to create a new chapter in a discussion page? Thanks. --Scottxit (discusscontribs) 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scottxit. A talk page is made up of sections, subsections, etc. To create a new section on a talk page, there should be a tab up at the top called "add topic" (if you're using vector skin). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Pi zero! --Scottxit (discusscontribs) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did we even allow these guys to remove our interwiki links?[edit]

I know they told us that they'll be doing it, but did we actually tell them ok? Aren't we suppose to be reverting edits that remove our interwiki then? -- (discuss) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To add on to what I said here^ Pi zero has even notified some of these users who remove our interwiki links about the discussion that is currently going on in the Proposal. Users like Ruzwig just seem to ignore this notification. What are we suppose to do? --atcovi (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I am sysop in russian Wikibooks. Why my last edits is wrong? Oleg3280 (discusscontribs) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Because there has been no agreement by the Wikibooks Community on allowing people to remove interwiki links. --atcovi (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

IRL classmate awaiting my offer to come join Wikibooks![edit]

Hey all! :) Today I’m planning on bringing a new user to Wikibooks, a sixth grade classmate of mines! As of you know, most 11/12 year olds are usually clumsy, and usually don’t mean well. But hopefully she will be more than happy to come. I’m planning on helping her set an account, and letting her read our policies. She doesn’t have that good grammar as normal people here at Wikibooks, so that’s going to be quite a problem. But hopefully that’ll be fixed up soon. All I’m asking is for the admins to use their tools wisely and be patient with her, and the rest of the users.

Back in 2010, when I joined. I was a clueless, very young, editor who was blocked for wrong behavior I didn’t know that was wrong. I was a clueless nooby, but now today I’m currently helping out Wikibooks and Wikiversity and patrolling more than 100 WMF wikis for vandalism. I remember one person, who was in support of me, said that young children were the “future” of WMF. Maybe this user could be as well? I don’t know, but I’m hoping so.

I hope for her to accept this, this could help her academically. I’m still awaiting her acceptance, since I’m going to talk to her about this stuff atm. Thanks all for reading. --atcovi (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem , let her come! Thanks for informing.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


textAauib hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurz177 (discusscontribs)

Welcome Laurz! --atcovi (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Introducing myself: DKroot[edit]

Hi, everybody. I'm a software developer in Washington DC area. Here is some brief info about me.

I've been working with Oracle and MS SQL Server DBMSes for quite some time, but haven't dealt much with compatibility issues until working on one of my recent projects. I found the SQL Dialects Reference Wikibook quite valuable for this work and started to contribute to Oracle and MS SQL Server content the best I can.

I love using our own MediaWiki server for organizing and sharing knowledge in my teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKroot (discusscontribs)

Welcome DKroot to Wikibooks, hope you have a great time :) --atcovi (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Introducing myself[edit]

Hi there, my name is Anna and I am a student and the University of Stirling. I am currently working on a Wikibook with other students for our Digital Media and Culture module. The book is Perspectives in Digital Culture and the chapter that out group is working on is The Prosumer Society Anna hoodie (discusscontribs) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikibooks! --atcovi (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! I am also in Digital Media and Culture this semester! I am working on the chapter Perspectives in Digital Culture/Web as Public and Private Space. I hope your chapter and your research is going well! Ours is starting to look like information overload, but I love it:P --Bailie Richards (discusscontribs) 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are we allowing automatic reviewer rights?[edit]

What's the whole purpose of automatically achieving the reviewer flag? Which holds reviewing/rollback rights in them? --atcovi (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think the main purpose is for editors who've been active in the project for some time. Since by now they are trusted by the community , an additional privilege is granted in the form of reviewer.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
When a user first arrives at Wikibooks, they have (by definition of "first arrives") no prior experience of how things are done here. They may have experience of another wiki, most likely Wikipedia, and should edit here for a while, to learn how practices here are different from practices there, before they're given the power to make normative judgements here. If they don't have prior experience of another wiki, then again they should edit here for a while before they're given such. The criteria for autopromotion are meant to hold off on giving them the bit until they've had a chance to get some sense of the place. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikibooks project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to customize this message for each project, or did you really mean to ask at multiple sisters "Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiversity project..."? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish I had the excuse that I was tired, but no, I left the computer, went to eat lunch, came back, forgot I had to change that bit, and cross-posted. Well, I've fixed it now. Time to navigate around, again. Tut. Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: Do you figure on getting one person to talk to about a project, or getting a broader perspective on a given project by talking to more than one person per? Obviously, talking to multiple people per project there's the challenge of rendering the material into a coherent report, while talking to just one person there's the likelihood of idiosyncracies in the interviwee's view of the project. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Because there's a lot of individual interviews that need to happen, I hope that if I get comments from one prominent contributor per wiki I can get a sufficiently clear picture of that wiki's activities from that alone, as long as the interview is of sufficient length. I do, however, want to speak with multiple people when possible, and I will post the draft here for community input before publication. Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: Taking myself as an example, I know I have some ideas about Wikibooks that come from my peculiar personal history: I started on Wikipedia, then branched out to Wikibooks, then branched out to Wikinews, and have spent years medidating on the comarisons and contrasts between those three. If you interviewed me, it's a good bet you'd get a different impression of the elephant than speaking to some else. I can think of at least one other active long-term Wikibookian who'd be likely to give you an atypical view. Based on my own experiences with these projects, I expect I'd have to be active in a project for at least a year before I'd start to get a feel for it, several years for deeper insight (I got major insights into Wikipedia about once a years for several years, and even though I've slowed down at lot there, I feel I've got some further deep insights into it since).
I don't mean to discourage you, honestly; I'm just encouraging you to be aware of the pitfalls.
For mainstream insights into Wikibooks, the first name that pops into my head is QuiteUnusual, which may of course just mean I'm unaware of the peculiarities of QU's view of the project :-).  I've no clue whether QU would even entertain the possibility of an interview (I imagine some folks would be happy to give an interview, some would flat-out refuse; I'm ambivalent, myself). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have one perspective, sure, but there are others like Chazz, Jomegat, Panic, etc., who are very content focused whereas these days I'm quite administration focused. Depends what you want really. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps one of each, then? Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea that such a activity even existed here. Probably a good idea I think. I could probably help here.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will contact the people that have responded in this thread at a later date, a little buried at the moment. Thanks all! Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


How can we make use of Wikidata here at Wikibooks? It occurred to me that all the data stored there could be used to keep books up to date. For example, property d:P1098 is "number of speakers" (of a language), which could be used in language learning books to keep number of speakers claims up to date. However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to access any of this data on a Wikibooks. Supposedly, {{#property:p1098}} should access the data for this property stored at the Wikidata page for that item, but I tried it on Breton, which is linked to the Wikidata page for the Breton language, which has P1098, but it didn't work. Not implemented for Wikibooks yet, maybe. Even if it worked here, the #property tag only allows accessing data from the Wikidata page for the current page. So there's no way, as I understand, to access any data for the Breton language on a subpage of that book, nor is it possible to access population data for Germany on Wikijunior:Europe/Germany. This essentially negates the usefulness of any Wikidata data on Wikibooks. This really bothers me. All this useful data collected in a systematic way, but for all intents and purposes not useful for any project but Wikipedia! I don't even see it being used at Wikipedia much, except for the interlanguage links. What makes this worse, is this appears to be a software thing, not something the people at Wikidata can fix. Then there's the whole problem of the interwiki links being forced on us, and not being organised in a way that is useful to our project. The Wikimedia Foundation is notoriously unresponsive to requests from the community, so I feel we, the Wikibooks community, possibly with the other sister projects, need to get the Foundation's attention, and let them know we are annoyed that Wikidata and the Wikidata software is being implemented in such a top-down, undemocratic way, and that is sidelining other projects and is not designed in a way that benefits any of the sister projects. I'm not sure how we'd go about this, but I think it's an issue the community should discuss. Liam987 talk 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you listened to Lila's address at last year's Wikimania? One of the earlier points — translated from politician-speak — was, the Foundation doesn't give a <several choices here, of varying rudeness> about the non-Wikipedian sisters.
Anyway, about Wikidata. I don't think I'd trust Wikidata's material to be automatically imported to Wikibooks (or any other sister, really, not even a Wikipedia), but I'm interested in the possibility of some sort of semi-automated checks against Wikidata that would make it easy to compare the current state of things here to the current state of things there, and update here for automatic use when things look right.
I thought Wikidata stuff was supposed to be made available through Lua? At the very least, it should be possible to get at it through javascript — but we'd want to work out a super-general tool, so we'd only have to write it once and then wouldn't have to be constantly changing it every time we want some slight variation. The trick is to create a tool that's enormously general but also carefully limited in power so that it can't be used for large-scale vandalism (indeed, that's one of the key design blunders with Wikidata, that it doesn't minimize the consequences of vandalism). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I understood that Lua could be used for that too, but it seems not. w:Template:Wikidata has a thread on the talk page from 2013 about wether it was possible to access Wikidata data for a page other than the current one, and it was found to be impossible. Nothing seems to have changed since. I really seems such a waste to have these people collecting endless data in a way that isn't useful to anyone. Liam987 talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Liam987: I'll put "accessing Wikidata" on my list of things to add to my dialog tools. The tools — which I do mean to import to Wikibooks once I've gotten one more round of upgrades implemented (in progress) — are designed to be extensible without modifying the existing code, by creating new actions, which are wiki pages with associated javascript. So we can write javascript for querying Wikidata, and then a dialog can send a request to the Wikidata-query action which fetches the requested data and sends the results to another dialog page for further processing. That will be, frankly, slow; probably at least four seconds, all told, and that's when neither the server nor the internet is being sluggish; but if we arrange for Wikidata queries to be an infrequent, manually initiated maintenance action, it should be tolerable. Eventually, once we've got the query facility working smoothly and are sure it's what we want it to be, we can integrate the Wikidata query facility into the general do action, where most dialog facilities are all kept together to avoid the time overhead of switching between actions; that should cut out two or three out of those four seconds. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There is some stuff implemented at Wikipedia that compares, for example, the date of death recorded on Wikipedia to the Wikidata equivalent and then adds the article to a hidden category if they differ. No idea how this is done (because I haven't bothered to look). QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good place to start for an example of how to query Wikidata. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: You're referring to, I think, w:Template:WikidataCheck. The problem with this is the same as I mentioned for the {{#property}} tag: it can only access data for the current page. If we were to create a Wikidata page for every page on Wikibooks, we could use this but the data would still have to be updated there. Liam987 talk 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules[edit]

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Just a quick note to inform that and now leads to links would continue to redirect to English Wikibooks for backward compatibility. See phab:T87039. Glaisher (discusscontribs) 08:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

TOC in sidebar?[edit]

Wikibooks usually have a TOC and people love to navigate thru the book via this TOC. But in most cases the TOC is a page of its own. So you always have to toggle between TOC-page and your actual page (or the author adds one of the navigation-templates, which is ugly, uncomplete and error-prone). Shall we have a sidebar like in the documentation of mediawiki to visualise the TOC? Additionally to the actual sidebar or as a replacement? --Kelti (discusscontribs) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That sort of stylistic preference varies by book. Some books have a side navigation box, for example WJ:Big Cats. (Easily adjusting the style of such things is one of the targets I had in mind in Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Navlist.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at-

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help