Difference between revisions of "Wikibooks:Reading room/General"

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Regex: new section)
(Removal of PDF Versions of Wikibooks from Wikimedia Commons: new section)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
+
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
}}
 
}}
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.
+
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.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
  +
== New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS ==
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
 
  +
''({{int:please-translate}})''
   
  +
Hi all!
The advantages of this system is that the papers would be created and remain in the public domain. Publication might also be faster than through the established printed journals. Academics like myself want the widest possible distribution of their work but this gets blocked because the publishers of academic journals normally take the copyright of the papers away from the authors.
 
   
  +
To improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed. (These are pages like <code dir="ltr">MediaWiki:Common.css</code> and <code dir="ltr">MediaWiki:Vector.js</code> which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.)
I am new to Wikibooks and Wiki space in general, so I apologize if I'm way off track with this. It is just an idea, hopefully it can gain substance if other people are interested. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
A new user group, <code dir="ltr">[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Interface administrators|interface-admin]]</code>, has been created.
  +
Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with <code dir="ltr">.css</code> or <code dir="ltr">.js</code> that is either in the <code dir="ltr">MediaWiki:</code> namespace or is another user's user subpage).
   
  +
You can learn more about the motivation behind the change [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS|here]].
Thanks for all the comments. It seems that wikibooks is not the place for this idea. However, I will continue the thread for a moment longer, if only for the benefit of others who are lost in wikispace. At wikia I found a page that has been set up to do almost exactly what I proposed. It seems to have been in existence for some six years and, although all the infrastructure is there, there is virtually no content. It seems that an "academic publishing" page is just too general to attract participants. It needs to be more focused on a specific area of study. Also, I think it needs a strong group to start it off. I do not think it can be started by just one person with the expectation that others will just drop in (it will end up as dead space). I might pursue the idea further at wikiversity if I can put a group together.[[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Please add users who need to edit CSS/JS to the new group (this can be done the same way new administrators are added, by stewards or local bureaucrats).
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
This is a dangerous permission; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than admin permissions could be abused. Please only assign it to users who need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices (use strong passwords, do not reuse passwords, use two-factor authentication if possible, do not install software of questionable origin on your machine, use antivirus software if that's a standard thing in your environment).
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
   
  +
Thanks!
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<br/><span dir="ltr">[[m:User:Tgr|Tgr]] ([[m:User talk:Tgr|talk]]) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC) <small>(via [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Global_message_delivery|global message delivery]])</small></span>
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div>
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Tgr@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=17968247 -->
   
  +
: When the Foundation acts to disempower the volunteers, they should admit that's what they're doing. Honesty is very high on my priority list. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
 
  +
:: We just have to add all the admins into this group for a start. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
 
  +
::: That seems like a reasonable measure to me. The creation of the group would otherwise constitute a revocation of privileges from existing admins without approval of the local community. {{ping|QuiteUnusual}} What procedure do we need to go through (if any)? Official hoops to jump through? I seem to recall that on en.wb (unlike en.wn) local 'crats don't have the power to toggle the admin bit, but since I'm not a 'crat here I can't tell for sure whether the same is true of the new group. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
  +
: I think that this privilege should be restricted to the bureaucrats only, rather than to all sysops. Let's face it: the permissions discussed aren't small in effect. And not all admins need (or even know how) to use it. This should at least put the 'crats group to some value rather than being some superfluous extension of sysop. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
  +
:: {{ping|Leaderboard}} That's definitely too restrictive. I, for example, am not a crat on Wikibooks, and I'm engaged in an occasionally-intensive, multi-year javascript-based wiki infrastructure development project; it'd be kind of a disaster for me to not be able to edit the javascript files; and I'm somewhat involved from time to time in the CSS, too. And JackPotte does maintenance on our codebase; it would be detrimental to the project for JackPotte to not have those privs. Frankly, I think any admin can be trusted to make judgements about when they're qualified to tinker with the js or css. We ''could'' reasonably have an arrangement where an admin is granted the interface priv only if they request it; that way, admins who judge themselves to have no need for the bit would not have it on their accounts, and there'd be no problem as long as whoever turns on the bit for them was careful not to respond to a request from an admin account that had ''already'' been compromised at the time of the request. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
  +
::: All such admins should get bureaucrat-ship. If you have a need, get it. I'm looking for the bureaucrat flag to be more than just a useless permissions-granter, and this is one of the better ways to ensure the same. Indeed, admins who "''could'' reasonably have an arrangement where an admin is granted the interface priv only if they request it". [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
  +
:::: {{ping|leaderboard}} Two things:
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
  +
::::* That seems backward; the point of splitting off the interface priv is so that an account doesn't have to have excess privs on it that aren't needed, so it would run counter to that to ''force'' a user to become a crat in order to acquire the interface priv. The amount of trust by the community implied by granting adminship seems to be ''exactly'' the amount of trust for a user to be able to decide whether or not they should be exercising the interface priv.
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
  +
::::* I've been involved in several crat RFPs, including one where I became a crat myself on en.wn, and I have to say it's a ''huge'' hassle and a royal pain for a small project. Imho it'd be a terrible idea to require users to go through that sort of hell just to get an interface priv that, as I've now remarked a number of times, is quite within what an admin's judgement can be trusted on.
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
  +
:::: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
  +
Given the main point of a crat is to judge consensus and grant admin rights it makes no sense to me to make them the only people able to edit the interface especially as very few projects have any crats. I think we should just add the right to any admin who asks if the crat is willing to, rather like adding reviewer or importer. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 15:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
:Bureaucrats can toggle interface admin here by the way. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 16:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  +
:: Ok, let that be the case. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 17:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
   
  +
== Editing of sitewide CSS/JS is only possible for interface administrators from now ==
As someone who recently repurposed a small portion of his undergraduate honors thesis [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|here on Wikibooks]] (perhaps unwittingly in violation of policy!), I would like to say something. I can attest that there were at least 100 honors papers coming out of Emory University every year in the late 1980's, and one would estimate with near certainty that easily half of them never reached a "digital age" reformatting. It seems an utter waste of talent and labor to '''''not''''' reach out to people with honors research "collecting dust", and ask them (plead with them!) to consider scanning the work for OCR, then releasing it under a free license to share with the rest of the world. Multiply my experience at Emory by at least 200 (or 400, or 800!), to cover the many outstanding universities worldwide that have featured honors papers, etc. We're talking about a great deal of content and information that really should be gathered up and made digital. If not on Wikibooks, why? And where? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not peer-reviewed, but this material would presumably be fine for Wikiversity, no question, and some of it might be okay here as well. It's likely to be of better quality than the average. Great idea, Thekohser. The problem with great ideas is, frequently, too many Chiefs with great ideas and not enough Indians. I'd suggest this as a project on Wikiversity, to get the papers in a place which is pretty safe from deletion based on arguments of POV, etc., and then review them for transfer to Wikibooks. But I have no problem with placement here first, and then a move to Wikiversity if that seems more appropriate at the time. What I don't like is the raw deal of you do all this work on a page or set of pages and then they are deleted because Randy from Boise and a few drive-bys thought it wasn't notable or was something else Bad. (It's hard to imagine a submitted degree thesis or an honor paper that wouldn't be appropriate, at least, for Wikiversity. But the world is big.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
Concerning Thekosher and Abd remarks on undergraduate honors thesis, I am very confused about where papers can be uploaded on the various Wiki Foundation sites. I have a lot of papers that I would like to make more available to the general public. These are undergraduate thesis, Masters thesis, PhD thesis, a collection of working papers published by University Departments, an even larger collection of papers published in academic journals. The copyright of the published papers have been hi-jacked by various publishers, so there seems to be nothing that can be done about these - they will be locked away in print libraries (where nobody will ever read them) until long after I'm dead (which is why I suggested academic papers could be produced on a Wiki). Going one step back, there are the working papers upon which the published papers are based. They are not as polished as the published papers but are a valuable research resource that could be placed in the public domain. Working papers are peer reviewed within a University Department. When I brought up the question publishing these at Wikisource I was told "We would only look at the papers following peer review" by which I understand them to mean that the working papers would have to be peer reviewed again. This requirement would, I think, be difficult to meet because I know of nobody that would be prepared to spend their time reviewing a paper that has already been reviewed. Now Thekosher suggests collecting undergraduate thesis (I do not think this is a bad idea), when papers that are far more developed, and only one step away from being lost for 100 years, have nowhere to go. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
''({{int:please-translate}})''
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:If it is in the Public Domain and has been published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", it is welcome at wikisource. The Wikiproject can be found at [[s:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers]]. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
Hi all,
   
  +
as [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS/announcement 2|announced previously]], permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed: only members of the <code>[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Interface administrators|interface-admin]]</code> ({{int:group-interface-admin}}) group, and a few highly privileged global groups such as stewards, can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). This is done to improve the security of readers and editors of Wikimedia projects. More information is available at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS|Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS]]. If you encounter any unexpected problems, please contact me or file a bug.
:: <s>I think, thought I could be wrong, that wikisource requires the material to be published elsewhere before they will accept it. I suppose this keeps people from posting their rejected papers there straight away without correcting the flaws.</s> [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Thanks!<br />
== Goodbook ==
 
  +
[[m:User:Tgr|Tgr]] ([[m:User talk:Tgr|talk]]) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) <small>(via [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Global_message_delivery|global message delivery]])</small>
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Tgr@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=18258712 -->
   
  +
== Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October ==
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
== We need another bureaucrat ==
 
   
  +
[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/Server switch 2018|Read this message in another language]] • {{int:please-translate}}
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
The [[foundation:|Wikimedia Foundation]] will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
 
   
  +
They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on '''Wednesday, 12 September 2018'''.
The comment above inspired me to nominate myself as a bureaucrat. As per [[WB:CRAT|policy]] I am advertising my nomination here. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
On '''Wednesday, 10 October 2018''', they will switch back to the primary data center.
   
  +
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in [[mw:Manual:What is MediaWiki?|MediaWiki]], all editing must stop when we switch. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
 
   
  +
'''You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.'''
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
 
   
  +
*You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday, 12 September and Wednesday, 10 October. The test will start at [https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20170503T14 14:00 UTC] (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Thursday 13 September and Thursday 11 October).
There is [[wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#colspan, etc.|an ongoing discussion]] about the existence of individual entries for HTML tags. As notable examples, on Wiktionary, there are ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/img Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]'', ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/h1 Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/h1]'' and ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/title Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/title]'', to define, respectively, the tags ''img'', ''h1'' and ''title''.
 
  +
*If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
   
  +
''Other effects'':
However, especially since the creation and maintenance of HTML tags at Wiktionary is a fairly new project, it depends on further consensus. All these pages may conceivably be kept or be deleted from Wiktionary, according to the development of possible discussions and/or votes.
 
   
  +
*Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
One particular argument for deleting these pages from Wiktionary is that there are already pages on Wikibooks, including ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]]'', ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/option]]'' and ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/table]]'' for similar purposes, therefore Wiktionarian versions would be redundant.
 
  +
*There will be code freezes for the weeks of 10 September 2018 and 8 October 2018. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
   
  +
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can [[wikitech:Switch Datacenter#Schedule for 2018 switch|read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org]]. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. '''Please share this information with your community.''' /<span dir=ltr>[[m:User:Johan (WMF)|User:Johan(WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:Johan (WMF)|talk]])</span>
Since the particular message "Given this book is a user guide, it is organized around topics from the user's perspective, not around the names of the tags." is displayed at the top of [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List]], am I right in assuming that individual pages for each HTML tag would be better placed in Wiktionary? Or, perhaps, there are reasons for keeping them at Wikibooks, that I am unaware of?
 
  +
</div></div> 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=18333489 -->
   
  +
== [[MediaWiki:Print.css]] hides the TOC ==
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Since [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Print.css&diff=prev&oldid=1975490 2010] we hide the table of contents into the print versions. However in the printed paper books, the tradition is to publish it, and I think it wouldn't hurt here.
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
For example we can compare the followings:
:: Since Wiktionary is already more reference-like, it makes sense in that view to put them there. But Wikibooks would be a more logical choice given the content and purpose of Wikibooks itself. I can't, however, imagine that a separate book would be created for the reference of each computer language. Which, in turn, means that if they were to be placed on Wikibooks, they'd necessarily have to form part of some sort of appendix within each wikibook on their respective subjects. In either case, a reference list for HTML as well as for other computer languages is certainly extremely useful. I really think we should at least have references for computer languages ''somewhere'' on Wikimedia. But where, I don't know. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
* [[Media:Git-en.pdf]]: without TOC.
  +
* [[Media:Git-fr.pdf]]: with TOC.
  +
[[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 18:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
   
  +
: I've never been much involved in print-version stuff, but wonder if anyone else who was involved at the time can shed light on why it was done. [[User:Darklama|Darklama]] who made that edit appears to have had no wikimedia activity since 2014; but [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]], who was the other primarily involved in setting up the page, is still extant on the sisterhood as of this year. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
: I don't mind either, though I should note that the TOC for a print book can become very large and itself occupy many pages. Also the main purpose of a TOC isn't served; there is no page numbers for which a user can go to (and the titles itself aren't even clickable), so in the end it serves no purpose. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 20:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
   
  +
:: This seems an awkward in-between sort of thing. Most books here have a table of contents built into the content, but most of those are on the book main page which afaik is not usually included in the print version. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 21:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
: I think "HyperText Markup Language/Tag List" with all its subpages should be separated again into a standalone book, named along the lines of "HTML Reference". I do not think a reference book should be presented as an appendix of a guidebook; these should be two standalone books instead. On the other subject, this seems to be a Wikibooks material rather than a dictionary one. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== The GFDL license on Commons ==
I think "which project" is the wrong thing to focus on. A dictionary explains how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses. Books may have a glossary, which usually only include unfamiliar words that people in the field should know without details usually found in a dictionary. Books should have glossaries. I think what Wiktionarians should focus on is if explaining how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses for programming terms is relevant to Wiktionary's scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
This has been posted here because your wiki allows local file uploads. {{int:please-translate}}.
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
 
:::If one particular goal of Wiktionary is to explain the grammar of many natural languages, it may as well conceivably explain the syntax of programming languages similarly. Since Wikibooks has [[Subject:English language]], in addition to the coverage of English from Wiktionary, I assume each project may treat the same subjects from different approaches, without them becoming redundant to each other. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Commons [[c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/08#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads|will no longer allow]] uploads of photos, paintings, drawings, audio and video that use the GFDL [[c:Commons:Licensing|license]] and no other license. This starts after 14 October. Textbooks, manuals and logos, diagrams and screenshots from GFDL software manuals that only use the GFDL license are still allowed. Files licensed with both GFDL and an accepted license like Creative Commons BY-SA are still allowed.
== Five-year WMF targets ==
 
   
  +
There is no time limit to move files from other projects to Commons. The licensing date is all that counts. It doesn't matter when the file was uploaded or created. Every wiki that allows local uploads should check if bots, scripts and templates that are used to move files to Commons need to be updated. Also update your local policy documentation if needed.
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
The decision to allow files that only have a GFDL license, or not allow them, is a decision all wikis can make for themselves. Your wiki can decide to continue allowing the files that Commons will no longer allow after 14 October. If your wiki decides to continue to allow files after 14 October that Commons will no longer allow those files should not be moved to Commons. — [[User:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]], <small>distributed by [[User:Johan (WMF)|Johan]] using [[m:Special:MyLanguage/MassMessage|MassMessage]]</small>
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
   
  +
</div></div> 18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alexis_Jazz/GFDL_MassMessage/Distribution&oldid=18392882 -->
   
  +
== Clean up on [[Talk:Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction#Cleanup_list]] ==
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
   
  +
I've proposed a clean up on [[Talk:Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction#Cleanup_list | Drugs:Fact and Fiction]]. It's been up since 9/10/2018. I already know because of how much I want to clear away , this would be a controversial action. Rather than just simply be bold and do it, I left a detailed message of what I want to remove and why. I'd plan to start cleaning if there were no objections as of today, however, since only myself and Leaderboard had commented, I thought it wise to hold off and see if we can get more comments on this topic. Feel free to comment [[Talk:Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction#Cleanup_list | over here]]. I've tried to avoid TL:DR by breaking my list into separate sections, rather than create one large list. <span style="font:0.75em;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:Wekeepwhatwekill|<b style="color:#000">Necromonger</b>]][[User talk:Wekeepwhatwekill|<b style="color:#000"><i> Wekeepwhatwekill</i></b>]]</span> 14:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== Removal of PDF Versions of Wikibooks from Wikimedia Commons ==
::Yes. It's not surprising to me, however. It just gives me all the more motivation to prove them wrong. Also, a relevant slide from Wikimania 2010, where Erik Moeller above took a look at the other Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=23 Slide 23]. Slides before and after cover the others, for comparison. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Currently the removal of PDF versions of wikibooks on wikimedia commons is discussed. Any opinions are happy accepted.
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
[[c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communication Theory.pdf]]
:I thought Moeller founded Wikinews... Anyway, but how can the WB community prove them wrong? It's not like WB will get much more traffic even if we make it 100% perfect... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Yours --[[User:Dirk Hünniger|Dirk Hünniger]] ([[User talk:Dirk Hünniger|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dirk Hünniger|contribs]]) 06:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I would think that high quality textbooks would attract more readers due to gaining higher rankings in search results. The moral of the above is that if we want to succeed, we have to do it ourselves and the WMF cannot be relied upon for support. We prove them wrong about our prospects by not giving up even if the head honchos have forgotten where Wikipedia once was compared to where it is today. It's apparent that they have not heard the idea that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As Wikipedia has matured, the potential for greater percentage of growth lies in the other projects. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:::::But that is offset by the fact that textbooks are way different than encyclopedias. Something like [[Excel]], [[PHP]], or [[HTML]] wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.)
 
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:::::::http://www.ck12.org is our main competitor on the secondary education front as it is aiming for approval by California's schools. Their licensing was changed to noncommercial a few months back, but I was able to pull content from their site under the cc-by-sa license before that and upload the PDFs to Commons. There are Creative Commons licensed books and material at http://cnx.org, another competitor. The advantage Wikibooks has over these two is that anyone can improve upon the content easily because this is a wiki. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::::::::It's out of the question that secondary schools use learning materials from free sources such as WB, in a truely commercialised world, except for 'non-traditional' subjects such as [[Hong Kong Senior Secondary Liberal Studies|Liberal Studies]]. However, if the education bureau actually allows such materials to be used (which is highly unlikely), I believe it will be extremely popular. There are repeated complaints about book publishers realeasing a new edition every now and then. Sometimes it's necessary. For example, when we were learning planets in primary school, they had to make a new edition of the science book. However, most of the time the changes can be rather trivial, and like Thenub said it can be rather irritating that old books cannot be used. Also, books can be hard to find, especially 'non-traditional' subjects such as Liberal Studies. That's something they are also complaining about. I think using materials from sources such as WB has neither of these advantages and therefore has potential.
 
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Proposing new deletion process ==
 
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Regex ==
 
 
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 06:45, 8 October 2018

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.

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

When the Foundation acts to disempower the volunteers, they should admit that's what they're doing. Honesty is very high on my priority list. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
We just have to add all the admins into this group for a start. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable measure to me. The creation of the group would otherwise constitute a revocation of privileges from existing admins without approval of the local community. @QuiteUnusual: What procedure do we need to go through (if any)? Official hoops to jump through? I seem to recall that on en.wb (unlike en.wn) local 'crats don't have the power to toggle the admin bit, but since I'm not a 'crat here I can't tell for sure whether the same is true of the new group. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that this privilege should be restricted to the bureaucrats only, rather than to all sysops. Let's face it: the permissions discussed aren't small in effect. And not all admins need (or even know how) to use it. This should at least put the 'crats group to some value rather than being some superfluous extension of sysop. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: That's definitely too restrictive. I, for example, am not a crat on Wikibooks, and I'm engaged in an occasionally-intensive, multi-year javascript-based wiki infrastructure development project; it'd be kind of a disaster for me to not be able to edit the javascript files; and I'm somewhat involved from time to time in the CSS, too. And JackPotte does maintenance on our codebase; it would be detrimental to the project for JackPotte to not have those privs. Frankly, I think any admin can be trusted to make judgements about when they're qualified to tinker with the js or css. We could reasonably have an arrangement where an admin is granted the interface priv only if they request it; that way, admins who judge themselves to have no need for the bit would not have it on their accounts, and there'd be no problem as long as whoever turns on the bit for them was careful not to respond to a request from an admin account that had already been compromised at the time of the request. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
All such admins should get bureaucrat-ship. If you have a need, get it. I'm looking for the bureaucrat flag to be more than just a useless permissions-granter, and this is one of the better ways to ensure the same. Indeed, admins who "could reasonably have an arrangement where an admin is granted the interface priv only if they request it". Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Two things:
  • That seems backward; the point of splitting off the interface priv is so that an account doesn't have to have excess privs on it that aren't needed, so it would run counter to that to force a user to become a crat in order to acquire the interface priv. The amount of trust by the community implied by granting adminship seems to be exactly the amount of trust for a user to be able to decide whether or not they should be exercising the interface priv.
  • I've been involved in several crat RFPs, including one where I became a crat myself on en.wn, and I have to say it's a huge hassle and a royal pain for a small project. Imho it'd be a terrible idea to require users to go through that sort of hell just to get an interface priv that, as I've now remarked a number of times, is quite within what an admin's judgement can be trusted on.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the main point of a crat is to judge consensus and grant admin rights it makes no sense to me to make them the only people able to edit the interface especially as very few projects have any crats. I think we should just add the right to any admin who asks if the crat is willing to, rather like adding reviewer or importer. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can toggle interface admin here by the way. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let that be the case. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing of sitewide CSS/JS is only possible for interface administrators from now[edit]

(Please help translate to your language)

Hi all,

as announced previously, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed: only members of the interface-admin (Interface administrators) group, and a few highly privileged global groups such as stewards, can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). This is done to improve the security of readers and editors of Wikimedia projects. More information is available at Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS. If you encounter any unexpected problems, please contact me or file a bug.

Thanks!
Tgr (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (via global message delivery)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October[edit]

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Print.css hides the TOC[edit]

Since 2010 we hide the table of contents into the print versions. However in the printed paper books, the tradition is to publish it, and I think it wouldn't hurt here.

For example we can compare the followings:

JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've never been much involved in print-version stuff, but wonder if anyone else who was involved at the time can shed light on why it was done. Darklama who made that edit appears to have had no wikimedia activity since 2014; but Adrignola, who was the other primarily involved in setting up the page, is still extant on the sisterhood as of this year. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind either, though I should note that the TOC for a print book can become very large and itself occupy many pages. Also the main purpose of a TOC isn't served; there is no page numbers for which a user can go to (and the titles itself aren't even clickable), so in the end it serves no purpose. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 20:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems an awkward in-between sort of thing. Most books here have a table of contents built into the content, but most of those are on the book main page which afaik is not usually included in the print version. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The GFDL license on Commons[edit]

18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Clean up on Talk:Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction#Cleanup_list[edit]

I've proposed a clean up on Drugs:Fact and Fiction. It's been up since 9/10/2018. I already know because of how much I want to clear away , this would be a controversial action. Rather than just simply be bold and do it, I left a detailed message of what I want to remove and why. I'd plan to start cleaning if there were no objections as of today, however, since only myself and Leaderboard had commented, I thought it wise to hold off and see if we can get more comments on this topic. Feel free to comment over here. I've tried to avoid TL:DR by breaking my list into separate sections, rather than create one large list. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 14:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of PDF Versions of Wikibooks from Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Currently the removal of PDF versions of wikibooks on wikimedia commons is discussed. Any opinions are happy accepted.

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communication Theory.pdf

Yours --Dirk Hünniger (discusscontribs) 06:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)