Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals

Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.

Add a required edit count to the autoconfirmed permission?

Currently, we often see vandals and spammers wait four days to game the autoconfirmed permission, which is not ideal. I am proposing that for the autoconfirmed permission, we should require at least five edits in addition to four days to new, registered users. Codename Noreste (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Linking to the last time this discussion was had (2023). I had no personal problem with it, but one person was explicitly opposed. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It was also discussed back in 2018, though I wasn't around at the time. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Since no one has commented lately, I will go ahead and start the vote which will last at least two weeks, starting now. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Has that been a problem in the recent past? Also I think 10 is too much - let's start with 5. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I went ahead and lowered the amount of edits required, per your suggestion. Also, regarding if that was a problem in the past, take a look at the discussion links Kittycataclysm added. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and filed phab:T407080. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The edit count requirement has now been implemented as of today. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Will hi guys I am new to Wikibooks ,so what I want to understand is the fact that new registered people of Wikibooks should get at least five registrations for four days.If it is so I agree with this proposal.@Codename Noreste(Bagulla) Bagulla (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

!votes

• Support as the proposer. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know if I'm a hard support (I could potentially be persuaded either way by sufficiently compelling argument), but I would say I'm neutral-positive towards the proposal if that makes sense. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Declaring Wikibooks:Incubator a rejected proposal

I've boldly marked this page as a rejected proposal, as the "major projects process" it describes has never been implemented, would probably be impossible to implement given the numbers of participants required, and - most importantly - is explicitly contradicted by WB:NOTMETA ("Wikibooks is not for developing new Wikimedia projects").

Please let me know if I've overstepped any boundaries here - but I doubt there's going to be much disagreement on this one; the proposal has seen no discussion since 2011. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to your bold change. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Condensing Reading Room pages

And, on a completely different note...

Given the relatively low level of activity on this project, the number of subsections of the Reading Room seems a little excessive. Would there be any objection to making the following changes?

1. Convert Wikibooks:Reading room into a discussion page in its own right, rather than an index of discussion pages.
2. Redirect the following pages to the new central discussion page: Wikibooks:Reading room/General, Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals, Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects, Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance, Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance, and Wikibooks:Reading room/Bulletin Board.
3. Leave Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance in place, as it serves a distinct purpose.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In theory, I wouldn't mind combining many of those—they're all archived to the same place in the end. I think General, Proposals, Projects, and Assistance could be merged without an issue topically. I do like having technical assistance as a separate page. I'm not sure what you mean by converting Wikibooks:Reading room into its own discussion page. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What I meant is that, if we were to do away with most of the reading room pages, we could make Wikibooks:Reading room be the main "reading room" where most discussions happen, rather than having it link out to a bunch of subpages like it does now. It's one less step for people looking to ask questions. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha! Under your proposal, would admin assistance and technical assistance still be subpages of the main reading room? I'm trying to get a sense of that and how you propose to do navigation. It also occurs to me that we would have to make sure changing the page structure doesn't interfere with the archiver bot. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

So, do you think that for AA and TECH, should they keep their own archive indexes? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

If they're kept as separate pages, I do personally think they should have separate indices. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but another major challenge would be merging the archives; in this case, I would recommend we merge the separate archives into yearly archives (ending with years, e.g. 2025). Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I personally agree that we can keep the administrative and technical reading rooms separate as is, as they receive some more activity than the rest of the reading room pages. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 04:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Omphalographer, I have no objection about the merge (of reading rooms except AA and TECH), but we would need to configure the archive parameters (for the new reading room) and to merge the archives to a single archive index. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree to the 1 & 2 part of the changes.But if we convert Wikibook:administration reading room.Will it still be called Wikibooks?@Codename Noreste Bagulla Bagulla (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Limit some namespaces on this project's FlaggedRevs extension?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T408110
Resolved

I propose that we limit the namespaces on this project's FlaggedRevs extension to only the mainspace, Cookbook, and Wikijunior namespaces (which are content book namespaces), because I don't see any reason to include additional non-content namespaces, such as templates. For the same reason, there is no motive to mark changes to templates as reviewed, since templates (and other non-content namespaces) are not reader material. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea on first glance. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Leaderboard, should I go ahead and file a Phabricator ticket? It appears that there is very minimal participation so far. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: Well, I also approve of this change, so it seems like a plan. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm late but I also support this. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

A Phabricator ticket has been filed at T408110. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Well yes the WikiJunior books never change they just stay there.@Codename Noreste Bagulla (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Configure reading room archives to end with years instead of just a year and month?

Given that we don't have much activity in the reading room (aside from WB:AA and occasionally WB:TECH), I propose that for all reading rooms, we change the archive parameter to just Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/%(year)d, and for the administrative assistance reading room, we lower the amount of days (in the algo= parameter) to 3 days maximum, given that reports over there are answered pretty quickly. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it could cause issues if a certain discussion becomes popular. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain further? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 07:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste If a discussions become popular, then the year page will become very long. It's not a strict oppose per se, but something to think. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Does this mean that threads would be archived after 3 days of inactivity? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What you've said will only apply to WB:AA. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha! I'm a little nervous about 3 days being too short for some threads at AA. We're generally pretty quick about simple vandalism, but sometimes more complex issues will take a little longer. What if we try 14 days, since that would clear out a good chunk of things while still leaving some time for discussion given the lower activity of this project overall? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I was thinking of reducing to one week (7 days). Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Kittycataclysm, I've went ahead and lowered the algo parameter to 14 days at WB:AA, per lack of objection. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Wikijunior Logo

The proposed Wikijunior logo.

The proposed Wikijunior logo. Plain times new Roman font before colorful text popping out in handwriting. Can this be official. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be proposed at Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals instead of here. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Note (very old, stale) discussion at m:Wikijunior project logo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion in which the last post was made in 2007 is old, and if I reply, that's necroposting. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just saying that there is already a voting and vetting process at m:Wikijunior/Logo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I think Wikipedia should have a colourful text pop in handwriting so that there could

be more colour to get people more exited.@@Codename Noreste ~2025-31740-10 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

And you know that changing the logo is necessarily a waste of time. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

But there is no YouT- I mean Wikijunior logo. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to implement Wikibooks:Protected page/Unstable and rename to Wikibooks:Protection policy

I am proposing that we implement Wikibooks:Protected page/Unstable to the protection policy, and rename that page to Wikibooks:Protection policy. The unstable branch has updated information about the types of protection, and uncommon types of protection. Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I just took a look and made some minor changes. In principle, I have no problem with this. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Now implemented. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Consultation to replace the outdated MassBlock gadget

Fellow administrators, I plan to replace the current MassBlock gadget with this version imported from the Italian Wikipedia. Currently on this project, MassBlock only blocks IP addresses, which are no longer visible to the public and it's not ideal. Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In principle, I have no problem with this, but I'm not as familiar with the technical aspects or potential limitations—I'd need other people to weigh in. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I've tested this, and there are some additional options to blank and/or protect user/user talk pages, but we should probably not use them unless absolutely necessary. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Doing per lack of objection... Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the recent technical difficulties, the script wasn't working because some dependencies were not added... – it's fixed. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

WikiJunior needs to have storybooks for children.

WikiJunior does not have storybooks for children to have creative minds and learn.WikiJunior just makes a book review.Instead of seeing the book for yourself ,they just tell you a few information about it.Is it fair for children that love to read?@Codename Noreste Bagulla Bagulla (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you do an example? - Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Modify $wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T410330
Resolved

As A smart kitten suggested at phab:T408110, so that the task can proceed, we might have to change to $wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes = 0 (which would no longer allow FlaggedRevs to check for the stable version of templates if available). Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

(This is related to #Limit some namespaces on this project's FlaggedRevs extension? above)

For the full(er) context, hopefully my comment at phab:T408110#11370668 explains things okay (and please ask me if there's any questions and/or anything I've explained poorly!). I've tried to include the most pertinent information below.

If the requested namespaces were just removed from the FlaggedRevs config right now, I believe that banners like this would then be stuck on a number of pages without a way to remove them. To me, this seems like a bug in FlaggedRevs -- however, FlaggedRevs doesn't currently have official maintainers, so it's possible that there might not be anyone that'd be able/willing to help with working-around and/or fixing this bug.

In my opinion, from a purely technical perspective, it seems like the easiest path forward (for removing the requested namespaces without the mentioned issue) would be to also stop FlaggedRevs from checking whether a transcluded page has a stable/reviewed version or not. However, because this would be a wider change than the one proposed above (as - if I understand correctly - it'd affect pages transcluded from any FlaggedRevs namespace, not just the Template: namespace), it's ultimately a decision for the community as to whether it should happen or not (and it's not my place to opine on that).

(In theory, it'd be possible to make the originally-requested change to this wiki's FlaggedRevs configuration despite this bug. However, given that this bug doesn't seem like an expected result of removing namespaces from FlaggedRevs config (and given that the banners seem quite noticeable), I'd also personally prefer if the community could indicate if it definitely wanted to do this.)

Feel free to ask if you've got any questions, and I'll answer them to the best of my knowledge :) ‍—‍a smart kitten (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I've actually never liked the banner that alerts when transcluded pages are unreviewed. If I'm understanding things correctly, I would be perfectly fine with making it so that FlaggedRevs stops checking whether there's a stable/reviewed version of any transcluded templates/pages. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Replace block-related system messages with {{blocked text}}?

Recently, protected page-related system messages were replaced with {{protected page text}} or {{protected interface}}, modelled off of Wikipedia’s templates. Even before these templates were used to replace those MediaWiki messages, we still had system messages modelled after Wikipedia’s templates: {{no article text}}. I also wanted to have a go at encouraging reuse of code, and this would be a revamp of block-related system messages. We would also only have to write the code once, not multiple times—once for each system message (keep in mind, some of the system messages below have not yet been edited). The system messages that would have to be replaced are:

• MediaWiki:Blockedtext
• MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-ip
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-range
• MediaWiki:Blockedtext-partial
• MediaWiki:Blockedtext-composite
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-xff
• MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-user
• MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blockedtext-range
• MediaWiki:Blockedtext-tempuser

If you have any ideas for tweaks to {{Blocked text}}, your input would be much appreciated. Thanks, 2600 etc (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposals that involve the administrator toolset

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T411828
Resolved

Hi, everyone. I am doing the following proposals that involve the administrator permission.

Allow administrators to grant the account creator and confirmed user permissions?

Given that there are no bureaucrats on this project (the last one resigned in early 2023), I propose that administrators should also grant the account creator and confirmed user permissions locally in addition to bureaucrats.

Add abusefilter-revert to the administrator permission?

I would also like to propose adding abusefilter-revert to the administrator toolset. This will allow administrators to revert erroneous actions taken by the edit filter (such as blocking autopromotion or blocking), but it can also be used to choose which filter action can be reverted by using any specified date.

Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion and !votes

As the admin who caused this ordeal, I support both these proposals. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster what was the context of that incident? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I set an edit filter to restrict an LTA's libelous edits, but it applied to any action on a page meeting those criteria (including deletions). I set it to both disallow the edit and revoke the user's autoconfirmed status. However, due to a bug, it didn't actually disallow the action. Thus, TenWhile6, while deleting a libelous page, had their autoconfirmed status revoked. I considered giving them temporary confirmed access, but realized I couldn't. In the end, I had to contact a steward to get them to revert all actions from the filter. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it! In that case, I'm in favor of granting abusefilter-revert to administrators so we can locally resolve any issues like that if they come up in the future. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a sensible addition. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste Re: the account creator and confirmed user permissions, I'd be interested in listing out all the advanced permissions of a bureaucrat and seeing whether it makes more sense to assign these rights to other groups or to work on installing more bureaucrats. This could potentially be a separate proposal/discussion. Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Kittycataclysm, by looking at Special:ListGroupRights, bureaucrats can grant the account creator, administrator, bot, bureaucrat, confirmed user, and interface administrator permissions (but not remove the administrator and bureaucrat permissions). I'd personally lean toward on allowing more administrators to be local bureaucrats (but otherwise this project does not need them at this time), but for that we need to define the criteria for granting per the minimum voting requirements, if we should either have two or more bureaucrats on this project (or none at all), etc. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

As the last - and for many years only - crat on this project I suggest you don't go down the road of having them again. I used to get to do about one action a year and there aren't really enough admins here to justify crats. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Then we have 10 "pseudo-bureaucrats" instead? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

CC @Kittycataclysm to Leaderboard's response. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Loosely speaking, aAllowing admins to do everything except creating crats and creating and removing admins makes sense to me. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

However, I still think we have to use SRB (for bot permission requests) and SRP (for interface administrator and administrator permission requests). I can boldly update Wikibooks:Administrators to reflect this, and split Wikibooks:Bureaucrats to a separate page. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

MarcGarver and Leaderboard, allowing admins to grant or remove these advanced permissions is not possible, per m:Limits to configuration changes: Allow administrators to grant bot, administrator or interface admin rights: Rejected because granting and removing those flags is a task for bureaucrats where present, or stewards. Interface administrators also have highly sensitive permissions (to edit CSS and JS pages) and requests for granting must be carefully considered. As such, it is necessary that only bureaucrats or stewards handle this task. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If the community does not want bureaucrats, I am OK with adding accountcreator + confirmed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So what I've said partially in my response to Kittycataclysm was my personal opinion - currently, the English Wikibooks has no need for local bureaucrats, but I think it is sensible to allow administrators to grant the account creator and confirmed permissions too. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Using Wikibooks

I've noticed Using Wikibooks, and I'm a little concerned that it might be confusing to have a separate book instead of official pages in the Help: and Wikibooks: namespaces. To my mind, having a separate book introduces the following issues:

• Confusion of the book with official project policy
• Outdated information or other discrepancies if the official pages are updated and the book is not

The book does have a good amount of useful information, so I think it would make the most sense to merge it into official pages in the Wikibooks: and Help: namespaces. Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

How can we tell which pages (from that book) should either be in the Wikibooks or Help namespaces? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's not necessarily a one-to-one. Rather, we'll need to find the best home(s) for the information on each page—it's something I'm happy to take point on! Is that what you were asking? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if anyone else has any comments about this; if there are no objections, I'll plan to migrate things as described. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste and @Kittycataclysm: I do object to this change, for two reasons.

1. Using Wikibooks is a featured book. By moving it to another namespace, it will no longer be a book, and thus no longer a featured book. Do we intend to delist it?
2. Using Wikibooks is a book. It is written in the same style as other books in our project's mainspace. It's self-consistent and organized by page. I fear that dividing and conquering it among the Help and Project namespaces is likely to make its content harder to find.

JJP_Master (she/they) 01:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I changed my vote, I don't think we should migrate that book to pages in other namespaces. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That is an "official" book, which I think is OK to have in this case. I think some of the help pages actually recommend reading this book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to the Main Page

After discussing with Izno off-wiki, I have some suggestions to improve the interface of this project's Main Page (e.g. to be portal-like) using some steps below:

• Set both MediaWiki:Mainpage-title and MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin to blank (no content).
• Add the following code to MediaWiki:Vector.css and MediaWiki:Vector-2022.css:

.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
.page-Main_Page #footer-info-lastmod,
.action-view.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
.action-view.page-Main_Page #contentSub2 {
	display: none !important;
}

• Similarly, add the following code to MediaWiki:Monobook.css:

.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
.page-Main_Page #lastmod,
.action-view.page-Main_Page #contentSub {
	display: none !important;
}

• And last, add the following code to MediaWiki:Timeless.css:

.page-Main_Page #deleteconfirm,
.page-Main_Page #t-cite,
.page-Main_Page #footer-info-lastmod,
.action-view.page-Main_Page #contentSub {
	display: none !important;
}

Let me know if you have comments, questions, or concerns. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a "demo" version previewing what effects these changes will have? JCrue (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This will basically remove the Main Page title and the gray line below it (but above the page tabs) in most appearance skins. You might want to see this user talk page thread on English Wiktionary for context. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Doing per lack of objection... Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Under construction

The English wikipedia use as early as 2005 and 82 other language community adapted.

w:Template:Under construction

Can Wikibook community adapt?

Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We already have {{Under construction}}. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That template's text wasn't updated, just to note. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

BOOK DONATION: Strawberry Creek Voices

The name of my book is Strawberry Creek Voices. I've been working on this project almost all year and now I'm finally at the point of being able to show it to the world. I thought of Wikibooks because I have previously read the Free-Minds Quran [1]and the online-contrib version of Tao Te Ching[2] from this website. I believe SCV should fit in on Wikibooks because of the moralistic posture. In my opinion the aesthetic tone enhances the experiences in a way that will make SCV enjoyable to readers who find traditional literature of this type too dry. The URL for SCV's website is blocked by an automatic filter. However it appears I was able to successfully get the full text posted on wikibooks: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Strawberry_Creek_Voices

[User:Remfan1994|Remfan1994]] (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Remfan1994 and thank you for your interest! Unfortunately, it does not look like your book is within scope here at Wikibooks. Wikibooks does not permit fiction or creative writing. We also are not a text repository, and we do not host material published/posted elsewhere. As a result, this will likely be deleted. Please let me know if you have any questions! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. Sorry to bother you. Maybe you could answer a question for me: any recommendations for another place to post this content? Remfan1994 (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps substack or medium? JCrue (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:New overflow 😰

The list of new books is overflowing. It lists them in alphabetical order, not the order in which they were made. Currently, only books that start with punctuation (.NET Development Foundation) up to Conphilosophy are covered. Under the Want to help? section it states, "If this list gets too large, such as having over 25 books on it, categorize some of the books on the end of the list and remove the {\{new book}} template." We would either need to have people stay on task for this page, change it so it updates by creation date versus the first title character, or delete it entirely. Otherwise this page is useless or will encourage odd naming choices. ValWinter (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the flag! The information on this page actually seems to be deprecated, and I don't think the page is necessary to keep. The new book template actually adds pages to Category:New books, and many of the books listed on the page actually do not feature the new book template. I think it may make sense to delete this page. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok yes, deleting would be best in this case. Thank you for looking into this page! ValWinter (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Retiring Template:Deleted page

{{Deleted page}} is a template that was used back in the day before salting (page creation protection) existed. Back then, if an admin wanted to prevent a page from being recreated, they would delete it and then recreate it with just that template, before fully protecting it. This method is completely unnecessary now that we can directly create-protect pages, and no new page has been added to Category:Protected deleted pages in nearly eight years.

Furthermore, I would like to propose that all the pages that currently have {{Naming policy notice}} be deleted and added to the title blacklist. In the title blacklist, the error message should be set to an interface message that transcludes {{Naming policy notice}}. Since this is an editor-facing template, only would-be editors should be able to see it. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think we should delete {{Deleted page}} via RfD, but keep {{Naming policy notice}}? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste: Yes. {{Deleted page}} should be deleted, and {{Naming policy notice}} should be fully protected and transcluded in a MediaWiki namespace message. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Some proposals involving a separate permission request page and notification of ongoing RFAs

I would like to propose the following below:

Proposal 1

We split off Wikibooks:Requests for adminship as a separate page for requesting adminship, bureaucrat, checkuser and suppressor (oversight) permissions. All other permissions, except the former mentioned permissions, would still be requested at Wikibooks:Requests for permissions (this is also the case for requesting interface administrator permissions, for admins).

Proposal 2

Given the low activity on this project, I propose that we must notify the community about ongoing RFAs, which could be either MediaWiki:Sitenotice or adding a notification at Wikibooks:Reading room/General. A general rule is that the notification must be written in a neutral fashion.

In conclusion...

Feel free to comment, ask, or anything else. Thanks. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

1. I don't see WB:RFP being clogged to justify creating a fork just for advanced permissions.

2. That is already something we do occasionally on a case-by-case basis. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts below:

1. I agree with @Leaderboard and don't really see a need for splitting off Wikibooks:Requests for adminship as a separate page, since there are generally not so many requests.
2. I do think it could potentially be useful to notify the community about requests for adminship using MediaWiki:Sitenotice—it's not something I've seen us do before. @Codename Noreste are you proposing specifically that we codify it in policy?

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

After considering, I've crossed out proposal 1, and regarding proposal 2, I would still think it should be in a guideline, not a policy. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 2 seems reasonable to me. It could help people find requests if they are not watching RFP. Ternera (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Implement Visual Editor in more namespaces

See the original discussion for reference.

Proposal

Currently, the visual editor is implemented on the following namespaces:

• Main
• User
• Help
• Category
• Cookbook
• Wikijunior

I am proposing that we implement the visual editor on the following namespaces:

• Wikibooks
• Transwiki

Reasoning

I use the source editor and the visual editor for different purposes. One of my primary uses of the visual editor is for text-heavy pages, where I use it for writing content and proofreading/copyediting. In contrast, I use the source editor for more complex and technical edits. I find it very difficult to parse text in the source editor, especially when there are many templates, tables, links, etc, and it is a pretty significant accessibility issue for me—I imagine that it could be so for other users as well.

The Wikibooks and Transwiki namespaces are both namespaces that contain text- and content-heavy pages (e.g. policies, guidelines, essays), and I know I would benefit from the visual editor here—for example, I am currently working on the unstable branch of a policy, and it is proving to be kind of a pain to do without having the visual editor as an adjunct tool.

The main challenge I see is that the Wikibooks namespace contains some talk pages (i.e. the reading room), and the visual editor is not intended for talk pages. However, there is precedent for implementing the visual editor in namespaces that contain talk pages as long as it is understood that the visual editor is not intended for these talk pages. Overall, it looks technically feasible.

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Redefining the inactivity policy for administrators and bots

Hi. I would like to propose that we redefine the inactivity policy for administrators (new local procedure), and create a local inactivity policy for bots.

• For administrators that have made zero edits and zero logged actions for over a year, they will be listed (and pinged) under the removal section of Wikibooks:Requests for permissions, where they are given a specific timeframe to respond so that they can retain their access. If they do not respond after that timeframe, a request will be forwarded to the removal section of m:SRP. Should the timeframe last at least one week, two weeks, or one month?
• For bots, the process is slightly different. Bots that are inactive (made no edits/logged actions) for over two years will be listed under the removal section of RfP (in the same manner as inactive administrators), but their operators must be notified first, and a week is given for the operators to respond. After the timeframe passes and an operator does not respond to the inactive bot removal request (for example), a request will be forwarded to the removal section of m:SRB. Bot users that do not have the bot user group might be exempt, unless the discussion proposes otherwise.

Thanks. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)