Wikibooks:Reading room/General

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

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


Every book with a lack of enough content (e.g. with a development stage less than 25 percent) should be deleted IF it is abandoned for several years like Nuclear Medicine. I think this rule can be added to Using Wikibooks/Deleting, Undeleting, and Importing. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would find this a good idea if everyone could awake a sleeping project. But as the administrators are the only users who can restore these pages, I believe that deleting them will engender some recreations from the scratch. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
One thing Wikibooks shares with Wikipedia imho is that there is, and absolutely properly should be, no deadline for completion here. I helped to breathe new life into a Wikijunior book that had lain dormant at an under-25% level for years. It's in the nature of our books that there can be long gaps of time between contributors. I do hope to develop semi-automated tools to help with things like coherently stepping into the weave of an inactive/underdeveloped book. But deleting such things would be counterproductive. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think in this case Wikibooks should behave in the same way as Wikipedia. Users should add templates like "Template:Proposed deletion" to incomplete books. Long gaps of time between contributors would decrease the number of active users as we see currently in this project. We are not going to asleep this project for long time, are we? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 06:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just created Nuclear Medicine/Print version to have a quick look on the whole book and it doesn't seem totally stubby.
Moreover, I can't see how this could be related to the number of active users, because personally I didn't come here the first time for one book and decided to create another one ex nihilo: I began by continuing an unfinished but respectable work (which was quite much easier for a beginner). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not a project with hundreds of administrators and tens of thousands of editors. The Proposed Deletion process from WP is inappropriate here for a number of reasons not least because, unlike WP, typically one person edits one book. There are very few collaborative projects. Therefore if someone is away for, say, three months, they could come back and find their work deleted for no reason other than "tidiness". For genuine cases of truly abandoned stubs there is already a process. I for one am completely opposed to any proposal to delete things for being "incomplete" particularly as nothing is ever complete - there's always more to add to any book. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 07:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Any way the book is 0 percent developed and the audience should know that the print version is not complete. By the way it does not have a cover page. Maybe it needs preface, index, images, etc. I see no labels that inform me how to read the book or how to edit it while it has been abandoned for years. How do you solve the problem? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books tend to have one editor at a time. Projects that have fewer editors like that tend to be more respectful of what was done in the past; one thinks of oneself as collaborating with others who aren't present because they're located in the past or future, a sort of 'consensus across time'. Adopting a book is a Thing here. Part of this is having a lot more respect for relatively incomplete works than a large Wikipedia might. Imho English Wikipedia (the one I have direct experience with) does damage even to itself by its cultural dismissal of past precedent; even within Wikipedia's own context Wikipedia should do better on that score, and smaller projects have, and need to, maintain a much more respectful attitude toward past contributions. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Since there is no predefined minimum nor maximum length to a book so you are right. You can keep the book but there's a problem that how should the volunteer author or the reader guess the final length determined for that book or which content is not yet completed? --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 14:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I assume that you're right about the fact that {{status|0%}} at the bottom of the wikicode, displays a non-explicit and discrete icon at the top right which says 0% developped on hover (as described into Help:Development stages). But it could be precised with {{Todo}}. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 14:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


HI. Are there any tools to do it ? TIA --Adam majewski (discusscontribs) 09:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Adam majewski: you can either print in PDF or have a look at commons:Commons:Tools. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 09:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Formatting on thousands of pages will break in 2017[edit]

I wanted to touch base informally about a technical project that will affect your wiki: w:HTML Tidy is a tool that silently fixes some typos in HTML and some wikitext code after a page has been saved. Tidy is being removed as part of a multi-year plan to update the parsers and improve accessibility.

For example, </br> is an invalid HTML code (it should be <br> instead). This currently displays as if it were correct, but that will not be the case when Tidy is removed. You can see the pages affected by this particular error by searching for insource:/\<\/br\>/ in the regular search box. I've recently cleaned up this error in all the templates except for Template:Cite web/doc, which has a problem with the spam blacklist, but there are about 450 pages in the mainspace that still need to be fixed. And that's only one of the errors.

More information, and a list of the major changes, is available at mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy. In December, there will be a tool that you can use to visually check previews on pages that you're concerned about (it'll probably be available in Special:Preferences, but turned off by default). In the meantime, there is a list of known errors at mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy that you may want to review and check your wiki for.

Most of the information about projects like this is delivered via m:Tech/News. However, nobody at this wiki is subscribed to that weekly newsletter. If you aren't reliably getting this information via another wiki or mailing list, then you may want to subscribe and start watching for announcements like this. Also, if you work at any other project, please share this information. If you have questions or information to share with the devs about this project, please feel free to {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 18:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've treated Template:Cite web/doc. Moreover, my bot could easily correct the 450 pages, however I think that the best would be to treat the maximum number of errors at each edition. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. You might have a look at w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Line break tags (plus Bgwhite's user talk page). The tech-savvy gnomes at enwiki have been thinking about this for the last week, and I think they already had several tools and scripts that address these issues. Perhaps some of those would save you some coding time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discusscontribs) 04:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0[edit]

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. Joe Sutherland (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

What are the exceptions of the policy on redirects?[edit]

Hello everyone,

WB:SPEEDY includes "Orphaned redirects that do not conform with Wikibooks:Naming policy or where the names are unlikely to be inadvertently searched for by anyone" as a speedy deletion criterion. While I find the rationale behind that rule reasonable, in practice I feel that there are some reasonable uses of redirects in specific circumstances, and in fact I have created a few of them in my work at Haskell ("a few", as opposed to, say, systematically setting up alternate names for every page in the book, which would be quite unreasonable). I am thinking of three special cases:

  • To begin with the uncontroversial one, there are the redirects automatically created for moved pages, which prevent link rot both within the book and across the Internet.
  • A related possibility are what we might call "clairvoyance redirects", which are created to prevent link rot and minimise maintenance work due to a planned future reorganisation of the book. One example in the Haskell book is Haskell/Applicative functors II. I created that because I predicted the target page would eventually have to be split, and so it would be somewhat useful to have a link for using at off-wiki places that wouldn't break after the split. (In this case, though, I currently believe the split will not be necessary after all, and so this redirect will likely end up deleted in any case.)
  • Finally, there are "shortener redirects", which exist merely for supplying convenient links (be them internal to the book or off-wiki) for pages with long titles. For instance, depending on the outcome of this discussion I will create Haskell/Applicative prologue as a redirect to the new and unorthodoxly-titled Haskell/Prologue: IO, an applicative functor (in fact, I might even add an information box to the top of the page telling readers about the redirect).

Are any of these use cases, or any others, acceptable?

Cheers, Duplode (discusscontribs) 13:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A general observation: in my experience, most projects aren't terribly red-tape-ish about speedy-deletion criteria; mostly, these sorts of criteria make it safe for an admin to exercise common sense in deleting various kinds of pages without risk of getting in seriously hot water for doing so. (En.wp tends to red tape, so I suspect their criteria may be treated more as directives than mere permission; of course, en.wp also notoriously has no regular mechanism for revoking adminship.)
  • Link rot — how important it is to leave a link after moving probably depends on whether it's the main page of a book or merely one of its subpages, and how long it sat around under the old name, and various issues of old/new page content. Afaik the wiki software, at least in the non-mobile interface, provides a trail of breadcrumbs so it's usually possible to follow a link to the new location of the page after the redirect has been deleted. If someone involved with a book requests deletion of redirects left from moves, I'd probably honor the request in most cases.
  • Shortner redirects — within a book, and within reason, this seems to me like mostly an internal choice for the book's contributors.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero: That sounds entirely reasonable -- and it's of course great that we can avoid excessive red tape by trusting our admins!
(The only thing I would add is that I tend to care rather more than you suggest about external links to subpages. That is mainly because, despite our efforts to the contrary, people often talk about and share links to the Haskell book as if it was a collection of tutorials, rather than a cohesive book with a less pragmatic outlook. I believe that is in part thanks to cultural factors, and so there is not much we can do about it other than making the book even more cohesive and hoping readers appreciate the results. With such a state of affairs, I think it is worth it to play nice and see it that the links to the "Haskell tutorials at Wikibooks" across the Internet keep working, even if calling a chapter of the book a "tutorial" is, to my ears, akin to nails on a chalkboard...)
Thanks, Duplode (discusscontribs) 23:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Phrasebook question[edit]

Where do phrasebooks for travellers belong? The question has come up in a Wikivoyage discussion and Wikibooks has been suggested. 2607:FEA8:E2A0:757:B093:6FBB:AD61:B5CB (discuss) 14:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite a few language books here have a section that's a phrase book. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)