Wikibooks:Reading room/General - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Wikibooks:Reading room/General - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to content
From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Wikibooks:Reading room
(Redirected from
Wikibooks:Bulletin board
Latest comment:
19 hours ago
by Iain marcuson in topic
Style Guidelines for Advanced Points
Archives
Wikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions
Assistance
Requests
General
Proposals
Projects
Featured books
Administrative
Technical
Deletion
Undeletion
Import
Upload
Permissions
Shortcuts
WB:CHAT
WB:RR/G
WB:GENERAL
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.
Correspondence between John Belton and the Continental Congress
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
1 month ago
2 comments
2 people in discussion
Hello.
s:Correspondence between John Belton and the Continental Congress
is probably going to be deleted from Wikisource as out of scope, would Wikibooks be interested in its import? --
Jan.Kamenicek
discuss
contribs
19:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Jan.Kamenicek
Thank you for checking! We do not host source texts, so it doesn't look like this would be in scope at Wikibooks. Cheers —
Kittycataclysm
discuss
contribs
21:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Upcoming deployment of CampaignEvents extension to Wikibooks
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
1 month ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Hello everyone,
We are writing to inform you that the
CampaignEvents extension
will be deployed to all Wikibooks projects during the week of
23 March 2026
This follows last year’s broader rollout across Wikimedia projects. We realized that Wikibooks was not included at the time, and we’re now addressing that to ensure consistency across all communities.
The CampaignEvents extension provides tools to support event and campaign organization on-wiki, including features like on-wiki event registration and collaboration lists(global event list).
We welcome any questions, feedback, or concerns you may have. We are also happy to support anyone interested in trying out the tools.
Apologies if this message is not in your preferred language. If you’re able to help translate it for your community, please feel free to do so.
Udehb-WMF
discuss
18:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Regarding the project's FlaggedRevs extension
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
3 days ago
15 comments
4 people in discussion
Hello, everyone. I want to discuss with the community about the use of this project's FlaggedRevs (flagged revisions) extension, which was deployed many years ago (and configured recently).
Many unreviewed edits, and edit quality options
edit
edit source
According to
Special:PendingChanges
, there are almost 4000 unreviewed edits (per the standard FlaggedRevs configuration). In addition, on the edit review interface when evaluating a diff, there are three radio buttons that determine the quality of the edit (minimal, average, good). Do we have to utilize these buttons if the quality of the edit or the book matters, according to
WB:REVIEW
? This proposal is to whether discontinue the edit rating buttons or not.
One way to reduce such a large amount of unreviewed edits is to set the following to
true
wgFlaggedRevsProtection
(pending changes protection, to be used on Wikijunior pages; this might negate the need to show the stable version by default)
(optional)
wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI
(simpler, icon-based UI on the edit review interface)
We should also include the following configuration (partially based from English Wikipedia), if this proposal passes:
elseif
$wgDBname
==
'enwikibooks'
// Limited to the main, Cookbook, and Wikijunior namespaces (T408110)
$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces
NS_MAIN
102
110
];
# We have only one tag with one level
$wgFlaggedRevsTags
'status'
=>
'levels'
=>
];
# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected
$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions
'status'
=>
'review'
=>
'autoreview'
=>
],
];
# Restriction levels for auto-review/review rights
$wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels
'autoreview'
];
# Remove 'validate' from reviewers
$wgGroupPermissions
'reviewer'
][
'validate'
false
# Group permissions for sysops
$wgGroupPermissions
'sysop'
][
'review'
true
$wgGroupPermissions
'sysop'
][
'stablesettings'
true
# Allow sysops to add and remove the 'reviewer' group
$wgAddGroups
'sysop'
][]
'reviewer'
$wgRemoveGroups
'sysop'
][]
'reviewer'
# Remove the 'editor' user group
unset
$wgGroupPermissions
'editor'
);
Inactive reviewers
edit
edit source
After conducting an audit of over 1000 reviewers, most, if not many of them are completely inactive.
User group changes for reviewers
edit
edit source
The reviewer user group is known to the software as
editor
, which might sound misleading (the actual
/qqq definition
is "Editors"). To fix that, we might have to consider switching to
reviewer
and unset
editor
I am also not sure whether administrators should have the
validate
user right, since
reviewer
has it on by default (but it is currently disabled). On the above configuration I proposed, administrators (and users in the
reviewer
user group) would no longer have
validate
Page patrolling
edit
edit source
Currently, only administrators can mark new pages as patrolled (
patrol
) by using the MediaWiki page patrol software, but clicking on "Accept revision" (via FlaggedRevs) would also mark the page as patrolled, in question. I believe that using FlaggedRevs to patrol new pages is redundant, given that we might not want to use one or the other.
If we are considering on switching to pending changes, we should also allow reviewers to mark new pages as patrolled, as they are trusted to have the
autopatrol
right in addition to administrators and autoreviewed users.
Thoughts?
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
04:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I agree on replacing
editor
with
reviewer
to avoid confusion. Reviewers don't need to have patrol permissions as a reviewed page would be patrolled as well. I don't think people will use it much as a page or edit being reviewed already means that it has been checked by someone else.
kingofnuthin
talk
16:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
When I said that reviewers would have
patrol
, they can review new pages that other users created, but not any new pages they create themselves.
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
18:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
How can that be the case if they have
autopatrol
kingofnuthin
talk
18:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I will give you an example. On the English Wikiquote, there are two user groups that have
autopatrol
: autopatrollers and patrollers. Autopatrollers have their page creations marked as patrolled by the software, while patrollers (whilst also having their page creations marked as patrolled) can mark new pages as patrolled (in addition to administrators).
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
18:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
But what is the point of giving reviewers
patrol
if we are already using FlaggedRevs? I think that we won't need patrol because we already have reviewing, and patrol only seems to be a confirmation that the page is up to policy from what I have seen, so giving them reviewers to mark pages as patrolled seems pointless to me when we already have FlaggedRevs.
kingofnuthin
talk
19:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I understand, but my proposal was to convert FlaggedRevs into a protection-like mechanism which would be used alongside page protection; it might turn off FlaggedRevs's ability to patrol new pages for reviewers, hence why I suggested this above.
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
23:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Kingofnuthin
I will summarize what you said from above:
You agree about the reviewer user group to be moved from
editor
to
reviewer
to avoid confusion (technically).
However, you probably disagree about allowing reviewers to patrol new pages
and
having their page creations automatically marked as patrolled, because FlaggedRevs can do all of this, and
$wgUseNPPatrol
might seem to be redundant.
A compromise about your disagreement is that we might have to consider removing
autopatrol
and/or
patrol
from our existing user groups, similar to
phab:T423461
I started this because in addition to that, one of my concerns was the extreme backlog of unreviewed edits and pages [4000!].
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
20:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I may be missing some things here, so let me know if I haven't answered any points here:
I don't think we currently need to have the review status indicate the quality of the edit (i.e. minimal, average, good). I don't think this is used at all anymore.
I think it makes sense to reassign the reviewer user group to
editor
. I always like clarity in language.
Are you saying that pages marked as reviewed are currently also classed as patrolled? If that's the case, I think we should not have reviewed pages automatically classed as patrolled, and we should keep reviewing and patrolling separate.
I'll note that honestly don't know much about patrolling, since I've never engaged with it—I have only ever referenced the reviewing system. If there is a significant functional difference, I would love to know it. Cheers! —
Kittycataclysm
discuss
contribs
03:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
When someone clicks "Accept revision" on an unreviewed page, it is listed under
Special:Log/review
; if an admin marks a page as patrolled with "Mark this page as patrolled", it will show up under
Special:Log/patrol
, which is not really logged much compared to the former log (review).
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
03:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I agree to your thoughts about the
editor
group and edit quality ratings, but I don't understand what this proposal changes for FlaggedRevs, since I don't have much technical knowledge. Can you explain what the proposal changes here, how are we going to convert FlaggedRevs into a "protection-like mechanism"?
kingofnuthin
talk
17:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
The proposal of changing FlaggedRevs into a protection-like feature (pending changes) is when an editor (unregistered/one not holding autoreviewer, reviewer, or administrator permissions) makes an edit, but their edit will be hidden from the public until it is approved by a reviewer or an administrator, and it will solely apply to Wikijunior pages. The configuration above is similar to what English Wikipedia uses.
::I think it makes sense to reassign the reviewer user group to
editor
Kittycataclysm
: I believe you might have misunderstood. What I meant is that
(editor)
will be changed to
(reviewer)
to avoid confusion, but I plan to remove
editor
from all inactive reviewers, then do the same for recently active reviewers. However, given that there are a lot of reviewers, a script will possibly do all the work (under
Maintenance script
or similar).
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
23:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Gotcha! I can't currently foresee an issue with this —
Kittycataclysm
discuss
contribs
01:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Re FlaggedRevs generally:
The
Mediawiki page of the extension
says it is not being maintained and not recommended for production use. We should consider whether we need this extension at all.
What is the actual policy justification for having FlaggedRevs?
Help:Tracking_changes#Reviewing_pages
says it's "our primary counter-vandalism tool". I don't know if it is that: it doesn't prevent vandalism or reduce exposure to vandalism (as with stable versions). The "counter-vandalism" bit comes from human editors looking at the edits, identifying vandalism, and reverting. FlaggedRevs isn't necessary for that. Maybe it makes it a little easier to spot edits in recent changes from new editors that may need a little more help (wikicode etc, not just spam), but can that be achieved just with the patrolled edits functionality?
If we still want something like FlaggedRevs, as an anti-vandalism tool or for draft control, then Mediawiki has a
list of alternatives
that may be more suited and better maintained.
Re minimal/average/good specifically:
I agree that we don't need the three categories. I thought I read somewhere that these were intended to show the quality of the REVIEW not of the page? That is, a "minimal" review is "I checked there was no obvious vandalism" and a "good" review was "I've thoroughly fact-checked everything".
JCrue
discuss
contribs
11:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
This was enabled back in 2008, which resulted in
Wikibooks:New page patrol
currently being obsolete. To be honest, I would keep FlaggedRevs, but I was proposing to change it to pending changes protection, similar to how Wikipedia utilizes it.
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
21:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Pinging
JJPMaster
and
Kittycataclysm
for additional input.
Codename Noreste
discuss
contribs
—Preceding
undated
comment added 22:29, 22 March 2026.
Global ban for Faster than Thunder
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
1 month ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Faster than Thunder
discuss
email
contribs
logs
count
Hello, this message is to notify that
Faster than Thunder
has been nominated for a global ban at
m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Faster than Thunder
. You are receiving this notification as required per the
global ban
policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --
SHB2000
discuss
contribs
01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Upcoming Wikimedia Café meetup regarding the
the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
25 days ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Hello! There will be a
Wikimedia Café
meetup on
Saturday, 11 April 2026 at 14:00 UTC
, focusing on the
the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan
. The featured guests will be
Kelsi Stine-Rowe
(senior manager,
Movement Communications
, Wikimedia Foundation), and
Sam Walton
(senior product manager,
Moderator Tools
, Wikimedia Foundation).
In addition to this Café session,
several additional meetings regarding the Annual Plan are listed on the Collaboration page
, and you may participate on the
talk page
This Café meetup will be approximately two hours long. Attendees may choose to attend only for a part. Please see the Café page for more information, including
how to register
↠Pine
05:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Regarding copyright of recipes found on online cooking forums
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
23 days ago
7 comments
4 people in discussion
What is the copyright situation regarding cooking recipes found on online recipe books with recipes made by other people? I ask this because I want to add/translate recipes from 下厨房 (xià chúfáng) for Chinese recipes, and while I was intending to add the original writer of the recipe with the translation I still want to ask for clarification.
Fukukitaru
discuss
contribs
19:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Recipes are in principle not copyright-able, as they are just facts. When someone includes descriptive text or anything that elaborates on the basic ingredients and steps, that is copyright-able. I am not a lawyer or legal scholar and cannot give legal advice. See (e.g.)
Justin (
ko
vf
19:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
In that case, would simplifying ingredients and methods to where they are simple yet can still be understood be sufficient for said recipes?
Fukukitaru
discuss
contribs
19:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Yes, you can add a recipe here as long as the instructions and text are not too overlapping with the copyrighted original. As the linked page says, the
ideas
behind the ingredient list and steps to prepare a given food item are not currently copyrightable, but the way you write the ideas may be copyrightable. You should also cite where you took the recipe from so we can trace its origins. I personally recommend only adding recipes that you have successfully made so we don't become a massive repository of potentially low-quality or untested recipes—I only add recipes once I have made them successfully. Let me know if you have any more questions about the Cookbook! Cheers —
Kittycataclysm
discuss
contribs
21:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
To build up on this, if you want to understand what is copyright-able and what is not, the "
idea versus expression
" distinction. You cannot own the idea of "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl commit suicide" but you can copyright a specific version of
Romeo and Juliet
with your own innovative ideas. And, for that matter, this is context-specific, but if you can understand the distinction, it can help with future questions about "could this be protected by copyright?", which can be a subtle one. —
Justin (
ko
vf
22:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
To further build up on this, there's something called the merger doctrine (see
Baker v. Selden
). This is why you can't copyright drawings of
structural formulas
. This doctrine means that if there's only one or a handful of ways to express an idea, then any such expression cannot be copyrighted, since copyrighting that expression would essentially be copyrighting the idea itself. This comes in a lot with recipes. I very likely can't copyright this list (from
Cookbook:Cornmeal Pancakes (Arepa)
2.4 cups corn flour
1.2 tsp salt
0.6 cup grated white cheese
2.4 cups cool water
Since there's essentially only one way to express the idea of that combination of ingredients. However, if I say:
2.4 cups corn flour: for this, I strongly recommend Harina P.A.N., because my grandma always used to make me arepas from that stuff every day, and it was delicious.
That is copyrightable. At that point, I cease to merely be expressing the idea of a food item with those four ingredients, and add a minimum degree of creativity.
JJP
Mas
ter
she
they
02:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
And to build on all
that
, even if individual pieces of information are in the public domain (or are fair use), the
arrangement
of them can be copyrighted. This is why even if
Bartlett's Quotations
only had public domain material, the act of selectively editing and positioning them thematically for the user's benefit could constitute a sufficiently original work. So we could copy the material from a bunch of recipes, but could run a foul of copyright issues if we arranged and sorted them in some kind of manner that replicated someone else's original work. —
Justin (
ko
vf
02:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Style Guidelines for Advanced Points
edit
edit source
Latest comment:
19 hours ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
Is there a general style guideline to refer the reader to advanced information, while the main text gives the short-answer version? For example, how would I specify that in practical applications, A is true, but if you use the theory you see that A is not quite true, or has caveats, or similar?--
Iain marcuson
discuss
contribs
17:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Retrieved from "
Category
Reading room
Hidden category:
Wikibooks move-protected project pages
Wikibooks
Reading room/General
Add topic